Liberal Media Bias - Ann Coulter Drinking Game Version - Page 6

I agree with his opinions on the teaching of reading. I discovered his views on other subjects mentioned in this thread years later. His opinions on those matters I can leave be neither agreeing nor disagreeing strongly with them.

A couple points... one has anyone ever "won" the editorial page?

Second, I'm pretty sure George Will, who has been around quite a while, didn't intentionally just make up numbers. Perhaps he took it from a non-primary source, or something of that nature, but there have been websites like http://www.climateaudit.org/ that have found flaws in the data of primary sources.

EDIT:
I think I found the source for what George Will claims.

I'm not going to run everything on that blog to prove it right or wrong, but the point that he wasn't just making it up stands. A second point of serious consideration should be that you don't disprove someone by citing a single day in a year. It is clear the amount of ice cycles up and down by approximately 5 million to 7 million sq. km a year. The fact that they don't match on a particular day really doesn't appear to mean squat. I would suggest it is using some sort of rolling averages.

Reading that diary I'm struck by the strange tone in it that I have read so many times in pieces from a liberal perspective. It amounts to, "I know I broke the rules, didn't comply with requests and that a lay person might interpret these actions as aggressive but I don't get what their fucking problem happens to be."

I would call it getting smacked in the face with the real life outcomes of the "intent" game.

We've seen it on these forums and so many times in liberal pieces, the actions are wrong, the conclusions can't be justified, but the intentions are good so all must be well.

Deficit spending under Bush and a surge in Iraq = bad because Bush has bad intentions.

Voting for FISA, incredibly massive deficit spending and a surge in Afghanistan = good because Obama has the right intentions.

This dude got smacked by his own intentions.

I did not find her response to be satisfactory. When it was my turn in line, I walked onto the stage, and toward Coulter. I was immediately cut off by two security officials, one a police officer, one in plainclothes. They said that I could not come up to her table if I did not have a book. I said I just wanted to ask a question, and approached the table. At no point did I make physical contact with anyone on stage. I simply side-stepped the individuals that obstructed me.

The actions are threatening to anyone else. He thinks they aren't because well, he knows his intentions when physically approaching her.

Coulter, apparently startled by the commotion caused by the two officials, jumped backwards in her chair, as if she thought I was on the verge of attack. I suppose Coulter is used to that kind of threat, but it was certainly not my intention whatsoever. I did not lunge at her, nor yell anything at her; I only calmly walked up to her table. But, as it happened, I did not utter more than three words of my question before I was forcibly escorted to the end of the stage, led down the stairs, told "you're outta here", and again pushed in the direction of the building's exit without so much as a pause or an explanation.

Coulter is startled (but not by me I swear even though I am failing to comply with the rules and I am physically approaching her) and every other person, officers, and her interpret my actions as being on the verge of an attack, even though that isn't my INTENTION. I'm told to leave and I choose not to do so.

Not allowing myself to be physically removed without even being able to comment on what was going on, I then began to walk in the opposite direction, back toward the center of the auditorium where I had been sitting and mingling with people after the lecture. The officer suddenly started to pull my coat and grab at my shoulders. Instinctively, I didn't simply allow him to do this, and kept moving forward. I did not resist, nor did I shove or strike the officer in any way.

I'm not leaving. I'm heading back toward where I am told not to go. The officer is trying to prevent this and I do not comply but this is okay because it is "instinctual" and thus isn't really resistance.

The rest isn't worth going into but this is why I sometimes laugh and harp on reality here. Good intentions don't change bad actions in the real world.

It happens to everyone.

When you don't follow the rules for a crowd, you constitute a threat. Someone doesn't have to wait until you have assaulted them or even tossed shoes at them when they are in a private location.

The real point though is this guys disconnect from reality and how the intent game leads helps that disconnect.

The first post you made on this said it was wrong not because of what he did, but because he "gave her what she wanted."

That is still the intent game. It isn't wrong because she wanted it anymore than rape is right or wrong because "she was asking for it." It is wrong because he wanted to physically approach her and she didn't want that. She doesn't have to feel threatened in a private location just because he wants to ask a question.

I will think about it. First she called the question stupid, not him (by his own account which also includes him not being threatening by sidestepping security and "instinctually" avoiding police and security grasp while returning to the scene.) Second not liking the answer to a question isn't grounds for assault or even physical intimidation.

