Ann Coulter Is A Cheat

[Invader Zim]

John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances of what he calls "textbook plagiarism" in the leggy blond pundit's "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" after he ran the book's text through the company's digital iThenticate program.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/co...lip_recchia.htm (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/copycatty_coulter_pilfers_prose__pro_nationalnews_ philip_recchia.htm)

[Monty Cantsin]

Its funny even fox-news is trying to distance itself from this woman, saying that her rhetoric ‘hurts our side’. While of course totally agreeing with her, which I mean come on she claimed that an anti-war activist delighted in the death of her husband in Iraq.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 7 2006, 04:12 PM
Its funny even fox-news is trying to distance itself from this woman, saying that her rhetoric ‘hurts our side’. While of course totally agreeing with her, which I mean come on she claimed that an anti-war activist delighted in the death of her husband in Iraq.
who was that? Cindy sheehan's son died in iraq (after re-uping), but considering her actiosn since I don't know how bad she feels.

[Morag]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 7 2006, 04:38 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 7 2006, 04:38 PM)
Monty [email protected] 7 2006, 04:12 PM
Its funny even fox-news is trying to distance itself from this woman, saying that her rhetoric ‘hurts our side’. While of course totally agreeing with her, which I mean come on she claimed that an anti-war activist delighted in the death of her husband in Iraq.
who was that? Cindy sheehan's son died in iraq (after re-uping), but considering her actiosn since I don't know how bad she feels.[/b]

Yeah, because after having raised her only son for what, 20 years, once he's dead she should become a meek, sad and weak woman for the rest of her life. She shouldn't be angry that he's dead, or suggest that the president who sent him to die is in anyway responsible for his death. We need more of those traditional war mothers, who bake cookies for their churches.

Give me a break. Are you really suggesting that because she has a mind for keeping other mother's sons from war that she didn't love her son, and wasn't heartbroken when he died?

I'm more concerned about why they have to call Coulter a leggy-blonde instead of a lawyer or a pundit or whatever. Kind of reminds me of the treatment Belinda Stronach gets.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I'm sure she feels terrible about it... she's just channeling her emotion into a positive movement which opposes the reason her son died.... it's like trying to bring the killer of a family member to justice.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Morag+Jul 7 2006, 04:47 PM--> (Morag @ Jul 7 2006, 04:47 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:38 PM

Monty [email protected] 7 2006, 04:12 PM
Its funny even fox-news is trying to distance itself from this woman, saying that her rhetoric ‘hurts our side’. While of course totally agreeing with her, which I mean come on she claimed that an anti-war activist delighted in the death of her husband in Iraq.
who was that? Cindy sheehan's son died in iraq (after re-uping), but considering her actiosn since I don't know how bad she feels.

Yeah, because after having raised her only son for what, 20 years, once he's dead she should become a meek, sad and weak woman for the rest of her life. She shouldn't be angry that he's dead, or suggest that the president who sent him to die is in anyway responsible for his death. We need more of those traditional war mothers, who bake cookies for their churches.

Give me a break. Are you really suggesting that because she has a mind for keeping other mother's sons from war that she didn't love her son, and wasn't heartbroken when he died?

I'm more concerned about why they have to call Coulter a leggy-blonde instead of a lawyer or a pundit or whatever. Kind of reminds me of the treatment Belinda Stronach gets. [/b]
1) I meant because she didn't seem to take into account her son being pro-war, plus the fact that when it happened originaly she seemed to have no problem with bush. not to mention she couldn't even get a grave for her son in the begginign

2) coulter is refered to as a "leggy blonde" because its somethign she is rather famous for. its not like she hides it..go look at the pictures on her site.



I'm sure she feels terrible about it... she's just channeling her emotion into a positive movement which opposes the reason her son died.... it's like trying to bring the killer of a family member to justice.

if shes trying to bring the killer to justice why not oppose the terrorist in iraq.

[theraven]

a good answer if you will

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week...7_02.PHP#006019 (http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_07_02.PHP#006019)

[Dean]

Though I can't comment on Coulter's plagarism because I don't know about it, I can say that the link provided by "theraven" offers little understanding of the issue. I can say this because they claim that taking a set of phrases quoted in another author's writng is not plagarism. I have seen references to other authors when a quote from a thrid author is used but was taken from the referenced author's piece, and I have had to cite authors in this same way myself. This constitutes plagarism because it is taking another's research without crediting him or her. It would be similar to using a book to advance ideas on a subject without quoting it when you write a paper on it.

