Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Slander is a vulgar book. I've read the bulk of it (until I felt ill). It's full of hatred and ad hominem attacks. Every single point goes to how evil liberals are and if we just embraced the republicans then it would all be ok. There is not a single page of the book that doesn't spew anger.
Contrast that with Al Franken. His books are obviously bias towards his view, but his attacks are done with more a sense of mirth and satire rather than flat out insults. He also doesn't make the simplistic "black/white" assumptions Coulter does.
Now I dare Wonderboy to respond without calling me liberal or assuming that my post is part of a liberal hive mind.


Considering the level of hatred, profanity, ad-hominem attacks and insults that you post on pretty much a daily basis here on RKMB, I find it laughably ironic that you would use the word vulgar to describe anyone else's writings.

I think I answered the rest of your remarks about Coulter in a previous post:

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
  • Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:
    Anne Coulter is a cunt. I [spent] about 20 minutes skimming Slander in a bookstore a few years ago. It's poorly written and no matter what page I turned to it just offered her opinions dressed as facts. It was like reading a Wonder Boy post. "Liberals are stupid here's why" "liberals lie", "liberals don't get it."
    She doesn't actually deal with issues, she just attacks the left for the sake of attacking them. Compare it to Al Franken's books which will attack a person for their actions and words. And her stuff has been shown to be poorly researched with a lot of lies. Check the endnotes on her books, there she fulfills the legal technicalities to avoid lawsuits but basically admits to misleading statements in the main text.


A liberal partisan who skimmed the chapter titles and didn't actually read the book would see it that way.

Certainly, I'd have to agree, she makes a number of sweeping anti-liberal partisan remarks that I don't take to be factual.
And as has been pointed out across at least two previous Ann Coulter topics, her more hyperbolic rhetoric often makes it easy for her more serious points to be dismissed by the left.
But these showy tactics also get her noticed, to some degree it's playful banter, and if she were such a poor writer, she wouldn't have an unbroken chain of five top-ten bestsellers.

For example, she reports how in the 2000 Bush/Gore election, using detailed statistics, how the liberal-partisan networks were quicker to call states for Gore than they were for Bush, with only a tiny fraction of the votes counted.
In particular, how Florida was falsely called for Gore prematurely, and that supressed Republican voter turnout by an estimated 35,000 votes (based on voter statistics from the two previous presidential elections in Florida).
And how these "stolen" votes by a partisan media would have decisively given Florida's electoral votes to Bush, beyond any possible dispute margin.
How Gore tried to suppress military absentee ballots int he re-counts, and other manipulations.
Not simply opinion.
Coulter makes her views with extensive statistical facts.

Coulter also compares conservative Phyllis Schlafly, and her lifetime acheivements, her scholarly works, and how she almost singlehandedly annihilated the Equal Rights Amendment, through her research, public speaking and other scholarly work.
And yet despite her achievements, has been snubbed and ignored by liberal reporters, liberal academics, and liberal feminists.
Coulter details in contrast Schlafly's achievements, as compared to the darling of liberal feminism, Gloria Steinem, who far from acheiving personal success, has been a financial and commercial failure, propped up by money from wealthy men she's had sexual relationships with, who make her appear far more successful than she truly is, and far from a model of female independence, is a kept woman. Unlike Schlafly.
Yet Schlafly is reviled by liberals, and shunned by liberal reporters and liberal publishers, while Steinem is exalted.

Coulter also details the biases of the liberal book-publishing industry, and demonstrates --again, through 40 years of extensive book-sales statistics-- that despite how conservative books statistically sell better than liberal works, they are spurned by the liberal book-publishing industry, who instead take great losses to publish the works of their pet liberal causes.
Smaller, less mainstream publishers distribute conservative works, and reap enormous profits.
Despite 4 decades of conservative book sales statistics, that show the wisdom of at least publishing a somewhat proportionate percentage of conservative works.

These are just three examples from Coulter's book Slander. That you choose to dismiss and ignore.

And how comedic that you would hold up Al Franken as a contrasting masterwork of "öbjectivity"and "research"! Whose only books I've heard of are Rush Limbaugh is a big fat ugly etc., etc. and Lying liars and the lies they tell or somesuch. Both have a sneering infantile namecalling nyah-nyah-nyah quality.
Coulter may indulge in partisan remarks at many points, but at least she has some extensive facts beyond angry insults to back up her partisan stance.