Ms. Right. great read...FOR EVERYBODY! - Page 4

Brwn_eyes0511 · #46 09-30-2005, 11:52 AM

Josh, you know how much I love you man, but you have to stop listening to Mr. Franken, whose book is just full of those "lies" that he hates so much...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AL Franken, "LIES. . ."
HOW TO LIE WITH FOOTNOTES #6: JUST MAKE **** UP.
From page 134 of Slander: "Even during the media's nightly flogging of Iran-Contra, Reagan's approval ratings fell only 5 percentage points, from 80 percent to 75 percent." The endnote cites a Christian Science Monitor article from January7, 1987. The article reports that "in last month's Gallup poll, Reagan's approval rating fell from 63 to 47 percent." And remember, this is from people who are not only Christian, but also scientists.

Again, this seems to be a slam dunk for Al. UNLESS, of course, you happen to own a copy of the book Slander, and cannot believe you were duped that bad, so you check it.

Here's what the endnote actually says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Coulter, "Slander", pg 229, endnote #58
John Dillon, "Iran-Contra Crisis May Have Peaked", Christian Science Monitor, January 7, 1987. (Gage says poll results must be properly analyzed. For example, in last months Galllup poll, Reagan's approval rating fell from 63 percent to 47 percent. But Reagans personal popularity fell only from 80 percent to 75 percent. 'The first figure represents public reaction to the headlines,' Gage says. 'The second reflects the public's actual feelings toward the President.'")

And just to be sure that people do not take this entirely out of context, here is the passage that referred to this endnote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Coulter, "Slander", pg. 169
The irrevocable fact that the American people adored Reagan posed a problem for liberals. They had very clearly explained that Reagan was dumb, mean-spirited, frightening, and so on. But, still, Americans loved him. Even during the media's nightly flogging of Iran-Contra, Reagan's approval ratings fell only 5 percentage points, from 80 percent to 75 percent.*

As I said, the way Mr. Franken lies about lying in endnotes is to quote stuff out of context, and omit the pertinent portion of the endnote from his commentary. All in the interest of exposing the truth. Of course, it's kind of hard to do that when you lie by omission, huh?

Brwn_eyes0511 · #47 09-30-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Of course I am. Only a truly "stupid" writer would incessantly refer to her endnotes as "footnotes" and refer her readers to articles that prove her wrong.

Let's see what Ms. Coulter herself has to say about this...

Yes, notes at the end of a book are technically "endnotes," not "footnotes." Franken will have to take his case up with the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post and the rest of the universe -- all of which referred to my 780 end-notes as "FOOTNOTES." Also God, for inventing the concept of "colloquial speech."
I don't hear so much about this "lie" anymore.

Yet still there are some...who continue to bring it up.

strandinthewind · #48 09-30-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

I don't call Coulter "stupid" just for the sake of calling her "stupid," I call her that because I have a point in my arguments that she truly is "stupid."

This is my fav.

Coulter vs. Couric

Thursday, June 27, 2002

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

NEW YORK — Political commentator and author Ann Coulter and Today show host Katie Couric spiced up morning television Wednesday with a verbal spat.

Couric took issue with the characterization of her as the liberal media's version of Hitler mistress Eva Braun and a Ronald Reagan basher in Coulter's new book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right.

"You used me as an example of liberal bias against Reagan," Couric said. "I'm just curious why you took it so out of context."

Coulter countered, "I don't think I did — you're taking it out of context."

To clarify, Coulter said that while discussing Edmund Morris' Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan, Today show anchors misrepresented the book's message, saying the author called the former president "an airhead" instead of "an apparent airhead," which was Morris' actual phrase.

"You make it sound as if I was saying that rather than Edmund Morris," Couric said. "I really conducted an extremely challenging interview with him because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his book."

She said after the interview was over, Morris was unhappy but former first lady Nancy Reagan called to thank her for her line of questioning.

"I'm just wondering how that jibes with your contention that somehow I'm a Ronald Reagan basher," Couric said. Coulter denied having characterized her that way.

. . . .

www.foxnews.com

I mean Nancy Reagan, who is hardly liberal, likes Katie C. and considers and considered Katie C. fair in her work

But, Ann the sow knows better

She would not know a fact if it bit her bony a$$

Brwn_eyes0511 · #49 09-30-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

This is my fav.

Coulter vs. Couric

Thursday, June 27, 2002

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

NEW YORK — Political commentator and author Ann Coulter and Today show host Katie Couric spiced up morning television Wednesday with a verbal spat.

Couric took issue with the characterization of her as the liberal media's version of Hitler mistress Eva Braun and a Ronald Reagan basher in Coulter's new book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right.

"You used me as an example of liberal bias against Reagan," Couric said. "I'm just curious why you took it so out of context."

Coulter countered, "I don't think I did — you're taking it out of context."

