NationStates Jolt Archive

Who would win in a debate between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter?

EDIT: Oh, and in case any non-Americans aren't aware. Michael Moore is a fat, Liberal conspiracy-theorist, who made the movie, Fahrenheit 9\11. Ann Coulter is a Conservative and pretty much the only girl in the entire world, who the term "feminazi" actually applies. She once told a disabled Vietnam veteran on TV, "People like you caused us to lose the war."

Ann Coulter because of the aura of icy hatred surrounding her would freeze anything to death

Ann Coulter, simply because she would slip poison into the food that Mikey would inevitably munch on during the debate.

I'd have to say Ann Coulter, and probaly half way into the debate Ann Coulter would be holding a whip over a crawling Moore....

Oh God...Ann Coulter no question.

Both are pretty much idiots, but Ann Coulter doesn't produce biased piles of shit to try and pursuade Americans to vote a certain way. And fails.

Even though she's a demogogue with a pitbull attitude, Ann would wipe the floor with Moore in a debate. He's done so many alternate-history "documentaries" that he probably believes his distortions. Ann may exaggerate and be inflammatory, but she doesn't play as fast and loose with the facts as Moore does.

Oh God...Ann Coulter no question.

Both are pretty much idiots, but Ann Coulter doesn't produce biased piles of shit to try and pursuade Americans to vote a certain way. And fails.
I see you are either a close minded republican twit or have never read an ann coulter editorial, aka steaming pile of hateful bullshit

Ann Coulter, if only because she's very beautiful, and would just kick his very large behind physically, even if she lost.

I'm a liberal (okay, socialist) and I hate to admit it, but Coulter, despite her shrill voice and icy attitude, the woman is smart, and Michael Moore frankly annoys the living s**t out of me half the time, so I would say Coulter, unless Moore happens to lose his balance and beach himself on top of Anne, thereby crushing her and winning by default.

Ihatevacations']I see you are either a close minded republican twit or have never read an ann coulter editorial, aka steaming pile of hateful bullshit

Okay, how about "steaming piles of hateful shit on celluloid?" ;)

Oh God...Ann Coulter no question.

Both are pretty much idiots, but Ann Coulter doesn't produce biased piles of shit to try and pursuade Americans to vote a certain way. And fails.

You've never read her hate-filled demonic belchings she calls books? They practically fellate George W. Bush.

But, yeah Coulter would annihilate Moore. She was a lawyer by trade, if I remember correctly. Moore wouldn't know how to handle himself in a debate.

Ihatevacations']I see you are either a close minded republican twit or have never read an ann coulter editorial, aka steaming pile of hateful bullshit
Yes, but at the end of the day she is not producing them in an effort to get people to vote for the candidate she endorses. She's just doing it cause she's a crazy bitch.

Both are psychotic and equally irrational.

....but I would root for Coulter because her manaical hatred for liberals amuses me. :D

Ihatevacations']I see you are either a close minded republican twit or have never read an ann coulter editorial, aka steaming pile of hateful bullshit

I'm a moderate, thanks.

I've read her editorials, and have seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Both are biased. Ann Coulter, however, is not a complete idiot.

Ann Coulter, mostly because Moore would be way too afraid to piss her off, for fear of death.

Can there be a rule for this debate that neither of them is allowed to use any facts for his/her argument that aren't, well, facts? Because that would make it much more interesting, and more difficult for both.

If that rule were in place, I feel like Moore might win, on the grounds that he seems prone more to distortions of the truth than to outright B.S. (not to mention that he doesn't tend to propose quite such brilliant plans as invading all Muslim countries, "kill[ing] their leaders, and convert[ing] them to Christianity"...). :rolleyes:

I'm a moderate, thanks.

I've read her editorials, and have seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Both are biased. Ann Coulter, however, is not a complete idiot.

You are NOT moderate, sir.

Moore would eat coulter but he would then die of food poisening so a draw.....


And by the way nothing like seeing two close-minded idealouges fight it out by stateing their opionion over and over again but only louder.... (9\11 was a good movie though, entertaining wise)(oh and I'm a liberal)

I'm a moderate, thanks.

I've read her editorials, and have seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Both are biased. Ann Coulter, however, is not a complete idiot.
From latest article:
"There are Arabs locked up at Guantanamo, no? Admittedly, not enough. (And not under what any frequent flier would describe as "harsh conditions.") Still and all, Arabs are locked up there. That is what we call a "purpose.""

you were saying what again? Moore manipulates facts but at least he USES facts

You are NOT moderate, sir.

