Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows

The last time I checked, this thread is about Ann Coulter. The right's silence on her now-revealed heavy-duty plagiarism is deafening. Now, when we read something from her, we have to wonder who really wrote the passage.

There have been few, certainly minor, flaws in Moore's works. I guess the right hates him so much because he is highly effective in exposing the right's failures.

Coulter columns subject of plagiarism investigation
By Hillel Italie

The Associated Press

NEW YORK ?- The syndicator of Ann Coulter's newspaper column is looking into allegations that the right-wing pundit has lifted material from other sources.

"We are reviewing the material and expect to have a response some time next week," Kathie Kerr, a spokeswoman for Universal Press Syndicate, said Friday.

The New York Post and the Web sites Raw Story and the Rude Pundit have raised numerous questions about Coulter's columns, which appear in more than 100 newspapers, and her best-selling "Godless," already notorious for the author's calling four 9/11 widows, who supported Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, "harpies" thriving on their husbands' demise.

Kerr said that the press syndicate had not discussed the allegations with Coulter, who was not available for comment Friday. The publisher of "Godless," the Crown Publishing Group, issued a statement saying it had reviewed the "the allegations of plagiarism" in her book and "found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible."

"As an experienced author and attorney, Ms. Coulter knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the 19 pages and hundreds of endnotes contained in 'Godless,' " said Crown's senior vice president and publisher, Steve Ross.

Coulter's career has rarely suffered despite numerous questions about her accuracy and her scathing remarks about political opponents. An exception was in 2001, soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, when Coulter was fired by the conservative National Review Online for writing about the hijackers: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Regarding Coulter, the question arises whether she attacked Jason Blair and the NYT for plagiarism, etc. Guess what, she did!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607060005?src=other

One can search google and find a plethora of descriptions of Michael ("I'm just a millionaire looking out for the little guy") Moore's lies, distortions, and instances of his hypocrisy. [Here's just one dealing only with the lies in "Fahrenheit 9/11."]

I started to compile a list, but the task proved too daunting because of the sheer volume of material involved.



You're right, blatham ... Moore is shallow, hypocritical, hateful, and whiny. Not at all like Coulter.

Representative Of Largest 9/11 Families Group Says Government Complicit In Attack
Tells radio host 9/11 Commission a sham, "cover-up beyond belief"

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | July 8 2006

The representative of the largest group of 9/11 families says that the official version of events is a fallacy and that the NORAD stand down and evidence of incendiary devices used to bring down the towers amount to government complicity in the attacks - a conclusion shared by half of the 9/11 families he represents.

Doyle heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families and lost his own son Joey in the collapse of the twin towers.

"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 9/11 Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.

"The continuing cover-up is beyond belief," Doyle told GCN radio host Alex Jones.

Doyle questioned why WTC steel that was withheld from NIST for examination for explosives was used instead to build a battleship.

"Isn't it amazing how they got it out of this country within days," said Doyle as he addressed the cover-up of the physical evidence from a crime scene.

Doyle said he had personally talked to six different individuals who were at the World Trade Center site and described incendiary devices before the collapse of the towers.

"It's documented proof that tower 7 was not hit by a plane yet it goes up in flames then the owner of the place Larry Silverstein himself ordered it to be pulled at 4 o'clock that afternoon and all of a sudden it exploded straight down."

"We have two planes fly into the towers and all of a sudden they get blown up within an hour and a half - that's impossible," said Doyle.

Doyle estimated that around half of the family members his organization represents think that there was government complicity in the attacks.

"It looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 if you really look at all the facts - a lot of families now feel the same way."

"Where was NORAD," asked Doyle as he highlighted the implausible gap between the known hijacking times of Flight 93 and Flight 77 and their eventual destruction.

"It was called a step-down - don't do anything - let it happen."

"From everything I look at I'm sure there was a lot of complicity - in the least there had to be a lot of complicity - if you read all the facts there's no way that nineteen hijackers carried out this mission," Doyle told Jones.

Doyle also spoke out on establishment charities withholding large portions of donations from 9/11 families and how 9/11 whistleblowers have been punished meanwhile individuals who facilitated the attacks were rewarded.

BF: The wacko conspiracy theory thread is over ... that way.

The charges about Moore are mostly phony and nits. Moreover, they are ancient history, previouly discussed ad nauseam. This thread is about Ann Maggot Coulter.

Feel free to discuss any/all the nits contained in the Fifty-nine Deceits in "Fahrenheit 9/11", at your leisure.



Yes, you are correct .... this thread was crafted for liberals to express their extreme hatred of Coulter.

She makes you angry, doesn't she, Advocate?

She makes me no more angry than do the right-wing nuts on a2k. She typifies the right in this country, and that is interesting. I guess you are enamored with her.

The thing is that we don't know to the extent her writings are really her's.

Does that explain why you called her "Maggot"? I think not.



I think she's extremely entertaining. I'm also entertained by your obvious hatred of her. Maybe I'm easily entertained.



So you suspect your hatred of her might properly be directed at someone else?

Flag on the play!

Advocate reaches too far for the "Maggot" moniker, and it's not funny.

Time out!!











Resume play.

I would not say that I hate Ann Maggot Coulter. I do find her disgusting. Further, I see that she is a bit of a thief vis-a-vis her plagiarism and tax and voting scams. But I am sure that she (or he) is your kind of girl (or boy).

You obviously hate her. Why don't you just admit it? What are you afraid of?


Is it that one of the things you despise about Coulter is you think she's a "hate-monger," yet if you hate her then you are just spreading "hate" too, and would be a hypocrite? Just curious.

I doubt that Ann represents the Republican mainstream. I used to find her annoying, then she started to strike me funny. She is a performer, an entertainer.

I dont know if she plagiarized anything or not,I dont read her writings.

But,if you look long enough,you can find that EVERY successful writer,on all sides of the political spectrum,has plagiarized someone.

Its almost impossible not to,given the volume of writing out there now.

Where is that quote from? If in the link you provided, could you note some location (eg... half way down page)

But as I said, my post was directed to snood on the point of univestigated assumptions and cliches.

I have, after these years, a depressing confidence that niether you nor finn would be willing to arrive at a conclusion different from what you presently hold on a matter such as this, regardless of all else. I've asked finn if he might provide examples for certain specific sorts of statements made by Coulter and Limbaugh. Feel free to provide such if he does not.

Tico, you have no basis to say I hate Ann Maggot Coulter. There is no reason to hate an entertainer -- the most she can do is injure a person's feelings. I probably do hate Bush for really hurting our country and most of its people. I hold him responsible, for example, for the tens of thousands of casualties in our war on Iraq.

While it's true that many ideas are circulated and written down, it can indeed be plagiarism if you borrow whole hunks of text without even a footnote or credit given.

As this is mere speculation on your part, why not say so?