To clarify, Coulter said that while discussing Edmund Morris' Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan, Today show anchors misrepresented the book's message, saying the author called the former president "an airhead" instead of "an apparent airhead," which was Morris' actual phrase.

"You make it sound as if I was saying that rather than Edmund Morris," Couric said. "I really conducted an extremely challenging interview with him because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his book."

She said after the interview was over, Morris was unhappy but former first lady Nancy Reagan called to thank her for her line of questioning.

"I'm just wondering how that jibes with your contention that somehow I'm a Ronald Reagan basher," Couric said. Coulter denied having characterized her that way.

. . . .

www.foxnews.com

I mean Nancy Reagan, who is hardly liberal, likes Katie C. and considers and considered Katie C. fair in her work

But, Ann the sow knows better

She would not know a fact if it bit her bony a$$

Actually the media pretty much all agreed that Ann one that fight! So if you are resulting to the Couric vs. Coulter fight...I know you are running low on material!

AND THE REAL FUNNY PART IS...

That night Katie had a date with one of Ann's ex-boyfriends (and still good friends) and when they went out to dinner...Katie ordered a glass of wine right away and looked really stressed. When he asked her what was wrong she said "I had a really hard day today...Ann Coulter kicked my ass in an interview!"

I KID YOU NOT! This is from the man's own lips!

SuzeQuze · #50 09-30-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Josh, you know how much I love you man, but you have to stop listening to Mr. Franken, whose book is just full of those "lies" that he hates so much...

Again, this seems to be a slam dunk for Al. UNLESS, of course, you happen to own a copy of the book Slander, and cannot believe you were duped that bad, so you check it.

Here's what the endnote actually says:

And just to be sure that people do not take this entirely out of context, here is the passage that referred to this endnote:

As I said, the way Mr. Franken lies about lying in endnotes is to quote stuff out of context, and omit the pertinent portion of the endnote from his commentary. All in the interest of exposing the truth. Of course, it's kind of hard to do that when you lie by omission, huh?

Okay, you just proved Josh's point. Al mentions that people aren't going to flip to the end notes. So when Ann says that "Even during the media's nightly flogging of Iran-Contra, Reagan's approval ratings fell only 5 percentage points, from 80 percent to 75 percent." She is lying because his approval ratings actually "fell from 63 percent to 47 percent." It was his "personal popularity" that "fell only from 80 percent to 75 percent.", NOT HIS APPROVAL RATING. Do you see this distinction and why she isn't being honest?

Brwn_eyes0511 · #51 09-30-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Okay, you just proved Josh's point. Al mentions that people aren't going to flip to the end notes. So when Ann says that "Even during the media's nightly flogging of Iran-Contra, Reagan's approval ratings fell only 5 percentage points, from 80 percent to 75 percent." She is lying because his approval ratings actually "fell from 63 percent to 47 percent." It was his "personal popularity" that "fell only from 80 percent to 75 percent.", NOT HIS APPROVAL RATING. Do you see this distinction and why she isn't being honest?

Yeah, I did note the words approval rating.

However, now I point out to you. . .note that she did NOT say "JOB approval rating", which is what the 63 to 47 percent numbers tracked.

Now note the full context of the paragraph in which she cited this datum. She was talking about how much the general public loved Reagan. Now note the rest of the endnote, i.e. - 'The second reflects the public's actual feelings toward the President.' Since she was talking about how much the public loved Reagan, not Reagan's policies and performance, she used the second set of numbers from that poll. Which showed a personal popularity decline of 5%, from 80 to 75.

The only thing Coulter was guilty of was assuming that people would understand the context of her premise here. Or, put more simply, she was guilty of poor wording, and therefore being (slightly) unclear. Not lying. And the fact that people "don't check endnotes" is her fault how?

Al is not a stupid man - I doubt that he could have missed this. So, since the full quote would have left people scratching their heads and wondering where she lied, he twisted the passage and the endnote by taking it out of context. And I submit that he did so KNOWINGLY; that's lying through commission (knowingly out of context) and omission (not giving the full quote). Wow, a twofer. In a book that purports to face down a bunch of liars with the truth. Yeahhhh. . .ummmmm. . .does anyone else see the irony here?

Now in his defense, I do find endnotes to be rather irritating. Footnotes ARE much easier to follow. But he really cannot complain because Ms. Coulter prefers endnotes, most likely because it is an easier format to work with.

SuzeQuze · #52 09-30-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Yeah, I did note the words approval rating.

However, now I point out to you. . .note that she did NOT say "JOB approval rating", which is what the 63 to 47 percent numbers tracked.

Now note the full context of the paragraph in which she cited this datum. She was talking about how much the general public loved Reagan. Now note the rest of the endnote, i.e. - 'The second reflects the public's actual feelings toward the President.' Since she was talking about how much the public loved Reagan, not Reagan's policies and performance, she used the second set of numbers from that poll. Which showed a personal popularity decline of 5%, from 80 to 75.