[CrazyModerate]

Ann Coulter is a mindless ***** who is below the likes of O'reilly. She isn't even a pundit, which isn't a person who commands respect in the first place. She is just a mindless ***** who will defend Republican talking points, even when Republicans themselves can't agree on them. She opposes the oppressive regime of Iran, but supports turning America into a theocracy. She supports free market capitalism, but is all for farm subsidies. She deserves nobodies attention, and anyone who listens to her can be written off as having no clue when it comes to politics, economics, or reality.

[Ian]

I dont get why people even pay attention to her, she isn't intelligent, she thought Canada fought in Vietnam

[Zapata]

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." - appearing on the comedy show Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001

that being said, i think its clear that ann coulter says things like that and all the other crap in her books for the purpose of getting attention. its clear that her ideas are offensive to most people, including conservatives. shes just an attention-seeker who gets what she wants by saying ridiculous things like the above

[Anti-Red]

Ann Coulter is anal. She said women should give up the right to vote just to elect more Republicans.

[Zero]

Well, I suppose one thing can be said for her...

The more Republicans elected that end up fucking the working class more and more will bring us the revolution that much quicker ^_^.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 7 2006, 12:12 PM
an anti-war activist delighted in the death of her husband in Iraq.
Someone was willing to actually marry that insane fascist horse-faced *****?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:18 PM
Well, I suppose one thing can be said for her...

The more Republicans elected that end up fucking the working class more and more will bring us the revolution that much quicker ^_^.
That is a very cold blooded way of looking at life and politics.

You do realise that, with practically all revolutions, massive economic hardship, on the verge of and often including, famine must be endured by the working class. You want revolution at that cost? I want revolution as a result of enlightenment (call me an idealist) not due to the failings of the current system.

[Ian]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+Jul 11 2006, 10:10 AM--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ Jul 11 2006, 10:10 AM)
Monty [email protected] 7 2006, 12:12 PM
an anti-war activist delighted in the death of her husband in Iraq.
Someone was willing to actually marry that insane fascist horse-faced *****? [/b]
Not Coulter's husband.

Coulter said one antiwar activist was happy about her (the antiwar activist) husbands death I think that is saying.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 08:51 PM
Coulter said one antiwar activist was happy about her (the antiwar activist) husbands death I think that is saying.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Enigma"+--> ("Enigma")That is a very cold blooded way of looking at life and politics.[/b]
I'm a realist, so sue me =P.


"Enigma"
You do realise that, with practically all revolutions, massive economic hardship, on the verge of and often including, famine must be endured by the working class. You want revolution at that cost? I want revolution as a result of enlightenment (call me an idealist) not due to the failings of the current system.
To quote Aerosmith, "You don't know what you've got till its gone."

Most (or maybe just some, but I'm pretty sure most) people here have stated somewhere that the revolution will probably be brought on by a massive disaster. Be it another world war, exposed government conspiricy to commit terror (I.E. 9/11), natural disaster, or something of that nature that shakes people out of a lazy stupor and into the real world.

And if not a disaster, then some other sort of life-altering event.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:38 PM
who was that? Cindy sheehan's son died in iraq (after re-uping), but considering her actiosn since I don't know how bad she feels.
of course, not in YOUR perspective, because, according to you, the only reason one should mourn a human life is when that life was sacrificed for imperial expansion.

you may be too tupoy to realize this, but all that bull-shit about "your son has died for a noble cause" is ignoble flattery & empty promise. mothers have plenty reason to be upset, and even more reason to become anti-war activists.

[theraven]

of course, not in YOUR perspective, because, according to you, the only reason one should mourn a human life is when that life was sacrificed for imperial expansion.

not at all, there are pletny of reasons to mourn a person, however if one dies in service to your nation then you will undoubtedly get speical mourning, especially from people hwo ordianarily wouldn't know/care much.



you may be too tupoy to realize this, but all that bull-shit about "your son has died for a noble cause" is ignoble flattery & empty promise. mothers have plenty reason to be upset, and even more reason to become anti-war activists.

what the fuck is tupoy? of course a mother wil be upset when her son dies, but honestly if given the chioce would she rather he die from a drunk driver or serving his contry?

[Delta]

Coulter said one antiwar activist was happy about her (the antiwar activist) husbands death I think that is saying

Cindy Sheehan did not take any delight in her husband's death. What a ridiculous statement.