Thank you for telling me my political beliefs, sir or madam. I did not realize that you had the authority to do so. :D

Economic Left/ Right: 1.75
Libertarian/ Authortarian: 2.46

I'm pretty moderate, thank you.

I'm not sure how you can say that Coulter is a feminazi. Most feminazi are on the other end of the political spectrum, by Pelosi...

Ihatevacations']From latest article:
"There are Arabs locked up at Guantanamo, no? Admittedly, not enough. (And not under what any frequent flier would describe as "harsh conditions.") Still and all, Arabs are locked up there. That is what we call a "purpose.""

you were saying what again? Moore manipulates facts but at least he USES facts

And how is that not fact? Arabs ARE locked up at Guantanamo. Are they under harsh conditions? Of course. She was wrong on that one.

Moore, because Coulter can't juggle all the exaggerations, mistruths, distortions, innuendos and lies indefinitely. I've seen her inability to recover once caught out on bullshit on more than one occasion. Her standard attempt to recover usually involves ratcheting up the shrill quality of her voice, downplaying the BS she's been caught out on, and demanding incessantly that the debate move forward. Like anyone gives a crap whether she saves face on camera.

Thank you for telling me my political beliefs, sir or madam. I did not realize that you had the authority to do so. :D

Economic Left/ Right: 1.75
Libertarian/ Authortarian: 2.46

I'm pretty moderate, thank you.

I have the authority to read your posts and make logical conclusions, sir.

Anyone can make up their political compass, and it means very little, in the end. What you actually say identifies where you sit much more accurately.

Ihatevacations']
you were saying what again? Moore manipulates facts but at least he USES facts
Actually, the claim that it's purpose at this point is to house arabs isn't far off. Of course, she's using it as a noun when it should be used as an adjective with one of the following behind it: Terrorist, fighter, asshole that may or may not just have been wandering around on the battlefield for no particular reason etc.. However, most if not all of those in guantanamo are of arab descent.

I don't know who would win, but I'm pretty sure we'd all lose.

I've never heard of her, but if Ann Coulter is even half of what everyone says she is Michael Moore is going down.

I have the authority to read your posts and make logical conclusions, sir.

Anyone can make up their political compass, and it means very little, in the end. What you actually say identifies where you sit much more accurately.

I actually just took the test again yesterday, and those were my results.

Go on, then. What have I said that makes me "NOT moderate"?

Ehhhh tough but I would pick moore. I watched her loose it with O'Reilly once. She went on about the great american hero McCarthy and he just kept repeating "I'm not buying it" and she didn't recover too well.....

What areas on the political compass are considered moderate? Just curious...

Where is the debate being held?
If in the US, Coulter, because apparently more than half of America agrees with her view of the world.
If anywhere else, Coulter would be in jail for genocidal tendencies and Nazi populism. And Moore would be thin, because he wouldn't be eating as much junk food (although he apparently doesn't eat junk food).

What areas on the political compass are considered moderate? Just curious...

I'd say around +/-3 on both scales. That's just my view.

I say Ann because there is NO fact that Micheal Moore can touch without Editing for his own personal views. thus Ann (who has at least some integrety for the facts) would win.

besides, she's prettier than Micheal Moore so I'll give her bonuses on that.

Ehhhh tough but I would pick moore. I watched her loose it with O'Reilly once. She went on about the great american hero McCarthy and he just kept repeating "I'm not buying it" and she didn't recover too well.....

:eek: You watched O'Reilly?

Ehhhh tough but I would pick moore. I watched her loose it with O'Reilly once. She went on about the great american hero McCarthy and he just kept repeating "I'm not buying it" and she didn't recover too well.....
Yeah, but that's what O'Reilly says to everyone. I've lost a lot of respect for him since he turned into a great big blubbering vagina. This happened sometime between 2002-2003. He still occasionally makes a good point, but much less than he used to.

If sober and well, Michael Moore would lose. Coulter would send him running off like a scared little piglet. If Moore were drunk, he'd probably eat Coulter.

So in a nutshell:

Sober Moore < Ann Coulter
Drunk Moore > Ann Coulter

Both are pretty much idiots, but Ann Coulter doesn't produce biased piles of shit to try and pursuade Americans to vote a certain way. And fails.

I've read her editorials, and have seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Both are biased. Ann Coulter, however, is not a complete idiot.

Well, which is it? Are they both pretty much idiots? Or are they both biased, though Coulter is not completely an idiot?

Make up your mind!

If sober and well, Michael Moore would lose. Coulter would send him running off like a scared little piglet. If Moore were drunk, he'd probably eat Coulter.

