Thursday, July 19, 2007

You can talk at them, but they'll never hear you.

Originally, I had this as an update to this earlier article but, really, it's so precious that it deserves your undivided attention:

[ANN] COULTER: And I'll give you an example of one where they did it with hatred in their hearts, but unfortunately, they did it accurate to history, and that was 'Patton.' That was intended to make Patton look terrible, but it was accurate to history and it made Patton look great and people loved him. And that's why they don't do it accurately any more.

[CHRIS] MATTHEWS: You are dead wrong. Everybody loved 'Patton' from the first day it came out.

COULTER: But that isn't the way it was intended.

MATTHEWS: I was in the Peace Corps in Africa and everybody over there loved it when we got to see it. From the first day we loved it.

[DAVID] CORN: How could you not love that movie from the opening scene?

MATTHEWS: He's God-like. Ann, where do you get this malarkey from?

Everybody loved 'Patton.' How old were you, when 'Patton' came out. How old were you, two?

COULTER: I think you're misunderstanding.

MATTHEWS: No, I think you're wrong, Ann. I think everybody loved 'Patton.'

COULTER: Can I respond?

MATTHEWS: Who didn't like it?

COULTER: That is precisely my point, because it was made accurately.
But it was made, the people making it were intending to make Patton look bad.

MATTHEWS: Who did that?

COULTER: That is why George C. Scott turned down his Academy Award for playing Patton.

MATTHEWS: Who told you that? Who told you that?

COULTER: It's well known.

MATTHEWS: It's well known?

COULTER: Why do you think he didn't accept the award?

CORN: Why did he take the role? Why did he take the role, Ann, if he didn't want to do it?

COULTER: Why do you think he turned down the award, Chris? You never looked that up? It never occurred to you? 'I wonder why George C. Scott didn't accept his award.'

MATTHEWS: Because he said he wasn't going to a meat parade, because he didn't believe in award ceremonies because they're all about women wearing no clothes and showing off their bodies...

COULTER: By portraying Patton as negatively as possible, but by doing it accurately the American people loved it.

MATTHEWS: Facts mean nothing to you, Ann.

So what's my point? As I've already mentioned, Celestial Junk's "Paul" has a serious woody for Ann Coulter, hilariously describing her with:

You see, Annie dishes out the kind of logic your granddad might ... based on common sense, stripped of politically correct gobbledygook, and void of those endless rationalizations that are often the modus operendi of posers.

At which point, I ask you -- how can you even begin to have a conversation with someone that hopelessly deluded and criminally out of touch with reality? Seriously, it's trivially easy to demonstrate that Ann Coulter is a pathological liar and breathtakingly stupid about even the most fundamental aspects of science and yet, here's Paul, weirdly suggesting that we on the Left "seldom debate Anne [sic] on her logic."

How do you respond? What possible response is there?

And the funniest part is that, even after destroying Coulter's credibility in two quick posts, you and I both know that none of this will change Paul's outlook by even the smallest amount. He's seen my evidence (you know he's reading this), and yet, let's see how he deals with my fully-corroborated claims in his comments section:

... it's funny how they aren't capable of any more than a drive-by ... I guess that that way they don't have to actually engage in discussion.

What's to engage, Paul? Evidence of Ann's lunatic dishonesty is all over the Internet, but none of it is going to make the slightest bit of difference to you or your Blogging Tory colleagues. Rather than actually "engaging in discussion," what we get is, "Man, what a bunch of angry moonbats, ha ha!" or "Hey, thanks for the links."

And you wonder why we write you all off as a bunch of arrogant, know-nothing, mouth-breathing troglodytes? Gosh, think about it for a minute, Paul, I'm betting it'll eventually come to you.

Or maybe not.


Anonymous said...

"You see, Annie dishes out the kind of logic your granddad might ... "

forgetting that granddad was batshit crazy.

Ti-Guy said...

My grand-father had full-blown dementia and he never sounded as loony as Ann Coulter.

I think she's coking out, quite frankly.

thwap said...

Re: Paul at "Celestial Junk" and all his cohort, ... what do sane people do when this mental detritus is herded together by cynical con-artists and is formed into a disciplined voting bloc?

Like, isn't it depressing for the whole Habermasian ideal of arriving at truth through discussion, that this element is immune to reason and logic and truth?

Along those lines, ... CC, could you disable the "anonymous" posting? Some of these people are annoying, stupid fucks, and if they're too lazy to even assume an i.d. so we know who we're debating with, what sort of contribution can they make anyway?

Zorpheous said...

Ann is nothing but a Media Whore and is that outrageous and asshat stupid in order to sell her books. People put her on TV news shows because they know they get a huge ratings hit when she is because of the travelling drool and stool show she peddles. Same people slow down to watch car wrecks at the side of the road.

Zorpheous said...

The comments of and Anonymous poster are as about valuable as the ID of "Anonymous".

Of course of CC dis-allows the "Anonymous" poster option, there will be screams of censorship, CC is ignoring free speech and the old fav, "CC only wants and echo chamber"

Personally I think CC was an asshat for his original post about Wanda, not the point he was trying to make, just the method of ho he choose to make. I still think his point is very valid.

I support CC, his message, but not the method,... kind of like I support the troops but not the mission (or at least this current mission)

E in MD said...,9171,904789,00.html

I could curious as to what the Adam's Apple was yammering about so I did a little research.

Apparently Scott turned down the Oscar because he didn't like the Oscars. The first time around he felt that he wasn't in competition with other actors. The second time around he called the Oscars a 'goddamned Meat Parade' and sent a telegram to them which read:

"I respectfully request that you withdraw my name from the list of nominees. My request is in no way intended to denigrate my colleagues. Furthermore, peculiar as it may seem, I mean no offense to the Academy. I simply do not wish to be involved." It was a polite request. Elsewhere, however, Scott was a little more explicit. "The whole thing is a goddam meat parade," he said. "I don't want any part of it."

So yet again, she's talking out of her ass.

notnonny said...

I'm in love with Anne Coulter:'m_In_Love_With_Anne_Coulter.mp3

Red Tory said...

Don't forget the infamous interview with Fifth Estate host Bob McKeown, where Coulter said, "Canada used to of our most...most loyal friends, and vice versa. I mean, Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" McKeown contradicted her with, "No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam." After both had insisted repeatedly, the exchange ended with Coulter's saying, "Well, I’ll get back to you on that." She never did. Ann Coulter — LIAR and fraud (amongst other things...)

CC said...


I do link to that incident back here. Follow the link under the text "she's unspeakably stupid, too".

Red Tory said...

Oops. My bad.