| |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
02-08-2005, 05:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Also, she was using this point to show that Canada had historically supported all the US efforts, which was, once again, incorrect as she pretty much always it. She takes the truth and twists it to support her nonsense. but, hey, why take my word for it: http://slannder.homestead.com/ 
|
|
#32
02-08-2005, 05:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 But I'd even be willing to give you my log-in info for Lexis just so you can how see how the sources she lists never pan out.Any idiot can produce a source and misquote them, it doesn't take a genius (obviously).
__________________
|
|
#33
02-08-2005, 05:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
She called him an airhead, a perfect chance for Ms. Couric to take a jab a Reagan, not only once but twice in another episode. Transcripts prove it. Liberal bias is all over Ms. Couric.
__________________
|
|
#34
02-08-2005, 05:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#35
02-08-2005, 05:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...923&s=alterman http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com/
__________________
|
|
#36
02-08-2005, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Or are you making a joke?
|
|
#37
02-08-2005, 05:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#38
02-08-2005, 05:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#39
02-08-2005, 05:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Here is a cool take on the whole airhead incident: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071702.shtml Couric v. Coulter: The facts WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2002 COULTER V. COURIC—THE FACTS: No doubt about it, the topic is stupid. And the background to the tale is complex. But Ann Coulter’s attacks on Katie Couric have been getting big play on TV and talk radio. Coulter is steam-rolling unprepared hosts, telling them tales of how Katie Couric went on TV and called Ronald Reagan an airhead. If Coulter’s host knows that isn’t true, she then amends her bogus tale, saying that Katie Couric falsely claimed that Edmund Morris called Reagan an airhead. One way or another, readers and viewers are led to believe that Couric went out and trashed Reagan. And our pundits are simply too lazy and careless to see this tale properly told. Here’s what actually happened: Back in September 1999, Morris’ new biography, Dutch, was being closely guarded as publication drew near. And uh-oh! The Washington Post—one of the only outlets to get an advance copy—ran an inaccurate quote. On September 22, the book was reviewed by Linton Weeks; few other pundits had seen the real text. Here’s the passage from Weeks’ review that led to the current confusion: WEEKS: At points in the book, however, Morris is more dismissive of Reagan’s intellect. He writes that he could not believe how shallow Reagan’s “hidden depths” appeared to be. He refers to Reagan’s frequent use of cue cards, to his deference to aides on matters of substance, and to the often rambling answers the president gave to interviewers. After following him around for seven months, making friends with Reagan insiders such as Michael Deaver, Donald Regan, George Shultz and Caspar Weinberger, Morris writes that he was stumped. “Dutch remained a mystery to me, and worse still—dare I entertain such a heresy, in the hushed and reverent precincts of his office?—an airhead.” Weeks slightly misquoted the book; it actually said “an apparent airhead” at the end of the passage he quoted. But no one else had seen the book, and the story spread throughout the press. In his long-awaited bio, pundits said, Edmund Morris calls Reagan an airhead! It wasn’t just Couric who thought this was true. The Weeks misquote gained wide circulation; pundits began to criticize Morris for having called Reagan an “airhead.” For example, Tim Russert used the one-word quote on the September 26 Meet the Press; on the program, Ed Meese, Marlin Fitzwater and Mike Deaver all insisted that Ronald Reagan clearly wasn’t an “airhead.” Later that day, the AP ran a story on the Meet the Press session, also using the single word “airhead.” When Couric went on the air the next day, at least six major papers were running stories in which Reagan’s friends pummeled Morris because he’d called Reagan an airhead. Although the Post had corrected its error on September 24, it had done so in standard, buried format. Almost no one in the press—and none of Reagan’s friends and associates—seemed to know that the quote wasn’t right. But make no mistake—though Morris hadn’t exactly called Reagan an “airhead,” he had come pretty close in some interviews. Newsweek had an early exclusive; it hit the wire on September 26. “After three or four meetings [with Reagan], I realized that culturally he was a yahoo and extremely unresponsive in conversation,” Morris said. “When you asked him a question about himself, it was like dropping a stone into a well and not hearing a splash. I never got anywhere in interviews, except for odd moments of