A Dysfunctional Democracy

What bothers me the most about Ann is that she is an idiot that constantly contradicts herself from one interview to another... that anyone listens to her is a joke.

[Happy Monkey]

Nothing really bothers me about Coulter- she's just an attention-seeking nut. What bothers me is that "news" organizations give her the time of day.

Exactly. Well put.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I read her anyway -- the people who cite her style as a reason to dismiss her are merely being defensive at being intellectually caught out.

That and she has the annoying habit of being right at least as often as any other columnist.

[Happy Monkey]

She has never caught anybody out intellectually. As you put it, she just says provocative stuff without any regard for whether it's right or wrong.

[Aliantha]

One day someone's going to have to explain who Anny really is.

[Happy Monkey]

Here she is on the site that casts her in as good a light as any site can.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Now if somebody wants to show where Ann Coulter is factually mistaken anywhere in that column, I invite them to try it.

Practically every Ann Coulter detractor can't address what she's asserted as a matter of fact, but instead thinks it's a telling rebuttal to inform us all that the detractor finds her abrasive or perhaps unattractive. You get these vague disparagements, unsupported by anything like proof, that she's not a historian, or she's this, or she's not that... mere third-graders in the bodies of men.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

One day someone's going to have to explain who Anny really is.

Some cross dressing guy with a chip on his shoulder. Ignore him.

[Undertoad]

Now if somebody wants to show where Ann Coulter is factually mistaken anywhere in that column, I invite them to try it.

Goddamnit, I already took that assignment once. Someone else do the next one.

[Griff]

We thought what you said, stayed said.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Now if somebody wants to show where Ann Coulter is factually mistaken anywhere in that column, I invite them to try it.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Goddamnit, I already took that assignment once. Someone else do the next one.

I'm not up to a UT-quality debunking, but here's a biggie:

Originally Posted by Anne Coulter

But in fact, the British were right and Wilson was wrong. By now, everyone believes Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger — the CIA, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's report in Britain, even the French believe it.

Originally Posted by The CIA Iraq Survey Group

ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.
...
Regarding specific allegations of uranium pursuits from Niger, Ja’far claims that after 1998 Iraq had only two contacts with Niamey—neither of which involved uranium.
...
So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

....that the detractor finds her abrasive or perhaps unattractive.

I don't necessarily find her unattractive. After all, who can argue with a decent looking blonde woman who will swallow anything?

"Ann honey, that woman you saw me with naked in bed - the president himself is sending me over to look for WMD's and she was just giving me the required physical."

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I don't necessarily find her unattractive. After all, who can argue with a decent looking blonde woman who will swallow anything?

Do you think if I wore that diaper, then she would do me? With looks like that and a promise, I could consider it.

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Now if somebody wants to show where Ann Coulter is factually mistaken anywhere in that column, I invite them to try it.

Practically every Ann Coulter detractor can't address what she's asserted as a matter of fact, but instead thinks it's a telling rebuttal to inform us all that the detractor finds her abrasive or perhaps unattractive. You get these vague disparagements, unsupported by anything like proof, that she's not a historian, or she's this, or she's not that... mere third-graders in the bodies of men.

I think they prefer to get their political agenda from people like Al Franken (Stuart Smalley anyone?) or ex-sports announcers like that Keith Oberman dude....