So in a nutshell:

Sober Moore < Ann Coulter
Drunk Moore > Ann Coulter

I love your first analogy!

Well, which is it? Are they both pretty much idiots? Or are they both biased, though Coulter is not completely an idiot?

Make up your mind!

They're both idiots, both biased, but Ann Coulter is just less so than Moore.

They're both idiots, both biased, but Ann Coulter is just less so than Moore.
Hmm, IMO Coulter is more biased.

EDIT: But less of an idiot.

:eek: You watched O'Reilly?

A sometimes insomniac. You watch just about anything. ;)

I say Coulter is so biased she throws compasses off. I say she's as idiotic and snappish as a half-starved ferret.

I say Coulter is so biased she throws compasses off. I say she's as idiotic and snappish as a half-starved ferret.


That really depends on whether or not the stuff she spouts is true.

For example, I read a couple chapters of her book None dare call it TREASON which was about how McCarthy was really right and all present day liberals are the product of a gradual acceptance of Communism.

My decision was that her entire thesis was probably utter BS, but she did have excellent references. So if the references were factual, then there is in fact a liberal conspiracy. But I'm not going to waste my time tracking down all her references to prove her right. I already knew liberals were bad before I read the book.

Ann Coulter, mostly because Moore would be way too afraid to piss her off, for fear of death.

She is all bark. (haha, I didn't even intend any pun).

Did anyone else see tape-clip of a speech she gave where someone wielded a pastry at her and she instantly and cowardly fled offstage in terror? Hi-larious!

I say Ann because there is NO fact that Micheal Moore can touch without Editing for his own personal views. thus Ann (who has at least some integrety for the facts) would win.

besides, she's prettier than Micheal Moore so I'll give her bonuses on that.
Since when does Ann Coulter care about the facts at all? Yes, Michael Moore is kinda crazy, and likes to spin things. But Ann Coulter suggested that being a liberal is treason (which, btw, is a federal crime punishable by death). She suggested that half (slightly under, unfortunately) of the country be killed.
While there are a few right-wing nutters on NS who would agree (despite the general left-leaning tendencies of NS, the NS right-wing nutters are truly one-of-a-kind) but I think that MOST people on both sides would agree that that's a pretty dumb idea.
Oh yeah, and she also lies and BSes constantly, and tries to make it look like W is a saint or something.
Oh, and in her books she has people saying bad things that they never said.
And says things as evidence to back up her (false) claims that are, well, not true.

Basically, she takes the same approach as Bill O'Reilly... if I yell loud enough, and say that it's true, then enough people will believe me that I can make money.

The three of them are all @$$holes. I happen to agree with some of Moore's points, but that doesn't make him any less of an @$$hole.

Who would win in a debate?

....

Trick question. They'd both just start yelling things that didn't make any sense and interrupt each other. No debate.
If there was a "facts required" rule, both of them would claim that what they're saying were in fact, well, facts, and then start yelling at the moderator when s/he disputed the "fact" that the moon is made of green cheese and is harboring terrorists.

That really depends on whether or not the stuff she spouts is true.

For example, I read a couple chapters of her book None dare call it TREASON which was about how McCarthy was really right and all present day liberals are the product of a gradual acceptance of Communism.

My decision was that her entire thesis was probably utter BS, but she did have excellent references. So if the references were factual, then there is in fact a liberal conspiracy. But I'm not going to waste my time tracking down all her references to prove her right. I already knew liberals were bad before I read the book.

1. Her sources are wrong. Not all of them, of course. But most.

2. "liberals are bad"??? that's a rather sweeping claim. care to defend it at all? because quite frankly it's rather offensive...

Did anyone else see tape-clip of a speech she gave where someone wielded a pastry at her and she instantly and cowardly fled offstage in ? Hi-larious!

I bet we all can imagine what Moore would do if in Coulter's position....

burp

I bet we all can imagine what Moore would do if in Coulter's position....

burp
lol that could work two ways...

1. (the one I think you meant) Moore has a pastry brandished at him. His eyes go misty. He eats. :burp:.
2. (my preference) Moore is "in her position" as in "is where she is" (taking "position" literally) and eats her. Ohh, imagine the heartburn after ingesting pure rabid hatred like that....

1. Her sources are wrong. Not all of them, of course. But most.

2. "liberals are bad"??? that's a rather sweeping claim. care to defend it at all? because quite frankly it's rather offensive...

I should have qualified that by saying most liberals.

Short of some of the people I work with at my job, I don't know many liberals who contribute in worthwhile ways to our society. They just complain and bitch about everything that most normal people agree on. Yes, I know you think my opinion is biased. Like most people who have not been brainwashed by the media elite, I could care less what you think.

