OK, I'm seeking out Democrats for some "deprogramming"...

".....or is your position that you will make claims and teh burden is on others to refute your claims? it is a simple question: yes or no."

I have already said that I believe Ms. Coulter did not commit journalistic suicide by making up claims that are not true. If you wish to refute the claims she made, that I am referencing, then do so. I'm more than happy to be shown where she's not telling the truth in those situations.

If you cannot, then justify to me how you can call yourself a "proud" member of the party she speaks about and points out these facts about. I will depend on Ms. Coulter's journalistic integrity, and if you wish to refute her aforementioned integrity, please, provide me with a basis to do so, and provide specific examples upon which youc an base a claim to question her integrity.

If you choose-as I do-to take her information and the facts presented at face value, then either explain them, justify the behavior that prompted the action (or lack of action in some cases), and the comments that are attributed to those Democratic figures in the book.

We're back to square 1. It's obvious I already took her at her word, and that was obvious in the initial post. You ask me something that you already know to be true-if of course you actually read the first post in this thread.

I offered an opportunity for Democrats to come and explain these actions, refute them, or rationalize their membership in a Party that was a haven for convicted Communists and people who provided the USSR with the ability to develop a nuclear weapons program that cast a shadow and fear of nuclear destruction over the American people for the better part of 50 years.

Please, I can be no clearer. The ball is clearly in your court now, as it was after my first post, and as it has remained during all of this silly diatribe that we've now come full circle on.

Please, begin an explanation, justification, excuse or rationalization.

 

I enjoy debating people who have a keen and objective mind. You are slowly proving that you have neither. However, I will spell it out for you.

You have come to this board and stated some singular facts without the proper historical context. You have tied those facts together using tenuous associations to form specious conclusions. In the process you have indicted 3 generations of Democrats and millions of people. It is the classic straw man argument.

Ann Coulter is a known liar, fanatic, and right wing ideologue. You have already admitted she is one-sided. Therefore, any references attributed to her cannot be relied upon to form an objective opinion. The fact that she might state that the sky is blue is irrelevant. Or are you going to tell me that the 'Liberal Media' is always objective.

You made the conclusions. You defend them.

You have stated that you are not biased. Okay. If you have references other than Ann Coulter, let's start the debate. The board is watching and you will be held accountable to your standards in some of my future posts.

Are you up to a fair and balanced debate or is your response going to be 'Alger Hiss was a spy'!

If you aren't, you are nothing more than a troll. And I normally don't like to resort to name calling.

 

Alger Hiss was a spy! ;-)

Just joking. Look, I don't mind being called names like troll, or even having my intelligence questioned or demeaned. What I dislike is you twisting and misconstruing my objective in posting what I posted.

What I dislike is that again you've ignored my honest plea. I came here saying that while she is basically biased, she's biased because she's not going to give a fair and balanced viewpoint.

I am asking for you to provide me with the proper historical context. If you dislike the information presented, or the slant that they take, I made the plea at the outset that I wanted-very frankly-to be shown a less slanted and more rounded even handed painting of the picture.

My question to this board remains, and you're still not answering it. Answer for your party. Explain their actions. Rationalize. Use your own sources. If you dislike the question, then perhaps you should have not bothered responding. I'm not going to enter into a debate of semantics, or a back and forth verbal volley to see who's the more verbose amongst us.

Just explain away the information I gave. Take the information and sources I cited, and then refute them, if you can.

I also asked you to provide a factual, verifiable, documentable example for your premise to question Ms. Coulter's journalistic integrity. You responded by saying it's just a "known fact".

You are speaking to someone who has no knowledge of what you speak. If you wish to call her integrity into question, the burden of proving it to me is upon you, not on me.

Until which time you can prove her factual fallacies or a basis upon which to say that Ann Coulter made up the facts I've typed about here, I cannot honestly say that I'd EVER believe you, an anonymous username on an internet message board, over a woman who's reached a rather lofty position in her profession based on hard work.

We're still at Square 1, and the ball's still in your court. You want to refute the evidence, then refute it. It's not on me, it's on you.

You want to down Coulter, don't just make a generalization. Show me where she's had problems with factual inaccuracies and outright lies in her professional work. Again, it's not on me, it's on you.

Sorry, but if you don't like it, lump it.