Did everyone see this (http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/08/adam-carolla-hangs-up-on-coulter/)? It's Coulter calling in to Adam Carolla's radio show 1.5 hours late and he hung up on the ***** :lol:

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:53 PM

Coulter said one antiwar activist was happy about her (the antiwar activist) husbands death I think that is saying

Cindy Sheehan did not take any delight in her husband's death. What a ridiculous statement.



Did everyone see this (http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/08/adam-carolla-hangs-up-on-coulter/)? It's Coulter calling in to Adam Carolla's radio show 1.5 hours late and he hung up on the ***** :lol:
1) cindy sheehans son died, not her husabnd

2) your thinking of when ann said the jersey girls were "enjoing their husbands deaths a little to much"

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:43 PM
what the fuck is tupoy? of course a mother wil be upset when her son dies, but honestly if given the chioce would she rather he die from a drunk driver or serving his contry?
This topic has been debated again and again, but I will ask you one more time; How did her dead son, or any other soldier in Iraq, serve U.S.A? My question is; was the war is Iraq a BENEFIT to U.S.A(=the American people)??How ? Did the war in Iraq made the lives of American people more secure? But now it has been PROVEN that Saddam NEVER had been a threat to the security of USA. He never had neither WMD, nor chemical weapons, nor anything else. Did the life of American people become better, or wealthier because of the war in Iraq? NO. Then how does the war in Iraq '''serve''' USA(= the American people)?

The war in Iraq does NOT serve the American people, and consequently the American soldiers in Iraq( including Sheehan's son) do NOT serve the American people even if they have been brainwashed to believe the opposite. Sheehan is angry exactly because her son was NOT serving his country. He was not fighting in order to protect USA from terrorists. He was not fighting in order to prevent another 9/11. He was serving Shell or Texaco or Mobil; and Sindy Sheehan cannot tolerate this.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:16 AM
1) cindy sheehans son died, not her husabnd

2) your thinking of when ann said the jersey girls were "enjoing their husbands deaths a little to much"
Oh yes, of course :blush:

[theraven]

Originally posted by adenoid hynkel+Jul 11 2006, 05:46 PM--> (adenoid hynkel @ Jul 11 2006, 05:46 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 03:43 PM
what the fuck is tupoy? of course a mother wil be upset when her son dies, but honestly if given the chioce would she rather he die from a drunk driver or serving his contry?
This topic has been debated again and again, but I will ask you one more time; How did her dead son, or any other soldier in Iraq, serve U.S.A? My question is; was the war is Iraq a BENEFIT to U.S.A(=the American people)??How ? Did the war in Iraq made the lives of American people more secure? But now it has been PROVEN that Saddam NEVER had been a threat to the security of USA. He never had neither WMD, nor chemical weapons, nor anything else. Did the life of American people become better, or wealthier because of the war in Iraq? NO. Then how does the war in Iraq '''serve''' USA(= the American people)?

The war in Iraq does NOT serve the American people, and consequently the American soldiers in Iraq( including Sheehan's son) do NOT serve the American people even if they have been brainwashed to believe the opposite. Sheehan is angry exactly because her son was NOT serving his country. He was not fighting in order to protect USA from terrorists. He was not fighting in order to prevent another 9/11. He was serving Shell or Texaco or Mobil; and Sindy Sheehan cannot tolerate this. [/b]
hmmmm...how woudl americans benifit from (according to your theory) controlling one of the most esstaintal parts of the middle east? with borders on three large oil producing countires. assuming the war is all about oil how would amerinca NOT benifti from having the large amoutns of oil.

seriously think things through/.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 11 2006, 07:10 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 11 2006, 07:10 PM)
Originally posted by adenoid [email protected] 11 2006, 05:46 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 03:43 PM
what the fuck is tupoy? of course a mother wil be upset when her son dies, but honestly if given the chioce would she rather he die from a drunk driver or serving his contry?
This topic has been debated again and again, but I will ask you one more time; How did her dead son, or any other soldier in Iraq, serve U.S.A? My question is; was the war is Iraq a BENEFIT to U.S.A(=the American people)??How ? Did the war in Iraq made the lives of American people more secure? But now it has been PROVEN that Saddam NEVER had been a threat to the security of USA. He never had neither WMD, nor chemical weapons, nor anything else. Did the life of American people become better, or wealthier because of the war in Iraq? NO. Then how does the war in Iraq '''serve''' USA(= the American people)?

