Lol Ann Coulter Gets Caught In A Lie

[iheartjp2]

Ann is right. She used a name that the article writer used in his article for terrorists and made a point summing up the guy's article. She didn't [i]lie[/i] about anything. Al took two solitudinous sentences and tried to make up some bs concerning misquoting (which isn't what she did).

Also, speaking of liars, I highly doubt that Al turned to that exact page and came up with that exact talking point in the time that it took his wife to put on lipstick.

[Deus te Amat]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1932565' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:41 PM']Ann is right. She used a name that the article writer used in his article for terrorists and made a point summing up the guy's article. She didn't [i]lie[/i] about anything. Al took two solitudinous sentences and tried to make up some bs concerning misquoting (which isn't what she did).

Also, speaking of liars, I highly doubt that Al turned to that exact page and came up with that exact talking point in the time that it took his wife to put on lipstick.[/quote]



Agreed, I found that point absurd. I liked it when she said she had a watch because she knew he was bsing.

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1932565' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:41 PM']Ann is right. She used a name that the article writer used in his article for terrorists and made a point summing up the guy's article. She didn't [i]lie[/i] about anything. Al took two solitudinous sentences and tried to make up some bs concerning misquoting (which isn't what she did).[/quote]

What in the world are you talking about.

[quote]Also, speaking of liars, I highly doubt that Al turned to that exact page and came up with that exact talking point in the time that it took his wife to put on lipstick.[/quote]

Yeah. He's also at best a second rate comedian and a third rate author. I don't know why you keep trying to make this about Al Franken. I don't care for him either.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
moving to the debate table

[Hassan]

Here's the article.

Here is all the context one needs.

I would appreciate any Ann defender to show me how her use of the quote (bolded) was anything other than outright manipulation.


[i]Naked Air
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: Wednesday, December 26, 2001

In the wake of the attempted bombing last week of the American Airlines flight from Paris by a terrorist nut with explosives in his shoe, I'm thinking of starting my own airline, which would be called: Naked Air. Its motto would be: ''Everybody flies naked and nobody worries.'' Or ''Naked Air -- where the only thing you wear is a seat belt.''

Think about it. If everybody flew naked, not only would you never have to worry about the passenger next to you carrying box cutters or exploding shoes, but no [b]religious fundamentalists of any stripe[/b] would ever be caught dead flying nude, or in the presence of nude women, and that alone would keep many potential hijackers out of the skies. It's much more civilized than racial profiling. And I'm sure that it wouldn't be long before airlines would be offering free dry-cleaning for your clothes while you fly.

Well, you get the point: if the terrorists are just going to keep using technology to become better and better, how do we protect against that, while maintaining an open society -- without stripping everyone naked? I mean, what good is it to have a free and open America when someone can easily get on an airplane in Paris and bring a bomb over in the heel of his shoe or plot a suicide attack on the World Trade Center from a cave in Kandahar and then pop over and carry it out?

This is America's core problem today: A free society is based on openness and on certain shared ethics and honor codes to maintain order, and we are now intimately connected to too many societies that do not have governments that can maintain order and to peoples who have no respect for our ethics or our honor codes.

Remember the electronic ticket machines that were used for the Boston-New York-Washington shuttles? Ever use one? Not only were you automatically issued your ticket with a credit card by pressing a touch-screen, but they asked you -- electronically -- ''Did you pack your bags yourself?'' and ''Did any strangers give you anything?'' And you answered those security questions by touching a screen! Think about the naïve trust and honor code underlying those machines.

If I had my way they would now take all those machines and put them in a special room in the Smithsonian museum called: ''Artifacts From America Before Sept. 11, 2001.''

We're not alone. I just flew in and out of Moscow, where you now have to fill out a detailed customs form. It asks the usual questions: Are you carrying any fruits, plants, large amounts of foreign currency, special electronics or weapons? But there was one box that unnerved me a bit. It asked: Are you carrying any ''radioactive materials?'' Hmm, I wondered, how many people (i.e. smugglers) are going to check that box? Can you imagine going through Moscow customs and the couple in front of you turning to each other and asking: ''Dear, did we pack the nuclear waste in your suitcase or mine?'' Or, ''Honey, is the plutonium in your purse or the black duffel?'' I don't think so.