strangeness, like the time I showed him a leaf and he began talking about his boyhood.” The boisterous biographer had more to say as he batted his subject around: “The surface reality of Reagan was boring. His everyday conversation was boring. His documents were boring. He was a mystery that had to be plumbed.” Indeed, Morris told Newsweek that Reagan had seemed “shatteringly banal” when they lunched in 1982. The political world was flogging these statements as Couric went on the air. Indeed, Morris was still talking the talk in a Meet the Press session on October 3. “I have no doubt whatsoever that Reagan was a great man and a great president,” he said. “But some of his conversation, as you may possibly have noticed yourself, in private was quite astonishingly banal.” It was in this context—armed with the Post’s faulty quote—that Couric said Morris called Reagan an “airhead.” In fact, he hadn’t called Reagan an “airhead” at all. He had called him a “yahoo” and “banal.” Why did Couric say what she did? Because everyone thought it was true. Indeed, despite the picture painted in Slander, many conservatives were slamming Morris for what he had said about Ron. The result? When Morris did the Today show on September 29, Couric gave him a difficult time, challenging him for his rough rap on Ronnie. When Couric and Coulter did battle last month, Couric described the session: COURIC (6/26/02): I really conducted an extremely challenging interview with [Morris] because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his book. It was a very, very unflattering portrayal. The Reagans were very unhappy with it. Conservatives were very unhappy with it. Afterwards, Edmund Morris was unhappy with the interview, and Nancy Reagan called to thank me for my line of questioning. So I’m just wondering how that jives with your contention that somehow I’m a Ronald Reagan basher? In response, Coulter dissembled, as always. “Well, I didn’t call you a Ronald Reagan basher,” she said—although that was the obvious meaning of every word that she wrote on the subject. At any rate, Couric said that Nancy Reagan thanked her for her approach to Morris. If you’ve read the text of the Morris interview, there’s no reason to doubt this is true. How dishonest can Coulter be? “Stunningly” might be a start. Everyone thought that Edmund Morris had called Ronald Reagan an “airhead.” (Given what he said to Newsweek, it isn’t real clear that he hadn’t.) Many pundits, not just Couric, made such statements on the air. As we saw last Friday, Sean Hannity said it two times on Fox (September 27 and 30). But Coulter had a tale to tell, in which “the left” was trashing Reagan. So she said that Couric was calling him “airhead,” and didn’t mention anyone else. At Slate, Mickey Kaus swore that she had it just right. Why do such oddball things happen? FACTS AREN’T STUBBORN THINGS AFTER ALL: Why should readers be careful with Harken stories? Because pundits are frequently wrong on the facts. Here is Michael Kelly in this morning’s Post. According to Kelly, this is “[t]he story, as told reasonably fairly from the Democratic point of view:” KELLY: In June 1990, Bush sells 212,000 shares of Harken stock at $4 each, shortly before revelations of a sham transaction force a restatement of profits and drive the stock down. He uses the proceeds to pay off his Texas Rangers loan. Bush’s partners in the Rangers later make him a gift of an increased share of the profits. His insider-status investment of $500,000, which derived from his insider-Harken stock, which derived from his insider status as a Bush son, eventually nets him a decent-sized fortune of $14 million. But that isn’t the story at all; Kelly has two different situations mixed up. In June 1990, Bush sold his 212,000 shares of stock shortly before Harken announced surprisingly large second-quarter losses. This wasn’t a “restatement of profits,” forced or otherwise. And it wasn’t due to a “sham transaction.” But it isn’t surprising that Kelly has these facts wrong; this confused presentation has been common. For example, David Broder made this same mistake in his column last Sunday. On July 10, Spencer Ackerman bungled the same facts for the New Republic on-line. “At issue is Bush’s conduct during 1990, when he served on the board of the Harken Energy Corporation,” Ackerman wrote. “Bush sold about $850,000 in Harken stock just two months before the company, under orders from the SEC, announced that it was restating its balance sheet, revealing a $23 million loss.” But Harken didn’t “restate its balance sheet” in August 1990, it simply announced its 2Q losses. And it didn’t do so “under orders from the SEC.” Like Kelly, Ackerman seems to be thinking of the restatement of earnings regarding Aloha, which occurred in 1991. There is no sign that these scribes are trying to gimmick the facts; they simply don’t seem to understand them. But you should never assume that pundits know even the simplest facts of a high-profile case. In the past, Kelly has boasted about how little time he spends on his weekly column. Last week, he chided Bush for making “easy money.” “Look who’s talking,” we mordantly said.
