Ah, the Fox-loved faux-fox hit-girl...has she commented on her being busted yet? I seem to recall that she had hot words for a liberal (i.e., not rabidly reactionary) professor accused of the same sin.
I've seen Coulter in debate as well. She is repetitious, slanderous, and loud: yes, TC, she's quick about it, too. It works on stage or telly but the crap shines through darkly in transcripts: most of her rejoinders fall into the "stop beating your wife yet?" or "ok, never mind that (you've refuted my point and I'm ignoring your request for evidence)--do you support gay marriage or not?" kind of thing. She dodges authentic debate venues where the rules do not allow her to interrupt with put-downs and insults.
She is a bully and a coward. She is also a hate-mongering, plagiarizing opportunist, the political equivalent to the chicken-eating carnival geek: Only the second term is news. The commercial success of this political pornographer is a fitting tribute to the intellectual giant in the WH.
"Ann's point" is Ann's pocket, pure (sorta) and simple. She will dry up and blow away in time like every other bubble-headed media bleach blonde and will be justly reincarnated as an illegal alien housemaid to O'Reilly.
As a public person, Ann would have difficulty suing for either libel or slander due to others' speculations about her personal habits. She has made herself a lightning rod for criticism through outrageous statements, and I'm sure she cries all the way to the bank.
In any case, the essence of both charges is falsity, and I don't think anyone has lied about Ann here.
A quick example (I think from Farenheit) is Moore talking about the coffin ban in a way that would lead you to think that it was Bush Jnr's idea to ban the photos. He neglects to mention an important fact: that the ban was imposed in the first Gulf war by Bush Snr due to reactions from the Servicemen's families.
I remember this clearly, and I watched it happen.
After some feverish Advanced Googling, I've found someone else who does as well. Here's a recollection of the magic moment from journalist Pat Sloyan at digitaljournalist.com.
Bush was badly stung by the reality of warfare while president. After the 1989 American invasion of Panama â€“ where reporters were also blocked from witnessing a short-lived slaughter in Panama City â€“ Bush held a White House news conference to boast about the dramatic assault on the Central American leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega. Bush was chipper and wisecracking with reporters when two major networks shifted coverage to the arrival ceremony for American soldiers killed in Panama at the Air Force Base in Dover, Del. Millions of viewers watched as the network television screens were split: Bush bantering with the press while flag-draped coffers were carried off Air Force planes by honor guards. Dover was the military mortuary for troops killed while serving abroad. On Bushâ€™s orders, the Pentagon banned future news coverage of honor guard ceremonies for the dead. The ban was continued by President Bill Clinton.
How we arrive at the emergence of new strains of bacteria is not evolution because there is no new information at all, just a new order of that already extant info.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of information.
If I reorder the letters "dog" to derive "god," I have new information, yes?
If I reorder genetic code to produce a new protein, I have new information. If not, why not?
When an antibiotic destorys bacteria and a contingent of that population survive and multiply, thus leading to a new strain of bacteria. This is the normal lifecycle of all bacterium, not an evolutionary process.
I'm not sure what that sentence fragment means. But are you under the impression that antibiotics destroy all targeted bacteria and only resistant bacteria survive? That is not so. Antibiotics merely reduce the bacterial load to a level which the immune system can handle. Both strains--original and resistant--survive. Only the ratio has changed.
What defines evolution is the fact that completely new information must appear in order to slowly or quickly to achieve speciation. Since this event has only been seen within the proponents wild vagaries and has not been actualy witnessed, either on the molecular level or in any given population, there is no compelling reason to assume that something of this magnitude could ever occur.
Really? Why aren't we represented in the fossil record with the dinosaurs? Why are thousands of extant species not represented in the fossil record?
I mean, if bacteria are truly evolving all the time, then how is it that bacterium are still alive in the form we find them in today? How is it that one bacterium branched off to be the ultimate progenitor of mammals, while its far distant cousin could withstand time and natural selection without any significant change? It doesn't add up.
If Jews became Christians, why do we still have Jews?