Tuesday, January 06, 2009
|
|
Is the Ann Coulter/Perez Hilton "sham" a scam?
|
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
12:54 AM
|
  Hmmm... If you were a noted top conservative columnist but fearful you might not get enough buzz about your new release because the Hamas/Israel war, Burris, Obama, Blagojevich, etc. what better way to re-emerge as a media power than lighting into a national television network when you get canceled but Perez Hilton gets to booked? Ann Coulter IS the best selling conservative author in print. Her books are fact-checked to the tiniest detail. And the ideas she ultimately puts across are some of the most important in the debate over ideas today. Perez Hilton on the other hand is widely known as the lowliest of internet sleaze. All the planets aligned... Coulter got canned, Perez got booked. Here's the problem, it was Coulter herself, and her buddy (long known to be a close friend of Coulter) Matt Drudge that made the connection between NBC canceling one and booking the other. Only problem is... there's no proof. Canceling Ann, as Drudge explains from unnamed sources because of Coulter's content in the book very well could be playing a big part of the picture here. But not favoritism for "The Queen of Hollywood." It's a novel talking point to generate more controversy, and that's certainly how Ann sells books. But I'm just not convinced there's any there, there. For my money - I'd prefer both of them to be canned and someone stick a camera on President-Elect Obama until he offers an idea on Israel... Now THAT would be must-see TV. N...B...C...
|
|
Hahaha... You're killin' me... That is hilarious. Maybe her books ARE fact-checked to the tiniest detail, after they're published....
But she does bring some very important ideas to the debate, like the idea that the 9/11 widows are "witches" who are enjoying their husband's deaths. That is a very important idea. It's amazing that she could even get booked on a public access talk show after saying something so incredibly insensitive and stupid about victims of a national tragedy because she disagrees with them.
But I'm all for having her on television, it gives mainstream America a chance to see how mean-spirited and misinformed the far right really is! |
|
whambulance again...
Twomay - on the factual timelines, histories, and specific, time, place, events in any of Ann's books please point out where she has been inaccurate...
And your convenient quote out of context does not make the case or the grade... |
|
...as I explained (rather brilliantly, too!) in a previous post, Kevin does not understand the difference between a "Conservative," a "conservative" and a "Neo-Con."
Until then, all future postings where he tries to defend people like Anorexia Annie by missuing terms like "conservative" will be ignored. |
|
But I find Coulter to be SO hot.
My fantasy is a long weekend alone with her on a deserted, tropical island -- then I leave her there all alone so she can't inflict any more harm on the world.
How sick is that?! |
|
OK, first of all, I rise to the occasion with an example of where Coulter has been inaccurate. It's a very old example but apparently KMC hasn't heard of it because he claims her books are "fact-checked to the tiniest detail," so I must mention the Dale Earnhardt incident... In Slander Coulter claimed that the NY Times didn't cover the Earnhardt's death until 2 days after he died... This is false; they covered it the next day. Even Coulter herself admits that she screwed that up... Ergo, her books are certainly not fact-checked to the tiniest detail. You're wrong. Proven.
If you want a few dozen other examples of cases where she's been caught red-handed telling lies or using sloppy research to back up her points, just look at her wikipedia page. Even if you don't trust wikipedia there are many cases that can't be argued with... They cite sources, chapter and verse, that flat-out prove her wrong.
As for the CONTEXT, what context would possibly forgive saying that a widow whose husband died on 9/11 is enjoying his death? Even if said widow was seen jumping for joy on his grave that would be a tasteless, stupid thing to say.
Unless the prefaced that statement with "only a heartless piece of human excrement would try to smear a political opponent by saying something like...", you don't have a leg to stand on.
I mean, I get it, she disagrees with the Jersey Girls. But her case (and the case for the war in Iraq being an appropriate response to 9/11) is so pathetically weak that she has to resort to mean-spirited taunts to make an impact. THAT is the context. |
|
|
|