|
|
#40
02-08-2005, 05:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Your conservative lies are very unbecoming and are getting more desperate.
__________________
|
|
#41
02-08-2005, 05:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
and here is Katie C.'s interview with the Coultergeist, which is a hoot!!!!
Katie Couric: To a right-wing telebimbo but one thing Ann Coulter has not been called is underneath stated in her latest book slander, liberal lies about the American right the controversial author takes on big media, big government, and most of all liberals. Ann Coulter, good morning, nice to see you. Ann Coulter: Nice to see you. Katie Couric: So your main thesis, Ann, is that liberals really misrepresent conservatives and the conservative movement. Isn't that accurate? Ann Coulter: Yes, a little bit more than that, and that is that political debate, with liberals is basically impossible in America today because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments. And when every one of your arguments is characterized as an attempt to bring about slavery or resegregate lunch counters, it's a little hard to have any sort of productive debate. I mean I have no problem with invective, obviously. But the name of my book isn't invective, it's slander, and I think there ought to be a point to the invective. Katie Couric: What are some of the big liberal lies that are out there, in your estimation? Ann Coulter: I don't rank them, but -- Katie Couric: I'm not asking you to, either, but just tell me what you think they are. Ann Coulter: I would say it's really all the same lie, which is conservatives are either stupid or scarily weird and therefore you don't have to deal with their ideas, just set them aside. This is a crazy person, it's a Nazi, someone who wants to engage in racism, sexism, homophobia, so don't listen to that person's ideas, take a quote out of context and dismiss that idea, the idea that Ronald Reagan was stupid, which I document at great length in my book. I mean that is a stunning, stunning fact. The man, the (unintelligible) guy who won the Cold War war, he was demeaned and attacked as being stupid, meanwhile winning a second term, a spate of special interest articles on senility, and senility, growing senility, and how old Ronald, encroaching Senility, meanwhile (wordd)(unintelligible) liberal media asking that justice Thurgood Marshall or justice Brennan or Blackmon resigned, life and death issues from the Supreme Court. Katie Couric: I think I do have to bring up a section of the book where you talk specifically about me, and this is not where you call me the Eva Braun of liberalism, that makes me feel so much better, but you talk about the media bias against Ronald Reagan, and you useless a quote and open from The Today Show where we say an airhead, Ronald Reagan is an airhead and we're quoting Edmund Morris but frankly in the book you make it sound as if I was saying that rather than Edmond Morris and I guess one of your problems with even using that that he said he was an apparent airhead and we failed to say apparent airhead. And during the course of the interview with Edmond Morris I really conducted an extremely challenging interview with him because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his book, it was a very, very unflattering portrayals of Reagan, they were very unhappy with it, conservatives were very unhappy with it. Afterwards Edmond Morris was unhappy with the interview and Nancy Reagan called to thank me for me line of questioning. So I'm just wondering how that jibes with your contention that somehow I'm a Ronald Reagan basher. Ann Coulter: Well, I didn't call you a Ronald Reagan basher. Katie Couric: Well, you used me as an example of liberal bias against Ronald Reagan, and I'm just curious why you took it so out of context. Ann Coulter: Well, I don't think I did. You're taking it out of context. Katie Couric: No, no. Ann Coulter: What I said was, which is true, that The Today Show opens, I believe it was three days in a row with the announcement, Ronald Reagan was an airhead, that's the conclusion of this new book by Edmond Morris, when Edmond Morris came on for that interview with you he described that as a grossly unfair characterization of his point. Katie Couric: Well, we should also point out, though -- Ann Coulter: The entire book was contradicting that, so when the author himself and George