Again, the intent game is at play. The actions are threatening and nothing can or should discount that.

It is akin to saying a woman deserved rape because she told the man propositioning her to "fuck off."

The intent game needs to go away. Good intentions never justify bad actions.

Go punch the next guy in the nose who calls you stupid or even threaten to do it and see how you are dealt with Art.

Sidestepping security when they have stopped you is threatening. According to the report on the campus newspaper linked to from the diary, there was a Q&A session and then a book signing. He claimed to want to question her, but the reality is that he wanted to get physically close to her. He was told to leave and refused to do so.

Go to your neighbor's house. Knock on the door and ask a question. Then stick your foot in the door and keep it there declaring a good intention and a desire to see them answer the question to your satisfaction. Then when the police come to remove you, "instinctually" roll out of their grasp and circle back to the home of your neighbor.

See if they feel you aren't harassing and threatening that neighbor.

He was told not to get close to her and he ignored that. A quick search of both Google and the article notes that people were turned away from the talk due to Kendall Hall being at capacity which is 837 people. When a person clearly desire to circumvent the crowd control measures put in place to ensure security, they constitute a threat.

People on these forums and in various articles I cite use intent for faulty reasoning. You present them with evidence and they ignore it declaring "Yes but that doesn't matter because we know their true intentions on those matters."

So for example when Bush pushes FISA, it is because he is an evil son of Satan and wants to control us all. Bush declares an axis of evil and he is a warmonger.

When Obama votes for FISA, well, he is just playing the political winds, satisfying the wingers and we know he will fix it later on. Obama demands NATO tear down all the invisible walls around the world and he is bringing on peace. I suppose his surge into Afghanistan is just a peaceful gesture as well.

Bullshit is bullshit. Intend to crap out roses doesn't change the smell.

A couple points...

First, I did misread his claimed response to the Coulter question.
Second, it wasn't an open forum. It was a presentation with a Q&A and then a book signing.
Third, playing into her modus operandi, I'll consider you right, but you are naming the wrong means of operation. Coulter was claiming that liberals play the victim card. This guy has played right into that by claiming the fact he could act like a complete ass and endanger her means he is the "victim" who has had his rights assaulted.

Coulter is under no obligation to treat his question with any sort of respect. He is the VP of the College Democrats who had already taken up seats for the speech and then left them in a mass walkout per the college newspaper.

Being public doesn't mean all rules/laws go out the window. I won't be inviting myself to the Lincoln bedroom tonight nor will we both be wandering in to whatever room we desire in the Supreme Court. The group got their protest. They even got their questions. What they didn't get was the ability to get close enough to assault or harm her. He was clearly misrepresenting his actions and wouldn't follow directions. He got what he deserved and wasn't willing to extend the same courtesy.

Have you been to any political events? There is a reason most of them do not have protests going on during them and that is because they require tickets to them instead of just going open to the public. This was open to the public. He got in and that is courtesy number one.


She answered his question. If you don't like an answer to a question, then don't ask it. He makes it sound innocent in his own account and gives her response as a partial quote. What did the VP of the College Democrats think he was going to get in terms of a response from Ann Coulter? Did he think his question would just drop her to her knees and have her be awakened with some of incredible new enlightenment thanks to him?

Also (thanks for the ad-hom) merely existing isn't provoking. If you go to an Ann Coulter speech about what is wrong with liberals, and you happen to be a strident and activist liberal, you better expect to hear a message that is a bit antagonistic to your own worldview.

That isn't a provocation. He choose to go to her speech and Q&A. The point is about as ridiculous as someone walking into a strip club and complaining about all the nudity and suggestiveness. In otherwords, complete bullcrap.


You you you... blah...blah..blah... caricature...caricature...caricature.

I'll worry about the Ann Coulters in my party and you can worry about your party being totally corrupt and spending trillions.

I'll tell you what Hassan. There are dozens of posts on here where I complain about Republicans and specifically the spending of Bush.

Here is one from 2006 for example.


If I really cared, I'm sure I could dig further back than that.

I've already done part of the work for you. You claimed the criticism didn't start until after Bush was out of office and I showed I was criticizing before they had even lost the Congress.

Be your own search slave. I know what I post thank you and if you contend different then offer your own proof.