The war in Iraq does NOT serve the American people, and consequently the American soldiers in Iraq( including Sheehan's son) do NOT serve the American people even if they have been brainwashed to believe the opposite. Sheehan is angry exactly because her son was NOT serving his country. He was not fighting in order to protect USA from terrorists. He was not fighting in order to prevent another 9/11. He was serving Shell or Texaco or Mobil; and Sindy Sheehan cannot tolerate this.
hmmmm...how woudl americans benifit from (according to your theory) controlling one of the most esstaintal parts of the middle east? with borders on three large oil producing countires. assuming the war is all about oil how would amerinca NOT benifti from having the large amoutns of oil.

seriously think things through/. [/b]
First of all, here there is a matter of morality; I mean even if we accepted that the American people benefit financially from the war on Iraq, should they support this war? I am not an American, but if was I would not support it. I would support a war declared in order to protect the security of my people, but I would not support an invasion in a foreign country, just because this war would make me a little bit wealthier.......... It is like killing an innocent person in order to take his money; I would not do such a thing.......... or maybe I would do it if I was so poor that I did not have enough money to eat.

But anyway I seriously doubt that the average American benefits IN ANY WAY from the war on Iraq; I mean let's accept that the American gov't makes a profit of 1.000.000.000$ from the war in Iraq.. Now these people, the politicians, the businessmen etc. sit down and discuss how they will distribute this money. What makes you think that, during this distribution, they say "ohh, let's give to the American people a piece of the pie''?

[adenoid hynkel]

And let's not forget that the American people are damaged in more ways from this war; I mean if before this war there were five thousand muslims willing to put a bomb in Chicago or New York, how many of them do you think that there are AFTER THIS WAR? Ten thousand??? Twenty??? fifty??? Who knows? The only thing sure is that the more the USA continues this policy of unjustified aggressiveness, the more Bin Laden will be able to recruit easily wannabe suicide bombers.

[theraven]

First of all, here there is a matter of morality; I mean even if we accepted that the American people benefit financially from the war on Iraq, should they support this war? I am not an American, but if was I would not support it. I would support a war declared in order to protect the security of my people, but I would not support an invasion in a foreign country, just because this war would make me a little bit wealthier.......... It is like killing an innocent person in order to take his money; I would not do such a thing.......... or maybe I would do it if I was so poor that I did not have enough money to eat.

its not just a lile bit more wealthy, it allows our economy to function better and gives us security


But anyway I seriously doubt that the average American benefits IN ANY WAY from the war on Iraq; I mean let's accept that the American gov't makes a profit of 1.000.000.000$ from the war in Iraq.. Now these people, the politicians, the businessmen etc. sit down and discuss how they will distribute this money. What makes you think that, during this distribution, they say "ohh, let's give to the American people a piece of the pie''?

1) i highly doubt the govenrment is making money here

2) the only people making money directly are those that are builidng things. obviously heir moeny goes like any other buissnes


And let's not forget that the American people are damaged in more ways from this war; I mean if before this war there were five thousand muslims willing to put a bomb in Chicago or New York, how many of them do you think that there are AFTER THIS WAR? Ten thousand??? Twenty??? fifty??? Who knows? The only thing sure is that the more the USA continues this policy of unjustified aggressiveness, the more Bin Laden will be able to recruit easily wannabe suicide bombers.

it was a lot mroe thne 5000 before the war, and while im sure it didnt' help things, so what?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "theraven"
its not just a lile bit more wealthy, it allows our economy to function better and gives us security

Please explain to me how pissing off the rest of the world and fucking a country to death "gives us security"? :blink:

[Zapata]

and that, raven, is exactly the problem of mindset that needs to be corrected. you acknowledge that if indeed the war is solely for oil, then it is a good thing for the united states since it has now seized a valuable oil supply and positioned itself near other such supplies. it is undeniable that this poses an economic benefit for the united states, but that is not the point.
it is not the place of powerful nations to take resources from others as they see fit. it is not americas place to harm others to secure more power for itself. not that iraq will make the us more powerful; we're looking at another vietnam with no viable avenue for complete victory. but anyways, one could make the argument that the iraq invasion did serve a humanitarian purpose, ie liberating the iraqi people from saddam. obviously things now are potentially worse than they were under saddam, but under the american plan, that will change. that being said, i think its clear that the united states is no great humanitarian crusader, and it is therefore also clear that the united states is not looking for liberation of oppressed people, so, once again, we're dealing with a gungho president who wants a fight and greed

[Zero]

"We're here to liberate you from the bonds that Saddam had over you!"

"How?"

"Kill you."

[Zapata]

getting rid of saddam was a good thing to have done, but a strategy for rebuilding the country and making it a safe place obviously should have been in place. and besides, if the united states is looking to rid the world of repressive regimes, others should have taken precedent over saddam