1. (the one I think you meant) Moore has a pastry brandished at him. His eyes go misty. He eats. :burp:.
2. (my preference) Moore is "in her position" as in "is where she is" (taking "position" literally) and eats her. Ohh, imagine the heartburn after ingesting pure rabid hatred like that....

I'll leave it up to your imagination ;)

Ann Coulter is evil incarnate. She has said almost nothing of value beyond sad amusement her entire life, and it frankly terrifies me that so many people have said things like "Ann Coulter doesn't play hard and loose with the facts."

Lets go through some of her gems, shall we?

On Muslims: "We should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

On desegregation: "School desegregation led to students knifing each other in the hallways in between acts of sodomy."

On Democrats: "There are no good Democrats."

On the environment: "God says, "'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"

On journalists: "I think, on the basis of the recent Supreme Court ruling that we can't execute the retarded, American journalists commit mass murder without facing the ultimate penalty," Ms. Coulter told me. "I think they are retarded. I'm trying to communicate to the American people and I have to work through a retarded person!"

On Dick Cheney: "Cheney is my ideal man. Because he's solid. He's funny. He's very handsome. He was a football player. People don't think about him as the glamour type because he's a serious person, he wears glasses, he's lost his hair. But he's a very handsome man. And you cannot imagine him losing his temper, which I find extremely sexy. Men who get upset and lose their tempers and claim to be sensitive males: talk about girly boys. No, there's a reason hurricanes are named after women and homosexual men, it's one of our little methods of social control. We're supposed to fly off the handle."

On Oklahoma City: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

On the Kennedys: ""This is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as "Camelot." Why would anyone want such people as their "good friends"?"

I doubt she could comport herself well in a debate, after reading these.

coulter would own moore in anything

like the book says "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man"

for one thing...when coulter uses facts, they are actually RELEVANT to one another

moore on the other hand would probably try and make the argument that having George W. Bush as the president (w00t!), it put him under so much stress he bloated like the chick from willy wonka

getting down to it...moore is a "fat, stupid, liberal, Commie, monkey-faced, unshaven, retarded, pinko, flatulent, socialist, globular", traitorous, worthless steaming pile of shit

coulter may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least she uses real facts

/rant

Who would win in a debate between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter?

EDIT: Oh, and in case any non-Americans aren't aware. Michael Moore is a fat, Liberal conspiracy-theorist, who made the movie, Fahrenheit 9\11. Ann Coulter is a Conservative and pretty much the only girl in the entire world, who the term "feminazi" actually applies. She once told a disabled Vietnam veteran on TV, "People like you caused us to lose the war."

Sorry there President Scrub, but Feminazi's are nasty looking, goose stepping leftists. She doesn't fit the bill.

"Ann Coulter doesn't play hard and loose with the facts."
If you go back and read my initial post, I said: "Ann doesn't play as fast and loose with the facts as Moore does." :)

For the record, I don't think Moore would know a fact if it was deep fried in lard and had MM in ketchup in the middle of it.

Ann Coulter is evil incarnate. She has said almost nothing of value beyond sad amusement her entire life, and it frankly terrifies me that so many people have said things like "Ann Coulter doesn't play hard and loose with the facts."

Lets go through some of her gems, shall we?

On Muslims: "We should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."


This was definitely ill-advised rhetoric.


On desegregation: "School desegregation led to students knifing each other in the hallways in between acts of sodomy."

I don't know the context, but this sounds pretty loony.


On Democrats: "There are no good Democrats."


There are probably a few stashed somewhere. One of my neighbors is a Democratic state representative, and she is a fairly sensible individual.


On the environment: "God says, "'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"


This might have been sarcasm...

On journalists: "I think, on the basis of the recent Supreme Court ruling that we can't execute the retarded, American journalists commit mass murder without facing the ultimate penalty," Ms. Coulter told me. "I think they are retarded. I'm trying to communicate to the American people and I have to work through a retarded person!"

Journalists aren't retarded. Most of them are deviously smart, including Coulter herself. IMNSHO Journalists who subscribe to the liberal media's party line are the most devious and smart... they know which side their bread is buttered on, even if it's not the side of truth.

On Dick Cheney: "Cheney is my ideal man. Because he's solid. He's funny. He's very handsome. He was a football player. People don't think about him as the glamour type because he's a serious person, he wears glasses, he's lost his hair. But he's a very handsome man. And you cannot imagine him losing his temper, which I find extremely sexy. Men who get upset and lose their tempers and claim to be sensitive males: talk about girly boys. No, there's a reason hurricanes are named after women and homosexual men, it's one of our little methods of social control. We're supposed to fly off the handle."

