:shred:

DanaC, you speak in complete ignorance -- read as much of her stuff as I did, then talk. Don't embarrass yourself further in the face of those who actually know. You can find her column via the Drudge Report, for instance.

Bruce, I've never heard anything solid on Coulter being impeached on matters of fact -- frankly I doubt I ever shall. Blather such as you offered make me very very glad I'm too smart to be a leftist. What annoys me is you could be that way too -- yet for some never-explained reason, you're satisfied to not be, instead to be something less.

Now yes, she does earn her bread as an opinion columnist, and should be taken as such -- but she is, happily, an opinion columnist of integrity, and only the blinkered will deny it.

I don't need to read the bible as much as a theologian might, in order to hold an opinion on it. Likewise I do not need to read everthing this woman writes in order to hold an opinion on her, her views, her political agenda.

I have, however, read some of her writings. But I like that you have jumped to the conclusion I am entirely ignorant on this topic.

In terms of embarrassing myself, I am not embarrassed to hold such an excuse for a modern woman in contempt.

I, too, doubt that you will ever hear it. Due to a failure of listening on your part.

Oh, indeed? Why, do you have actual examples? Funny you didn't bring 'em out, isn't it? I'd sure as hell like to see you try and come up with some.

Would there be a point? You wouldn't hear them, any more than you did when you pretended, several times, that the Swift Boaters hadn't been refuted.

Ah, well, what the heck. Here are a few.

1) You yourself impeached her on the issue of evolution.
2) Her much vaunted "footnotes" are full of inaccuracies, misleading representations, incomplete information, and quote mining.
3) She claimed, without source, that "Everyone in Washington knew (Plame) was a CIA agent."

Plus, there are any number of jokes, exaggerations, insinuations, and mudslinging that are both inaccurate and misleading, but can be discounted by supporters as just jokes.

When were the Swift Boaters refuted? Has anyone awarded John Kerry even one Purple Heart, let alone three? Notice that this has not come up in any reputable source I've ever heard of, and unlike some, I'm not the sort to put my fingers in my ears. John Kerry has run true to his form for the past thirty years -- he plumped for the Sandinistas much more than for his own country's interest, or humanity's. That's a matter of public record, and you can look up how he voted: he was consistently one of those voting against our acting in any way in Nicaragua. There was far too much of that kind of Marxist-symp activity going on in Congress at the time. I hardly need mention any party-line breakdown.

An exerpt from John O'Neill, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, in June 2005:

1) True enough; but what I had in mind was matters of politics and history.
2) And proof is where? Who says this? The kind of people who're trying to get her silenced? Should they be taken seriously?
3) Such a remark is so strained as not to enter into consideration much: there was a good deal of carrying on like somebody in the White House had committed a felony -- until the matter was looked at more closely, and was found a creature of anti-Republican spin.

And another link, which I didn't get to fit into #877:

Further investigation from JustOneMinute.com

I pointed you to the links at least twice.I made a link.So when she lies, you just discount it as not politics or history, or you pretend the refuter isn't credible, or you say it's below consideration.

I think my point is made. Thank you.

And here's another.

Bold 'em in the future. I do. They don't show up at all well otherwise on my screen.

Okay, so you find MediaMatters convenient to your arguments. Fine. Reading them over, I get an overwhelming scent of "he said/she said." Clearly, look to the primary sources for yourself.

Meanwhile, I'd welcome any thoughtful comments on what I've linked.

She said one thing, her
Said another. That's what "he said/she said" has become these days.

What you linked seems to be a story about how disappointed the right-wing blogs were when Kerry's released records contained nothing incriminating. What few actual claims I could find in the noise were covered in my "here's another" link.

It would leave you in the dark to rationalize ignoring Ann, though. There are a good many people who are desperate to ignore her, and they will seize upon any excuse at all -- it seems the sillier the better. Her observations on the Democrats and mine mesh pretty closely, and she's got more detail. As you can imagine, I've found the Dems an unsatisfactory lot for going on twenty years now. That is a damn long time for a whole party to be so unlikable in a representative republic like ours.

That's because she's as crazy as you are. What a pair.

Considering the inadequacy of the Dems at foreign policy and dealing with antidemocratic totalitarians, what's crazier, rejecting them or following them?