 

Excellent. I see you can be reasoned with. Consider my troll remark tenatively retracted.

Ok. By your own standards.

Al Franken has shown that Ann Coulter is a liar (Remember this is your world view not mine). I am referencing his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right - Until which time you can prove his factual fallacies or a basis upon which to say that Al Franken made up the facts I've typed about, then it must be considered true. You have the burden of proving that Ann Coulter is not a liar. You have the burden to refute this. This is your standard.

I stick by my position that Ann Coulter is a proven liar and right wing fanatic. Any and all references attributed to her are suspect and cannot be relied upon to form an objective opinion. Unless you can refute this, then all of your claims are suspect and can be ignored.

Disclaimer: To all conservatives on the board. I will never use Al Franken as a reference for my arguments. I am only applying TigerEducated's standards here.

 

Ah...See, you still haven't quite shown me what I'm after, however.

What SPECIFICALLY did Franken use to discredit Coulter? How, and what examples, were implemented? I'm just asking for facts, not for you to hide behind the title of the book.

I listed specific details I learned in the book from Coulter. You are just referencing the book from Franken. A title of a book and your word isn't enough for, I'm sorry. I've never read it, nor do I own or have the ability to go out and buy it.

Do me a favor and get specific, as I did when I listed examples of the situations I mentioned from the book I read.

Thanks for retracting the troll statement. It was almost as if I could feel the onset of a deep emotional scar forming...

 

An now for the coup de grâce.

I will be happy to delve into the minutia of Al Franken's arguments. He has plainly stated in his book that Ann Coulter is dishonest. However, I have a more powerful argument than Al Franken's facts.

Ann Coulter is a public figure who makes her money writing books and columns. Al Franken has made a public statement questioning her integrity, honesty, and credibility. If Al Fraken were lying, Ann Coulter would have a very strong libel case. She certainly has the financial means to pursue this. She could clear her name and probabaly get nicely compensated. I have not seen any lawsuits to date. Her silence is both deafening and incriminating. Her silence has made my point for me. It is evidence that she agrees that she is a liar.

Ann Coulter is a proven fanatic, zealot, and right-wing idealoge. Her entire contribution to humanity has been to write venomous diatribes agains the Democrats. She is hateful and by many measures mentally unstable. Sadly, tragically, she is the basis upon which you form your political beliefs and world view.

 

I would venture to say i give Al Franken credit for being an intelligent person. But after that he has a very focused viewpoint in furthering Al Frankens agenda. To say he is unbiased is to look at him with blinders.

All Tiger Educated asked for is for a Democrat to come with facts to defend against these statements. None of you have chosen to do so.

Instead all you say is why do you ask us to prove our point. I must admit i have not read either Al Franken or Ann Coulters book.

But i can tell you from personal interviews of Al Franken that this man does have a biased agenda against the conservative viewpoint.

I can tell you another liar that Al Franken hasnt done a book on. Bill Clinton. God didnt make many liars bigger than him.

Geaux Tigers

 

But just for grins, TE, your search for the truth should begin here here. Happy reading!

 

You've missed the point. TigerEducated's standard is to form a conclusion and require others to refute it. I responded by conclusively showing that Ann Coulter is a liar. It is up to you and TigerEducated to refute that Ann Coulter is not a liar. His rules not mine. So, don't come here and say that Democrats must refute the claims of a liar.

The board is waiting.

 

Cal: _buzz has plainly explained the problem with what TE "wants". He's come to this thread asking the liberals to dispel "facts" from a book by Ann Coulter. That's like me coming to this thread and asking you to dispel the "facts" on display in Matrix Revolutions. In my book, it's all fantasy.

That is why I referred him to Al Franken. It is a book by someone who has made a great effort to debunk Coulter. Or, as _buzz put it, until TE comes to this thread with actual facts, why should we do the research for him into what if anything Coulter said is true.

However, in a five minute Google search, I was able to find tons of articles condemning Coulter's assertions. I just linked to one above.

But here's the appalling thing about what Coulter wrote: she has classified ALL liberals as treasonous. That's a serious accusation. The gist of her argument is that ALL liberals want the America as we know it overthrown by communists, religious zealots, homosexuals and abortionists. It's so fucking stupid it really is boderline comedy. It's like she is her own satirist. That's why, until TE comes with something from an actual factual source, it's really not worth debating.