The only thing Coulter was guilty of was assuming that people would understand the context of her premise here. Or, put more simply, she was guilty of poor wording, and therefore being (slightly) unclear. Not lying. And the fact that people "don't check endnotes" is her fault how?

Al is not a stupid man - I doubt that he could have missed this. So, since the full quote would have left people scratching their heads and wondering where she lied, he twisted the passage and the endnote by taking it out of context. And I submit that he did so KNOWINGLY; that's lying through commission (knowingly out of context) and omission (not giving the full quote). Wow, a twofer. In a book that purports to face down a bunch of liars with the truth. Yeahhhh. . .ummmmm. . .does anyone else see the irony here?

Now in his defense, I do find endnotes to be rather irritating. Footnotes ARE much easier to follow. But he really cannot complain because Ms. Coulter prefers endnotes, most likely because it is an easier format to work with.

I think his contention is that Ann intentionally distorted the truth (lied using a strict definition) to make her point.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #53 09-30-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I think his contention is that Ann intentionally distorted the truth (lied using a strict definition) to make her point.

But I don't understand where this notion of her "lying" is coming from. She stated exactly what the article said and gave note to EXACTLY what it meant! Again, like I said before, if she is going to be accused of anything then it could possibly be her wording, but that does not constitute a lie.

If you are going to accuse anyone of lying shouldn't it be Mr. Franken who deliberately left out pertinent information to make Ann look like a fool!

The Gallup poll routinely tracks BOTH job approval, and personal approval (aka: popularity). She used the numbers for personal approval/popularity, and then made the mistake of not being CLEAR enough about which numbers she was using, because she assumed that the context would make that clear enough. That's not lying, per se. The context of her paragraph made it abundantly clear which numbers from that poll she was citing. You don't talk about how much people love a guy, then cite his JOB approval numbers from a Gallup poll, you cite his PERSONAL approval numbers (from that SAME Gallup poll).

SuzeQuze · #54 09-30-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

But I don't understand where this notion of her "lying" is coming from. She stated exactly what the article said and gave note to EXACTLY what it meant! Again, like I said before, if she is going to be accused of anything then it could possibly be her wording, but that does not constitute a lie.

If you are going to accuse anyone of lying shouldn't it be Mr. Franken who deliberately left out pertinent information to make Ann look like a fool!

The Gallup poll routinely tracks BOTH job approval, and personal approval (aka: popularity). She used the numbers for personal approval/popularity, and then made the mistake of not being CLEAR enough about which numbers she was using, because she assumed that the context would make that clear enough. That's not lying, per se. The context of her paragraph made it abundantly clear which numbers from that poll she was citing. You don't talk about how much people love a guy, then cite his JOB approval numbers from a Gallup poll, you cite his PERSONAL approval numbers (from that SAME Gallup poll).

Part of me can't believe that you don't see our point. But then the rational part of me does believe. Maybe when you meet some poor people and some homeless people your views will change a bit. Don't you still live at home? Your political views are likely to mature as you do. Although that may mean solidifying your conservative view. If so, then so be it.

I mean, Diss posted an article about why people "loving" Reagan was a myth. It was the actor they liked, the president was not well liked by everyone but liberals as Ann asserts. That "personal" number has nothing to do with politics if you can make that distinction.

dissention · #55 09-30-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Josh, you know how much I love you man, but you have to stop listening to Mr. Franken, whose book is just full of those "lies" that he hates so much...

Again, this seems to be a slam dunk for Al. UNLESS, of course, you happen to own a copy of the book Slander, and cannot believe you were duped that bad, so you check it.

Here's what the endnote actually says:

And just to be sure that people do not take this entirely out of context, here is the passage that referred to this endnote:

As I said, the way Mr. Franken lies about lying in endnotes is to quote stuff out of context, and omit the pertinent portion of the endnote from his commentary. All in the interest of exposing the truth. Of course, it's kind of hard to do that when you lie by omission, huh?

I'm looking at my hardcover copy and it's clearly page 134.

In any case, you fail to see the point, dear. She lies to her audience by misleading them. There is quite a marked difference between personality popularity poll numbers and job approval ratings. She writes in her book that his "approval ratings" never got lower than 75 percentage points during the Iran-Contra scandal; that is incorrect. She refers to approval ratings when she should be referring to his personality popularity numbers. Another misleading fact is that she never tells the reader that his personality popularity numbers were wildly all over the map during both of his terms and once dropped to 50%. She lies by misleading, it's as simple as that. If she were to say flat-out that the public's opinion of him as person was much better than how they actually felt about his administration and policies, her argument would lack punch and show her hero to be a likable man who was ineffectual as president. She couldn't possibly concede that, silly boy, and instead has to puff his presidency up as the greatest we've had and perpetuate the myth that he ended the cold war. Funny thing is that Clinton left office with higher job approval ratings than Reagan did.