Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter

snood wrote:

No, numbnuts, not because others do - because I wish to.

So you choose to whine, gripe, and complain about Ann Coulter?
You choose to let her bother you?

That makes no sense.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

snood wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

The one reason that crazy person can't be ignored is because so many others take heed of her raving. Some possibly even believe she is truthful. This affects the way her targets are perceived by thousands of people. It's a travesty of truth, but it's there, given credence by dolts of the same mentality as the swift boaters. Her words don't get knocked down as they should be by true journalists.

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

What things are you saying have been "proven as lies", McGentrified?
Or are you just orating from your rectal sphinchter again?

None as blind as those that will not see Snood. It amazes me that you even have to ask such a stupid question. Well, maybe amaze is too strong a word considering the other idiocy you post.

But, no specifics offered, I see.

Predictible trolling

Cycloptichorn

As much as has been written on these forums while he and obviously you have been members here, I wouldn't suspect specifics would be needed.

Your response is equally predictable though. Backing up a like minded person ignoring the facts and spewing your predictable insults.

Oh, I see. So, you expect to be able to pass of pronouncements like saying "much of" what Gore and Moore have said are lies- without any challenge to provide what exactly the hell it is you're talking about.

Uh, no. That ain't happening.

There have been alternate ideas put forth that contradict some of the information that Gore has championed about global warming, if that's what you're blathering about. But to try to characterize those differences between scientists as some halfassed kind of definitive proof that Gore and Moore are lying is contemptible, even for a slackjawed halfwit like you.

snood wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

snood wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

The one reason that crazy person can't be ignored is because so many others take heed of her raving. Some possibly even believe she is truthful. This affects the way her targets are perceived by thousands of people. It's a travesty of truth, but it's there, given credence by dolts of the same mentality as the swift boaters. Her words don't get knocked down as they should be by true journalists.

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

What things are you saying have been "proven as lies", McGentrified?
Or are you just orating from your rectal sphinchter again?

None as blind as those that will not see Snood. It amazes me that you even have to ask such a stupid question. Well, maybe amaze is too strong a word considering the other idiocy you post.

But, no specifics offered, I see.

Predictible trolling

Cycloptichorn

As much as has been written on these forums while he and obviously you have been members here, I wouldn't suspect specifics would be needed.

Your response is equally predictable though. Backing up a like minded person ignoring the facts and spewing your predictable insults.

Oh, I see. So, you expect to be able to pass of pronouncements like saying "much of" what Gore and Moore have said are lies- without any challenge to provide what exactly the hell it is you're talking about.

Uh, no. That ain't happening.

There have been alternate ideas put forth that contradict some of the information that Gore has championed about global warming, if that's what you're blathering about. But to try to characterize those differences between scientists as some halfassed kind of definitive proof that Gore and Moore are lying is contemptible, even for a slackjawed halfwit like you.

RE: Sicko

http://newsbusters.org/node/13699
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/28/review.sicko/index.html

RE: Fahrenheit 9/11

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10713-2004Jun27.html

RE: An Inconvenient Truth

http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

I'll not search through all the threads here regarding these topics, feel free to do that yourself if you actually care about this rather then just continuing the lip-service you usually provide.

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

Having "enjoyed" first-hand experience of two of these three health systems -- the British and the Canadian -- I can attest that they're not quite as idyllic as Mr. Moore paints them. Except in comparison with the U.S. system, of course, and that's the point.

...

If Moore missteps, it's in the one sequence he and the Weinstein Company have made sure everyone has already heard about (with a little help from the U.S. government): the boat lift to Cuba for three ailing 9/11 heroes. It's Stunt Man Mike at his crudest, and not as effective as he intended.

Sicko uses omission, exaggeration and cinematic sleight of hand to make its points. In criticizing politicians, insurers and drug makers, it says little about the high quality of U.S. care.

Some facts and figures in Sicko are misleading. The film says nearly 50 million Americans have no health insurance; 44.8 million people were uninsured in the USA in 2005, including non-citizens, the Census Bureau says. The film says health care costs $7,000 a person each year; the World Health Organization says it costs $6,100.

much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

Moore covers a lot of ground. Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film. In fact, most pundits or health-care experts we spoke to spent more time on errors of omission rather than disputing the actual claims in the film.

Ann Coulter Could Give A Chimp Pointers On Flinging Feces
Robert Paul Reyes


June 30, 2007
When I was in the 4th grade my class went on a field trip to the San Francisco Zoo, and I don't mean we attended a meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.


The chimp exhibit was a big hit with the children; we enjoyed making faces and taunting them until one chimp and then another retaliated by flinging feces.


The gross behavior of the chimps reminds me of Ann Coulter; you can't engage her in dialogue without leaving the encounter feeling like you are smeared with excrement. Ann Coulter could give chimps a few pointers on the fine art of flinging crap.


Ann Coulter is a provocateur without equal; she will stoop as low as possible to get a rise out of liberals and to sell her books. Coulter called Muslims "ragheads" at the 2006 Conservative Political Action Conference, and John Edwards a "faggot" at the following year's conference.


