I got a question about Ann Coulter?

Question

Haven't read her books yet, but i've hear her speak, and it seems she talks more out of her own opinion than actual facts. If I do read her books am I gonna get actual fact/truth with resources on her idiotic spews or is it just gonna be the mind of a maniac rant?

Answer 1

She speaks her opinions about how she see things... she rants, so why deny yourself of the opportunity to rant as well.

Answer 2

The Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse

6/9/2006
Because Some Things Are More Profane Than Profanity - Ann Coulter's Possible Plagiarism (Updated June 14 With Links To More Examples):
Here's the segment of yesterday's post on Ann Coulter that deserves more attention. If you want the full double-barrel of anti-Coulter rudeness, you can still check it out. But for those with delicate constitutions who want to take Coulter down, here ya go:

Ann Coulter has a bad habit. And that habit, as mentioned before by the Rude Pundit (followed up by Raw Story), is that she appears to like to copy whole sentences from other sources without putting them in as quotes or even citing where she might have "paraphrased" from. You judge for yourself:

Here's Coulter from Chapter 1 of Godless: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.

Here's the Portland Press Herald, from the year 2000, in its list of the "Maine Stories of the Century": The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.

Strangely similar, no? By the way, that's a story from 1976. Coulter doesn't tell you that little tidbit, making you think it happened last week. The next one's from 1977:

Here's Coulter writing about an attack on the Alaska pipeline: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil.

Here's something from the History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground.

Why, in this age of the "terrorist," would Coulter use "saboteur," a quaint term, to be sure? Could it be a cut and paste job with a couple of words changed, like a good college freshman?

So you judge. Sure, it's just two incidents in a single chapter. But does it speak to other potential strange similarities throughout the book? Is it plagiarism? The Rude Pundit's not saying it is plagiarism, but he's not saying it's not. How harshly would Coulter judge a liberal writer for doing the same? Or would she have to be silent?

Update: Looking for more examples? Check out the Rude Pundit on June 14 and an article from Raw Story.

Answer 3

It will include sources.

Whether this is fact or not is still a matter to be decided... a lot of research, surveys, polls, etc., are terribly done and you're not going to be able to get that information from the book... same with news sources, many are terrible.

The facts will be used to back up opinions, and disputing the facts is... well important but not necessarily possible. Just beware of "Facts" which are the result of this other Fact + This other Fact = New Fact that I made up.

I don't understand the point of reading a book by a professional woman author who says women shouldn't have careers anyway.

Answer 4

She's attractive and speaks to what a certain group of people want to hear. Most conservatives just want to hear rantings by people that they agree with. She's also a guest on liberal programs (Like Bill Maher's) because Liberal shows actually want to hear both sides of the argument. If you tune into a conservative show (or the entire Fox News Network) you'll notice little dissent or a very weak liberal commentator (I.E. Combs) that they can break down easily, because all they care about is ratings and preaching to the choir. But mostly, she gets programmed because she's attractive, if she wasn't, I'd doubt she'd get much attention at all.

Answer 5

If you believe what Rush says, then you will probably believe her. She would say they are facts, but they are a little twisted and her arguments leave out facts that don't support her conclusion. I pretty much think she has the mind of a maniac rant, so if you read her, read her with an open mind.

Answer 6

Ann Coulter is really George Bush dressed in drag, if you look at the Adams apples they match. So the books that Bush has written under the pen name Ann Coulter will be filled with half truths, innuendos and down right lies. If it were a news paper the only use I could find in it is to wrap the fish guts in to get rid of them.

Answer 7

She is another entertainer such as O'Reilly & Hannity & Limbaugh.

If you can get past the hateful venom, she does provide an alternative view of American political life. She is not some one I would listen to on a regualr basis but she is entertaining.

Answer 8

Ann Coulter can say and think what she wants too, but the "Spinsanity" web site says she gets her facts wrong quite frequently. I suggest you read William F. Buckley instead. You might not agree with him, but he is no dummy. Ann Coulter is more of a demagogue.

Answer 9

It's simply the classic "using only the facts that support your opinion" technique... it's implied by almost every political writer... no objectivity... no "devil's advocate"...

Michael Moore does it, franken does it, Hanity, Oriely, Rush... pretty much everyone.... cherry picking facts with no concern for logic or context...

you can prove almost anything if you look at enough information and apply it out of context

Answer 10

Okay, yes she can rant..

I love her and shes passionate about her beliefs. I have to disagree about her speaking as a matter of opinion. In her writings, shes fanatical about facts and sources and publishes them. Read some of her archives, I think although sometimes shes rough, shes usually always right.

Answer 11

I've read two of her books, and really she just states her opinion as a fact. Really the same as all political writers. If you are not a conservative then her books will probably just upset you more than anything.