(The Enlightenment) wrote in message . com...

Find one "lie" that Ann Coulter has told. I challenge you. Put up or shutup.

Certainly... the quote in that .sig, for example. That's why I brought
it up. A few other examples, culled at random:

(1) From http://archive.salon.com/books/featu...er/index1.html

"The following passage gives a good example of how "Slander" works:

"After Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion contrary
to the clearly expressed position of the New York Times editorial
page, the Times responded with an editorial on Thomas titled 'The
Youngest, Cruelest Justice.' That was actually the headline on a lead
editorial in the Newspaper of Record. Thomas is not engaged on the
substance of his judicial philosophy. He is called 'a colored lawn
jockey for conservative white interests,' 'race traitor,' 'black
snake,' 'chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom,' 'house Negro' and
'handkerchief head,' 'Benedict Arnold' and "Judas Iscariot'."

The passage is conveniently phrased to make it look as if the quotes,
as well as the headline, appear in the Times editorial. They don't
(notes in the back of the book identify the sources as former Surgeon
General Jocelyn Elder's interview in Playboy, and Joseph Lowery at a
meeting of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference quoted in the
New Yorker). Coulter sets up the passage to give the impression that
the Times called Thomas a "lawn jockey" and a "house Negro" and hopes
that we won't notice that she's fudged it."

(2) http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/...#500pmcoulter2
(Coulter thinks the left should just get over the whole civil rights
thingie...)

"FACT CHECK ANN COULTER: THE SELMA LIE. Live by LexisNexis, die by
LexisNexis. That certainly seems to be the case with Ann Coulter's
latest book, Slander. Yesterday we exposed a blatantly false statement
in her book about the use of the phrase "liberal Republican" in the
New York Times, and today we expose another. Here is the relevant
passage, from p. 199 of Slander:

Since abortion is not the left's proudest moment, liberals prefer
to keep reminiscing about the last time they were giddily
self-righteous. Like a senile old man who keeps telling you the same
story over and over again, liberals babble on and on about the "heady"
days of civil rights marches. Between 1995 and 2001, the New York
Times alone ran more than one hundred articles on "Selma" alone. I
believe we may have revisited this triumph of theirs sufficiently by
now. For anyone under fifty, the "heady" days of civil rights marches
are something out of a history book. The march on Selma was
thirty-five years ago.

Tapped smelled a rat here. Maybe it was Coulter's repetition of the
word "alone"; or maybe it was the fact that the famous 1965 "Bloody
Sunday" march was from Selma to Montgomery, not a march "on" Selma. So
we searched the New York Times archives on LexisNexis for the word
"Selma" for the years 1995-2001. This produced 776 total hits. Of
these, 424 were death notices, 18 were wedding announcements, 25 were
other sorts of paid notices, 5 were in photo captions, and 234 were
either: a) contents listings; b) people with the name Selma; c)
references to Selma, California; or d) references to Selma, Alabama
that had nothing to do with civil rights (b, c, and d includes letters
and op-eds as well as regular articles). Of the remaining 70 items, in
our judgment only 16 were centrally concerned with historic happenings
at Selma from the civil rights era. The other 54 contained brief
mentions of Selma and civil rights but appeared in articles on
different topics. Once again, Coulter's dubious claim -- that "between
1995 and 2001, the New York Times alone ran more than one hundred
articles on 'Selma'" -- is false."

(3) And, if you want a good _conservative_ look at _Treason_, check
out http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=9080,
which is a symposium on the book. When you have a bunch of
conservative critics, trashing the book, that oughta tell you
something.

And that was about 5 minutes of looking. She's a lousy writer,
pandering to credulous nitwits.

Scott