Which is why we are entering a highly problematic era, one that we are just beginning to get our minds around. We are becoming much more keenly aware of how freedom and order go together (see the Ashcroft debates). For America to stay America, a free and open society, intimately connected to the world, the world has to become a much more ordered and controlled place. And order emerges in two ways: It is either grown from the bottom up, by societies slowly developing good democratic governance and shared ethics and values, or it is imposed from the top down, by non-democratic, authoritarian regimes rigidly controlling their people.

But in today's post-cold-war world, many, many countries to which we are connected are in a transition between the two -- between a rigid authoritarian order that was imposed and voluntary self-government that is being home-grown. It makes for a very messy world, especially as some countries -- Afghanistan being the most extreme example -- are not able to make the transition.

''The problem with top-down control is that more governments around the world are fragmenting today, rather than consolidating,'' said the Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi. ''At the same time, America's technologies are being universalized -- planes that go faster and faster and electronics that are smaller and smaller -- but the American values and honor system that those technologies assume have not been universalized. In the hands of the wrong people they become weapons of mass destruction.''

So there you have our dilemma: Either we become less open as a society, or the world to which we are now so connected has to become more controlled -- by us and by others -- or we simply learn to live with much higher levels of risk than we've ever been used to before.

Or, we all fly naked.[/i]

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932569' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:44 PM']What in the world are you talking about.



Yeah. He's also at best a second rate comedian and a third rate author. I don't know why you keep trying to make this about Al Franken. I don't care for him either.[/quote]

Well, it's about him now because instead of Ann having gotten caught in a lie, it's Al who's been caught in a lie by anyone who watched the video and listened to everything objectively. Al was lying through his teeth when he stated that Ann was lying. You, however, stated more than once that Ann actually was lying when, in fact, she wasn't. She took the name that a NYT op-ed writer gave to terrorists and summed up his article to make her point in an analysis on national security. The point she was making was that this guy was diverting attention away from the real issue: that it wasn't radicals "of any stripe" that were attacking us. All of the 911 hijackers were Muslim. Every terrorist threat against our national security has been perpetrated by Muslims, not people "of any stripe". She was using that to reveal the dishonesty of the op-ed writer. She didn't misquote him. She didn't state ANY mistruth. Al, on the other hand, did. That's why I'm making it about Al. Ann's not the liar, Al is.

Edited July 26, 2009 by iheartjp2

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1932578' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:53 PM']She took the name that a NYT op-ed writer gave to terrorists and summed up his article to make her point in an analysis on national security. She didn't misquote him. She didn't state ANY mistruth. Al, on the other hand, did. That's why I'm making it about Al. Ann's not the liar, Al is.[/quote]



I'm just going to ignore your inane tangent about Al Franken and stay focused on Ann.

I've posted the whole article. She claimed that Friedman blamed 20 years of Muslim terrorism on "religious fundamentalists of any stripe". That is neither an honest representation of his quote nor in any way a fair summation of his overall article.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Hassan

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932581' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:57 PM']I'm just going to ignore your inane tangent about Al Franken and stay focused on Ann.

I've posted the whole article. She claimed that Friedman blamed 20 years of Muslim terrorism on "religious fundamentalists of any stripe". That is neither an honest representation of his quote nor in any way a fair summation of his overall article.[/quote]

I edited my post while you were posting yours. Here's the part that I added:

"The point she was making was that this guy was diverting attention away from the real issue: that it wasn't radicals "of any stripe" that were attacking us. All of the 911 hijackers were Muslim. Every terrorist threat against our national security has been perpetrated by Muslims, not people "of any stripe". She was using that to reveal the dishonesty of the op-ed writer."