Bush, the vice president, was interviewed about this, also that that affs a grossly unfair characterization, whose characterization was it, it wasn't Edmond Morris -- Katie Couric: Well, actually he backpedaled considerably, if you would have read the book by Edmond Morris -- Ann Coulter: I didn't like the book -- Katie Couric: You called him an apparent airhead. You did call him an apparent airhead, I have the quote right here if you'd like me to read it. Ann Coulter: No, I read the quote and in it's in my book. Katie Couric: He said that young Ken Timmons, panting brace played occasional hookey from the White House speech writing department to help me build a chronology, and I was about to hire a full-time assistant, yes, it is the magic of Geneva had faded. Judge remained a history to and worst still that I entertained such heresy in the hushed and reverent precincts of his office an apparent airhead. So these are Edmond Morris -- Coulter: It was also in his words when he came on your show, that that was a grossly unfair characterization, and that was at the beginning of the book, you said he described them as an apparent airhead on the very first meeting and that the entire course of the rest of his book was contradicting that, so for the today show to be opening three days in a row, Ronald Reagan was an airhead -- Katie Couric: It was one day. Ann Coulter: -- dishonest. Katie Couric: And also just for your information -- Ann Coulter: No you said it one day, Matt Lauer said it another day. Katie Couric: No, it was just one day and we'll get the transcript for you. Anyway he said commond Morris beyond mazement I was fressed by the relent finalities not to say incoherence of his interviews. I didn't really switch in the book but we don't want to get too hired -- Ann Coulter: This was not only solely not about this quote, it is not solely about the today show -- Katie Couric: Let's move on then and talk about it, let's just talk about the religious right, actually, since I'm conducting this interview, one of the things you say is the religious right is misrepresented by the liberal media, that it isn't some organization that has -- Katie Couric: Since I'm conducting this interview, one of the things you say is the religious right is misrepresented by the liberal media, that it isn't some organization that has club members, and that it's used to sort of freely buy liberals in the media. What do you mean by that? Can you elaborate? Because I think that's an interesting point. Ann Coulter: Well, it's more than the religious right is misrepresented. It's the idea that it's this Orwellian totemic symbol for people to hate, I mean you try to figure out what the religious right is, it ultimately comes down either to one man, Pat Robertson, or anyone who believes in a higher being and wants his taxes cut. As The New York Times apparently describes the religious right, I mean I'm searching through transcripts, and newspaper articles to figure out exactly what they're talking about, it seems to me anyone who wants his taxes cut and wants to eliminate the national endowment of the arts. So you're either talking about half of America or one man, and still this is used is an example to frighten Americans, it's -- the religious right is presumed to be self-evidently fanatical, intolerant, and, for example, the quote that has so captured the imaginations of gossip columnists, my calling you the affable Eva Braun of morning TV, taken in context, but the context was that speech in which you blamed the dragging death of James Byrd on these intolerance created by evangelical Christians, which is just an astonishing statement. Katie Couric: Actually I didn't, but I'll have to get the exact transcript -- Ann Coulter: Luck would have it both of these quotes are in my book, that is in the footnote. Katie Couric: Okay, we'll look at that, but the real problem you have is with the Matthew Shepherd interview, and again, I don't want to do a tit-for-tat, because there are a lot of broader issues in your book that I want to talk about. One of them is that you take Walter Cronkite to task for criticizing Jerry Falwell for the remarks he said after September 11th. You write about what Falwell said. Falwell it seems had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty. In fact, here is what Falwell actually said, something he incidentally later apologized for. He