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.