Bi-Polar Bear wrote:frankly I wasn't even aware of the situation. coulter is that much of an horse faced, nasty, inconsequential c**t to me....
It's not just you. Since this story got virtually no play in the mainstream press, it appears she's inconsequential to pretty much everyone.
gungasnake wrote:Question here.....
How're you losers gonna throw people you don't like in prison after the divorce, when you're living in RATLAND, and EVERYBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW???
More likely, for you, I think Flatland might be more apropos.
And you're mistaken, Lefties actually are prone to living within the law, not above it. We like laws, in fact I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
Would you?
Quote:"A Man For All Seasons," R. Bolt ......
Roper: Arrest him!
More: For what?
Roper:He's dangerous!
More: Libel. He's a spy!
Roper: That man's bad!
More: There's no law against that.
Roper: God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Roper: While you talk, he's gone!
More: Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.
Roper:-Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes, what would you do?
More: Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you...
...where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted with laws from coast to coast...
...Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down...
...and you're just the man to do it...
...do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then?
Roper: Yes.
More: I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
Again, would you?
dyslexia wrote:All this time I thought Rat Land was 2 words.
The precedent is obvious enough, England, Deutschland, and not Angle Land or Deutsche Land.
There'd be a couple of other more complicated things you might try, like DeMoKKKerRatLand, Liberalia, FruitsNNutsLand etc. etc. but all of them would sound convoluted and none would really have any sort of a good ring to it. "RATLAND" does (have a good ring to it).
I mean, you're getting some excellent advice here and you're not even being charged a consulting fee, it doesn't really get much better than that.
While this is writing of clearly the tabloid yellow journalism type, Advocate didn't see fit to link the piece and either he or somebody added a line that did not appear in the actual piece.
But even journalism this bad should put to rest the 'boyfriend' accusation as nothing more than something made up by dishonest bloggers who are only interested in getting somebody and not at all interested in the truth about anything.
FBI agent steps into Coulter voting caseSOURCE
kuvasz wrote:
...And you're mistaken, Lefties actually are prone to living within the law, not above it. We like laws.....
BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAA AHAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAA HAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HAHAHAAAAAAAAAH HAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HAAAA AAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAA HAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HAHAHAAAAAAAAAH HAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH AHAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAA HAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HAHAHAAAAAAAAAH HAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HAAAA AAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA AHAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAA HAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HAHAHAAAAAAAAAH HAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HAAAA AAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA AHAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAA HAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HAHAHAAAAAAAAAH HAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HAAAA AAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAA...........
gungasnake wrote:dyslexia wrote:All this time I thought Rat Land was 2 words.
The precedent is obvious enough, England, Deutschland, and not Angle Land or Deutsche Land.
There'd be a couple of other more complicated things you might try, like DeMoKKKerRatLand, Liberalia, FruitsNNutsLand etc. etc. but all of them would sound convoluted and none would really have any sort of a good ring to it. "RATLAND" does (have a good ring to it).
I mean, you're getting some excellent advice here and you're not even being charged a consulting fee, it doesn't really get much better than that.
Possibly Vespuccieland. Oh, and yeah another possibility would be America. But i suppose not to right wing-nuts who hate diversity. Freakin' clones.
The Palm Beach Post is not a blog, and is probably not a tabloid. {Foxy, my you must love Coulter.}
In view of the information coming out, I wonder whether she is really cleared of voting fraud. Somebody should be looking into it.
Advocate wrote:The Palm Beach Post is not a blog, and is probably not a tabloid. {Foxy, my you must love Coulter.}
In view of the information coming out, I wonder whether she is really cleared of voting fraud. Somebody should be looking into it.
I appreciate Ann Coulter when she can be appreciated and I criticize Ann Coulter when she cannot. The information that has come out is that she is cleared of the charges against her. I didn't say the Palm Beach Post was a blog or a tabloid. I said the piece you posted was tabloid yellow journlism. And I said that it was unlinked, which it was, and that your post included a line that did not appear in the piece printed in the Post. And I said that a yellow journalism writer clearly attempting to smear Ms. Coulter would have included a comment on a FBI boyfriend link if such actually existed.
Your post here is graphic illustration that some of you just want to get her and don't give a flying fig about facts or the truth. Ann Coulter had absolutely nothing to gain via voter fraud and given all the irregularities and proven fraud following every election, the fact that only she was singled out for prosecution should tell you a lot about political or opportunistic motivations that were almost certainly behind that.
Yellow journalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nasty little printer's devils spew forth from the Hoe press in this Puck cartoon of Nov. 21, 1888, showing that the evils predated the Yellow pressTopics in Journalism
Professional Issues
Ethics & News Values
Objectivity & Attribution
News Source & Libel Law
News & Reporting & Writing
Education & Fourth Estate
Other Topics & Books
Fields
Advocacy journalism
Alternative journalism
Arts journalism
Business journalism
Citizen journalism
Fashion journalism
Investigative journalism
Literary journalism
Photojournalism
Science journalism
Sports journalism
Video game journalism
Video journalism
Social Impact
Infotainment & Celebrity
'Infotainers' & Personalities
News Management
Distortion & VNRs
PR & Propaganda
'Yellow' Journalism
Press freedom
News media
Newspapers & Magazines
News Agencies
Broadcast Journalism
Online & Blogging
Alternative Media
Roles
Journalist, Reporter, Editor, News presenter, Photo Journalist, Columnist, Visual Journalist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
v d e
Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or individual journalists.