said, I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say you helped make this happen. Do you agree with Jerry Falwell, and shouldn't you have focused, perhaps, some of your attention on those remarks rather than on Walter Cronkite's, you know, distaste for what Jerry Falwell said? Ann Coulter: Not after September 11th. I did find it quite astonishing that after September 11th liberals seem to be in overdrive watching out for the statements of Christians. I mean what Jerry Falwell said there, whether you agree with it or not, is really fairly standard Jerry Falwell Christian doctrine. Yes, he's against abortion, he's against -- Katie Couric: But to blame them for the events of September 11th, you didn't find that a little disconcerting? Ann Coulter: No what he said was that the almighty had stopped protecting America because America was no longer asking for God's help, this is straight Christian doctrine, and even if it had been some sort of peculiar sect of Christianity, as opposed to straight Christian doctrine, I think it's a little bit peculiar that everyone was jumping on the statement of a Christian minister after thousands of Americans were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists. Katie Couric: You were also fired, I guess, because you wrote in the National Review that we should -- when it came to fighting terrorism, we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Do you still believe that that's the best way to combat terrorism worldwide? Ann Coulter: Well, that's a somewhat dishonest quote. I was referring to the people in the previous sentence of that column, cheering and dancing in the streets right now, and, in fact, this -- the way that was so widely misquoted is an example of what I described in my book, which is the constant mischaracterizations, which is a small word, picking out the word of parents. It makes a big difference. And these subtle differences that are then glossed over as if there's absolutely no difference. To try to portray conservatives as crazy people, as Nazis, slave owners, (unintelligible), homophobic, how about dealing with our ideas? I mean I've written two books now, I've written hundreds of columns, I've been on TV hundreds of times. The idea that someone can go out and find one quote that will suddenly, you know, portray me just dismiss her ideas, read no more, read no further, this person is crazy -- Katie Couric: Well, obviously -- Ann Coulter: -- is precisely what liberals do all the time. Katie Couric: But obviously the National Review had a problem with these articles and some of the pieces you did because you were fired from that job. Can you elaborate or at least tell us what you exactly meant? Ann Coulter: That also isn't quite true. I mean I write a syndicated column, I write for Human Events. That's the newspaper that hires me. People buy a syndicated column, and they dropped the column. But a lot of people don't like me for a lot of different reasons, including -- Katie Couric: Why don't you explain what you meant, then. Ann Coulter: -- that they're my competitors. Katie Couric: What do you think is the best way to battle terrorism? Ann Coulter: Point one and point two by the end of the week had become official government policy. As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like that Christianity. Katie Couric: Well, Ann Coulter, it's always interesting to talk to you, to say the least. The book is called Slander, Liberal Lies about the American right. Thank you.
|
|
#42
02-08-2005, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#43
02-08-2005, 05:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#44
02-08-2005, 05:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I thought that NYC woman come by way of Alabama soriety girl was going to rip off the Countergeist's throat by her Adam's Apple and defecate down her neck. That scene was a lesson in Southern women let me tell you. And - poor Anne - I LOVE her justification for Falwell. What a "brand of ketchup"
|
|
#45
02-08-2005, 05:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
Christine McVie Posing Headshot 8x10 PHOTO PRINT
$7.98
Christine McVie Self Titled (Cassette)
$4.88
Lot Of 3 Christine McVie Records The Legendary Perfect Album
$30.00
CHRISTINE McVIE - Legendary Christine Perfect Album - 12" Vinyl Record LP - VG+
$24.71
Christine McVie In The Meantime CD 2004 Sanctuary rock Fleetwood Mac
$10.97
Here's what she said:
Linear Mode