And in Coulter's latest outrage against humanity she seemed to yearn for the possibility of John Edwards being killed by terrorists.



Should the victims of Coulter's acid tongue ignore or confront the Wicked Witch? Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of presidential candidate John Edwards, choose the latter course.


From The New York Times:

"Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, keeps making headlines.

She took on Ann Coulter yesterday, calling in to MSNBC's 'Hardball' to criticize the conservative commentator for "debasing" the political dialogue in the country and to demand that she stop making personal attacks on her husband and other candidates."

In the aftermath of the Edwards/Coulter confrontation, the evil pundit has made the rounds of all the interview talk shows, where she never fails to hawk her book.

The wiser course of action would be to ignore Coulter -- don't give her what she craves the most, publicity.

It's conservatives who should condemn Coulter; she makes conservatives look very bad.

In the few times that I've returned to the zoo since my childhood field trip, I've given the chimp cage a wide berth. When I'm watching one of the cable news programs and Coulter comes on, I make a sign of the cross and change the channel.

McGentrix wrote:

snood wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

snood wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

The one reason that crazy person can't be ignored is because so many others take heed of her raving. Some possibly even believe she is truthful. This affects the way her targets are perceived by thousands of people. It's a travesty of truth, but it's there, given credence by dolts of the same mentality as the swift boaters. Her words don't get knocked down as they should be by true journalists.

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

What things are you saying have been "proven as lies", McGentrified?
Or are you just orating from your rectal sphinchter again?

None as blind as those that will not see Snood. It amazes me that you even have to ask such a stupid question. Well, maybe amaze is too strong a word considering the other idiocy you post.

But, no specifics offered, I see.

Predictible trolling

Cycloptichorn

As much as has been written on these forums while he and obviously you have been members here, I wouldn't suspect specifics would be needed.

Your response is equally predictable though. Backing up a like minded person ignoring the facts and spewing your predictable insults.

Oh, I see. So, you expect to be able to pass of pronouncements like saying "much of" what Gore and Moore have said are lies- without any challenge to provide what exactly the hell it is you're talking about.

Uh, no. That ain't happening.

There have been alternate ideas put forth that contradict some of the information that Gore has championed about global warming, if that's what you're blathering about. But to try to characterize those differences between scientists as some halfassed kind of definitive proof that Gore and Moore are lying is contemptible, even for a slackjawed halfwit like you.

RE: Sicko

http://newsbusters.org/node/13699
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/28/review.sicko/index.html

RE: Fahrenheit 9/11

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10713-2004Jun27.html

RE: An Inconvenient Truth

http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

I'll not search through all the threads here regarding these topics, feel free to do that yourself if you actually care about this rather then just continuing the lip-service you usually provide.

Very good, in that you actually attempted to do something other then trolling. I applaud your efforts.

But, do your links actually support the proposition? Let's just look at the Sicko links, as it is the main topic of discussion -

You stated that:

Quote:

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/28/review.sicko/index.html

The only part of the review that is critical of Moore?

Quote:

Having "enjoyed" first-hand experience of two of these three health systems -- the British and the Canadian -- I can attest that they're not quite as idyllic as Mr. Moore paints them. Except in comparison with the U.S. system, of course, and that's the point.

...

If Moore missteps, it's in the one sequence he and the Weinstein Company have made sure everyone has already heard about (with a little help from the U.S. government): the boat lift to Cuba for three ailing 9/11 heroes. It's Stunt Man Mike at his crudest, and not as effective as he intended.

Okay, that's a good point; but is it disproving 'much' of the truth of the movie? Nope.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13699

This is a link to a USA Today article.

Quote:

Sicko uses omission, exaggeration and cinematic sleight of hand to make its points. In criticizing politicians, insurers and drug makers, it says little about the high quality of U.S. care.

Sigh. The care is great, if you have the money. That's the whole point.

Quote:

Some facts and figures in Sicko are misleading. The film says nearly 50 million Americans have no health insurance; 44.8 million people were uninsured in the USA in 2005, including non-citizens, the Census Bureau says. The film says health care costs $7,000 a person each year; the World Health Organization says it costs $6,100.

So he said 'nearly 50 million' instead of '45 million?' 7k instead of 6.1k? Big whoop.

Are Moore, or Gore's, movies perfect? No. Any documentary or non-fiction piece can be disputed or argued with. But to say that

Quote:

much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

Is complete bullsh*t.

You didn't troll in your last post, so I'll leave off the insult I would have added here at the end.



Cycloptichorn

Is there some reason why you think that high quality medical care should be either free or cheap?

No MDs or other HCP will work for free!

From the US Census Burearu:

Real median household income in the United States rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, reaching $46,326, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the nation's official poverty rate remained statistically unchanged at 12.6 percent. The percentage of people without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 percent to 15.9 percent (46.6 million people).

Actually, it's closer to 47 million Americans without health insurance.

Finn, Anyone ever remark on your resemblance to McGentrix?

The thing is Finn, Edgar wears his cap with the bill forward, you on the other hand.

Actually, edgar and I have many things in common, and our ideas on different subjects on a2k generally seems to mesh pretty well.