I believe that it was "an honest representation of his quote", an honest representation of the lie and the diversion that it was.

[iheartjp2]

Also, if you actually watch the last part of the video in which Ann responds, she makes the point that I just made quite clear. The meaning of the name the op-ed writer gave the terrorists shows his (and generally liberals') dishonesty about what we were/are up against. We can pin an almost EXACT description of the people who attacked us and he's talking about "radical fundamentalists of any stripe", while "the Amish fundamentalists have been very silent" and as she stated, so have the Mormons. We're not looking for just anybody, we're looking for people who have a specific description (or at least we should). The use of the quote was to show how WRONG the writer was, not to misquote him or to be dishonest; it wasn't dishonest.

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1932584' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:03 PM']I edited my post while you were posting yours. Here's the part that I added:

"The point she was making was that this guy was diverting attention away from the real issue: that it wasn't radicals "of any stripe" that were attacking us. All of the 911 hijackers were Muslim. Every terrorist threat against our national security has been perpetrated by Muslims, not people "of any stripe". She was using that to reveal the dishonesty of the op-ed writer."[/quote]


I would love for you to explain to me how you managed to get that "interpretation" out of Mr. Friedman's article.

That is not the focus of the article nor is it what she claimed. She claimed that Mr. Friedman blamed 20 years of Muslim terrorism on....

Even if your interpretation were somehow correct, and it most certainly is not, her representation is still not valid.

And furthermore it would not even be factually correct to claim that every terrorist threat against our country of the last 20 years has been perpetrated by Muslims. Unless one did not consider McVeigh or any of his neo-nazi friends terrorist threats. Or one feels that North Korea was unfairly labeled a state sponsor of terrorism. Or the host of other terrorist threats we have faced over the last 20 years along with Muslim terrorism.

[Selah]

I don't like her either. She's rude and obnoxious, and while I do agree with her at times, I think she could get her point across without being crass.

[Guest Servant of Divine]

Why is Miss Coutler wearing a mini-skirt?

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Servant of Divine' post='1932726' date='Jul 26 2009, 08:52 PM']Why is Miss Coutler wearing a mini-skirt?[/quote]

For the same reason she uses exaggerations and vitriol in her writing.

Sex, like rage, sells.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932595' date='Jul 26 2009, 05:12 PM']I would love for you to explain to me how you managed to get that "interpretation" out of Mr. Friedman's article.

That is not the focus of the article nor is it what she claimed. She claimed that Mr. Friedman blamed 20 years of Muslim terrorism on....

Even if your interpretation were somehow correct, and it most certainly is not, her representation is still not valid.

And furthermore it would not even be factually correct to claim that every terrorist threat against our country of the last 20 years has beeen perpetrated by Muslims. Unless one did not consider McVeigh or any of his neo-nazi friends terrorist threats. Or one feels that North Korea was unfairly labeled a state sponsor of terrorism. Or the host of other terrorist threats we have faced over the last 20 years along with Muslim terrorism.[/quote]

Well, in affect, that is what Ms. Coulter contended that Friedman was doing. We have 20 years of Islamic Extremist Terrorism directed at us and not coming from anyone else. The guy calls those with radical views who have perpetrated affrontation to our national security "radical fundamentalists of any stripe" when, in fact, they've only been of one stripe. That's what she was getting at: the deception on the left that says Islamic extremists aren't the only ones to blame for all these affrontations.

Okay...domestic terrorists? Threats? When I say "affrontations", what I mean are [b]concrete attacks[/b], not just threats to attack. As with home-grown terrorists, they 1) didn't threaten our national security on the same scale as the Islamofascists because 2) They weren't in the country illegally (as several of the attackers were because their travel visas weren't any good) and they were citizens with records that could help us track them. Foreigners who have never been here and who we don't even KNOW are here can't be tracked. North Korea, other "threats" aren't what I'm talking about and they're not what Ann was talking about. We're talking about threats that were actually [i]carried out[/i] over the course of 20 years.