The term originated during the circulation battles between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal from 1895 to about 1898, and can refer specifically to this period. Both papers were accused by critics of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation, although the newspapers did serious reporting as well. The New York Press coined the term "Yellow Journalism" in early 1897 to describe the papers of Pulitzer and Hearst. The newspaper did not define the term, and in 1898 simply elaborated, "We called them Yellow because they are Yellow."[1]
I don't see the piece as being yellow journalism. It was very factual, and certainly on a subject of interest nationally, much less in Palm Beach.
I have the feeling that her voting was in connection with tax fraud (a domicile thing).
BTW, I didn't include a link because I don't know how to paste an article and also paste a link. I did show the paper in which the article appeared.
The article was not honest and most likely misrepresented facts as the writer made no attempt to establish timelines, did not put critical quotes into context or cite the course or circumstances under which they are given. It was filled innuendo and suggestions that were not substantiated in any way.
If I were you I would be careful about altering articles that you post even by accident. And I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for anything without including a disclaimer. Wikipedia is a good source of keywords to help somebody find credible sources, however.
To post a link, first copy the article and post it. Then copy the link from your buffer, click on URL in the menu options and paste the URL into that buffer and click OK. Then submit the post. If you add comments of your own, make sure they are clearly distinguishable from the article you post.
From this at 8:26 a.m.:
Foxfyre wrote:Facts are facts no matter where they come from and the truth is the truth no matter what the source.
To this at 3:26 p.m.:
Foxfyre wrote:The article was not honest and most likely misrepresented facts as the writer made no attempt to establish timelines, did not put critical quotes into context or cite the course or circumstances under which they are given. It was filled innuendo and suggestions that were not substantiated in any way.
A fascinating change in precisely seven hours.
Nope. No change at all. Accurate perception is accurate perception no matter who holds it, facts are facts regardless of who is stating them, distortion is distortion no matter who puts it out, and yellow journalism is yellow journalism no matter what its source.
You can put commentary side by side with one writer applauding say an Ann Coulter and the other denouncing her as a radical rightwing hatemonger and both pieces can be 100% honest. Or you can put facts including who, what, where, when, why, and how together in a way to accurately inform a reader, or you can list facts in a way to draw the reader into a completely erroneous conclusion.
If a piece is worded to distort perception, suggest facts not in evidence, color opinion based on unsubtantiated innuendo, or incite a particular response based on intentionally flawed assumptions, it becomes yellow journalism. The piece I criticized oozed yellow journalism on all counts.
To illustrate, during the 2004 campaign John Kerry and Jane Fonda were frequently pictured at the same antiwar rally with circles around their heads or arrows pointing to them and captions alluding to unAmerican activities. The intention was to link Kerry to Fonda without actually saying that. The fact was they were at the same rally, but were not together and didn't even know each other at the time. One can honestly criticize or praise either during that era depending on where your heart lies. In my opinion both were deserving of plenty of criticism, even condemnation, and Kerry's revised memory of some of the events of the Vietnam era can be honestly condemned. But the way some of that history was presented by some who opposed him was factually correct but left out necessary qualifiers so that wrong perception of the facts was encouraged. That qualifies as yellow journalism.
Foxfyre wrote:
I appreciate Ann Coulter when she can be appreciated and I criticize Ann Coulter when she cannot. The information that has come out is that she is cleared of the charges against her. I didn't say the Palm Beach Post was a blog or a tabloid. I said the piece you posted was tabloid yellow journlism. And I said that it was unlinked, which it was, and that your post included a line that did not appear in the piece printed in the Post. And I said that a yellow journalism writer clearly attempting to smear Ms. Coulter would have included a comment on a FBI boyfriend link if such actually existed.
Your post here is graphic illustration that some of you just want to get her and don't give a flying fig about facts or the truth. Ann Coulter had absolutely nothing to gain via voter fraud and given all the irregularities and proven fraud following every election, the fact that only she was singled out for prosecution should tell you a lot about political or opportunistic motivations that were almost certainly behind that.
The FACT? You sure like to play fast and loose with your "facts" there Fox. Perhaps you shouldn't attack others for their 'facts' when you make stuff up and claim it is "fact".
1. Coulter was never prosecuted.
2. You have no evidence other than your failure to look that no one else was prosecuted for voter fraud in Florida.
3. The system for reporting voter fraud in Florida allows anyone to file a report to start an investigation. You just have to sign the report under penalty of perjury. Coulter was reported for filing with an address that wasn't hers. The investigation found that fact to be true. The card Coulter signed states this..
Quote:"OATH: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida. I am qualified to register as an elector under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida. I am a U.S. citizen. I am a legal resident of Florida. All information on this form is true. I understand that if it is not true, I can be convicted of a felony of the third degree and fined up to $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to five years."
Foxfyre wrote:facts are facts regardless of who is stating them
And non facts are non facts no matter who is claiming them as facts.
uh, what about the hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people from other states, such as New York, that either tried or did vote in Florida, illegally? Have any of those been prosecuted? Just curious, and funny that I would doubt that anything serious ever happened to them, since most were Democrats as I recall, or Independents, that likely voted Democrat. I have not followed that story, but that still sticks in my mind as something that did happen.
Coulter wasn't prosecuted. Might well be others. (I didn't follow that as well.)
Funny the Democrats don't seem too interested in this, when Gore is still apparently running around trying to claim he was robbed of the election with little snide remarks from time to time.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/23/163727.shtml
As I said, can anyone confirm that even one of these people was ever prosecuted, or even seriously investigated? But we are only talking about a paltry 46,000 people double registered here, nothing major. And of course that is the number apparently from only New York City. As I said, no major story here. That is why the major news networks never investigated this much.
Quote:The system for reporting voter fraud in Florida allows anyone to file a report to start an investigation.
Ehem, doesn't that mean what it says?
Coulter was also double registered in Ct and Fl.
She wasn't investigated for that. Are you saying she should have been okie?
