Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerek
Technically, you didn't refute anything she said, you simply dismissed it because of the source. Those are two different issues.
I'm personally not a big fan of Limbaugh or Coulter either because they both destroy their own credibility with their over-the-top hate rhetoric towards liberals. In fact, I disagree with almost anything Limbaugh says just on general principal. Ann Coulter is only marginally better, but at least she does include facts and statistics in her article along with the obligatory rhetoric. Some are irrelevant (such as the case of the elderly couple that could both get a "boob job" if they wanted it) and others are questionable at best (I have serious doubts about African-Americans just having an inexplicably high infant-mortality rate).
However, a lot of what she says is not so easy to refute such as countries using different standards to determine infant mortality rate and cancer survival. These and several other facts in her article are legitimate points for discussion.
|
I never claimed to refute anything she said in this article, indeed, I said I saw the whole "stupid liberal" rheteoric, recognized the language and style, and then saw my suspicions confirmed. What I just said in my previous post was that I stopped reading it as soon as I saw that it "descended into hate" as someone put it earlier.
If he was so confident in this person and her PoV, why was she not named as the author? Not even a quote box and the original title and copywright were omitted. Bit shady if you ask me.
And yes, both her and Limbaugh are crazies. Same with Beck. They ARE polarizing people who make money saying outrageous things. The message is lost amongst their constant need for attention and fame. How are we expected to take these people seriously when they are so far to the right wing they almost have another party?