6 of 58 people found the following review helpful
"How to lie with footnotes",
This review is from: Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Hardcover)
That's a chapter title in Al Franken's excellent book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", and it's all about Ann Coulter.
Senator Elect Franken masterfully demonstrates how this writer lies in the body of her text then admits to the lies in her footnotes- or her end notes- which the vast majority of her fans are unlikely to read.
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 9, 2009 7:37:34 AM PST
Edward S. Arther says:
The only thing that Franken has ever "masterfully demonstrated" is his ability to make an a*s of himself. Coulter debated Franken concerning her supposed "lies" and as usual, Coulter dominated her adversary and Franken came off like a petulant child. See it for yourself on YouTube. The only things I can recall Franken ever proving was that Coulter misidentified someone's grandfather as their father (an utterly inconsequential error in the context of the point she was making), and something about whether the NYT published something about Dale Earnhart's death or not. That's it. Wow. Masterful. With smoking-gun evidence like that, I'm surprised it didn't bring down the entire Republican Party. Obviously, the difference between "father" and "grandfather" was the lynchpin that was holding the entire conservative agenda together. If she tried to pass off a whopper like that, obviously her views on national security, abortion, taxes and healthcare should be summarily rejected.
Also, you do realize that Coulter is under no obligation to footnote anything in her books, right? But she does it anyway as a service to her readers. So, basically Franken's theory is that Coulter lies in the text and admits to the lies in the footnotes voluntarily? Here's a question: if Coulter is such a shameless liar, why would she voluntarily include information in the book to prove that she's a liar? I thought the general objective of lying was to (ideally) get away with telling the lies. Oh, I know! Maybe Coulter WANTED to get caught. Yeah, that's it. So she told massive lies on every page of her book and then carefully footnoted her falsehoods as a courtesy to Franken so that he could then expose her as a liar. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Coulter has recently published a couple of columns detailing Franken's shameless election fraud tactics going on in Minnesota. I wonder if Franken returned the favor and sent Ann the details of how his campaign managed to spontaneously "find" hundreds of additional votes for him that had not been counted on election night? That would have been the nice thing to do, but he's probably really busy "finding" more votes than there are actual people in some of those Minn. precincts so I suspect she did that research herself. But really, in light of that shockingly unethical father/grandfather fraud Coulter perpetrated, she is in no position to judge Franken for something inconsequential like stealing an election. Who does she think she is?
Posted on Jan 9, 2009 8:13:33 AM PST
First, you don't even use your own thoughts but instead steal the thoughts of others. Second, you use a book written over four years ago to critique another book written a few weeks ago.
Anyone who reads Franken but hasn't read Coulter is likely to be fooled by Franken's dishonest attempts to smear Ann. But anyone who has read both realizes that Ann is on solid ground when it comes to the truth.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2009 1:36:41 PM PST
juan bobo says:
LOL republicans crying stolen election. Pot Meet the Kettle.
BTW: Maybe you guys missed the November 4th memo about attack politics not working anymore. Go rebuild you party and get a new strategy or we'll just keep winning. Buh Bye
‹ Previous 1 Next ›