Ann Coulter

[sohotrightnow]

nm

[Hackalicious]

While everyone is dumping on Ann... Does anyone dispute her point that the Jersey Girls shouldn't be immune from debate on their politcal points just because they are so-called "victims"?

That's a complete red herring.

No one ever said "We can't criticize these widows" and there has been ample debate over their political points.

Ann Coulter can't win a debate on the actual issues, so has to attack the messenger. She has no original ideas or expertise in anything.

That's why she's reduced to attention-whoring gimmicks and riding her "liberals are dumb" pony to peddle her book.

[Sonny]

As long as the left trots out the Jersey Girls, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, etc. in the public eye to make their points expect more criticism.

[sohotrightnow]

I believe the term she used was the Witches of New Brunswick, not the Jersey Girls. Very classy Ann.

[lil lady lax fan]

We went out to dinner recently with someone (I'm not mentioning any name for privacy's sake) who's been working on the Hill for almost 30 years, and the topic of the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment came up. She told us that many of these so called "family men" are such hypocrites. They still try hitting on her even though they have met her partner on multiple occasions and know very well that they're in a long-standing relationship (15 years). This kind of behavior happens on the Hill all the time. Just thought I'd point out their hypocracy from another perspective.

As for Ann's label of "dumb liberals," I suggest she check out their resumes before labelling them thusly. Most "liberals" tend to have a higher IQ and are better educated than their consertive counterparts. I'm not saying this is always the case, but for the most part it's true. I don't agree with the tactics of either far-left/right sides. I think most folks have gotten tired of their scare tactics.

[GrayBear]

Most "liberals" tend to have a higher IQ and are better educated than their consertive counterparts.

Source?

[sohotrightnow]

Several exit polls in elections show that liberals/Democrats are better educated as do findings by research centers. I don't know about IQ though.

http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=17
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=945

[echo 600]

late to the conversation.

I'll give her credit for this though, she's not backing down from her stance. I saw her on a couple of interviews, man, she's tenacious.

[GrayBear]

I don't know about IQ though.

Those linked appear to be telephone surveys. You have to love the methodology:

"At least 10 attempts were made to complete an interview at every sampled telephone number. The calls were staggered over times of day and days of the week to maximize the chances of making a contact with a potential respondent. All interview breakoffs and refusals were re-contacted at least once in order to attempt to convert them to completed interviews."

In my opinion, anyone with any brains (I.Q.) would tell a persistent caller like that to **** off, thus removing that target interviewee from the sampling. Since it is fair to assume that conservatives react more negatively than do liberals to people and organizations not minding their own business, we can conclude that these persons are not represented in the survey results, and that the responding target group is skewed toward liberals who are more than happy to deal with the intrusions when bullied, with a minority participation of somewhat dimmer conservatives who think the call is from the Publisher's Clearinghouse Prize Patrol --- ergo, the referenced conclusions are erroneous with respect to intelligence.

[lil lady lax fan]

The IQ comment had to do more with a study done of some of the countries political leaders, looking at the IQ of both parties. For instance, both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had higher IQ's than the two Bushes, and I believe Reagan. Not saying that smarts translates to better leadership, only that this was what the study showed. If I remember correctly they also looked at a number of the Congressional contingent.

It doesn't take intelligence to tell a pollster to **** off, only impatience.

[DanGenck]

You should read the book How to Lie with Statistics. It is a fascinating read...

[sohotrightnow]

Ok, so should I dig up the exit polls too to make you happy? I thought it was a known fact that liberals and Democrats have more post-grad degrees?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presi ... mographics

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/ele ... ndex1.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/result ... polls.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

[DanGenck]

Some of these poll questions are quite humorous/telling...

[GrayBear]

I thought it was a known fact that liberals and Democrats have more post-grad degrees?

Searching for a nexus between the above comment and the intelligence assertion. Coming up empty.

Help me here. So the more time one spends avoiding reality, acquiring "post-grad degrees" (playing the game defined by left-leaning academics) the smarter one is?

Cool.

[GrayBear]

Ok, so should I dig up the exit polls too to make you happy?

Also---if you seek to establish a position or validate an assertion, don't rely so heavily on "exit polls". These have zero probative value to me. Get some real foundation. As an example, if I'm not mistaken, Dan Rather and his ilk made a living out of citing "exit polls" to establish Democratic supremacy in the last two presidential elections. It's like the NPR polls that always predict liberal ascendancy in any given situation. Ask yourself: who would NPR talk to? (or better yet. . . who would talk to NPR?)