Sounds like one of the conversations you have when you're drunk that aren't really supposed to go anywhere, but end up on a court docket anyways. Not that I have ever drank alcohol, but that's what I hear.


On Oklahoma City: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."


Pointless rhetoric. Some people at the NYT are responsible journalists.


On the Kennedys: ""This is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as "Camelot." Why would anyone want such people as their "good friends"?"

I doubt she could comport herself well in a debate, after reading these.

Not all of the Kennedy's were bad. Teddy has earned his reputation, but all the other Kennedys were mostly stellar citizens until they got killed. (Aside from the minor indiscretions of JFK)

Michael Moore would win in a debate. Ann Coulter doesn't actually debate, she just fires insults in every direction and burdens us with opinion. Moore at least makes an argument, and while you may doubt the veracity of some of his claims at least there is a thread of rationality there.

Michael answers the question, Ann attacks you for asking it.

I voted for Michael Moore, because he is the only one of the two that I know that would debate cleanly. Ann Coulter, will be among the first to say something nasty about Moore. Besides that, I dislike Coulter. I absolutely hate her opinions against my country. Bitch.

I was hoping in the physically fighting sense when I first clicked...

I haven't actually kept track of what Coulter has said about Canada. I apologize on behalf of the rest of America for whatever she has said that has touched your core so deeply.

This was definitely ill-advised rhetoric.
I'd say so. In the extreme. Why people still listen to her is beyond me.

I don't know the context, but this sounds pretty loony.
I read it in a Time Magazine profile of her. So I don't know the context.

There are probably a few stashed somewhere. One of my neighbors is a Democratic state representative, and she is a fairly sensible individual.
I like to think I'm sensible.

This might have been sarcasm...
Nope. Complete context:

COULTER: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.

PETER FENN (Democratic strategist): Oh, OK.

COULTER: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.

FENN: This is a great idea.

COULTER: God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

FENN: Terrific. We're Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth's resources...

COULTER: Yes! Yes.

FENN: ... as fast as we possibly can.

COULTER: As opposed to living like the Indians.

Journalists aren't retarded. Most of them are deviously smart, including Coulter herself. IMNSHO Journalists who subscribe to the liberal media's party line are the most devious and smart... they know which side their bread is buttered on, even if it's not the side of truth.
Exactly. I don't know what she was talking about.

Sounds like one of the conversations you have when you're drunk that aren't really supposed to go anywhere, but end up on a court docket anyways. Not that I have ever drank alcohol, but that's what I hear.
Except that it's normal for her.

Pointless rhetoric. Some people at the NYT are responsible journalists.
Note the implicit endorsement of the bombing of the building.

Not all of the Kennedy's were bad. Teddy has earned his reputation, but all the other Kennedys were mostly stellar citizens until they got killed. (Aside from the minor indiscretions of JFK)
Again, you're proving why she should never, ever, be trusted.


If you go back and read my initial post, I said: "Ann doesn't play as fast and loose with the facts as Moore does." :)

For the record, I don't think Moore would know a fact if it was deep fried in lard and had MM in ketchup in the middle of it.
Yeah, I know, but it didn't make grammatical sense in my post that way :). Buy you a non-alcoholic beer to make up for it.

Michael Moore had some factual information in his movies. He also had some bullshit.

Oh God...Ann Coulter no question.

Both are pretty much idiots, but Ann Coulter doesn't produce biased piles of shit to try and pursuade Americans to vote a certain way. And fails.

Maybe she doesn't produce biased pile of shit in order to make people vote a certain way, however she DOES produce biased piles of shit. In fact her whole existence is based upon biased piles of shit. Its the only reason she's even acknowledged. Anne Coultier is NOT a feminazi by the way. She couldn't be a feminist if she tried. and she is so Militant a republican it would be IMPOSSIBLE. She's just a **** not a feminazi. ANd there are plenty of women in the world who the term "feminazi" applies.

well, if you ask me, they both should be shot in the face. I am a militant moderate and know that both play games with facts. neither should debate because you're head would spin faster than the facts. I think that people should stop labeling themselves democrat and republican and listen to what the candidates (not tarded pundits trying to get their agenda accomplished) and fact check them themselves. It takes longer, but if you want something done truthfully, you have to do it yourself. We should also stop the electoral college and go to one man one vote. If you're in a blue state, it's futile to be red because the senators/congressmen will be forced to vote blue. Make your vote count. Stop the electoral college!

Also, numerous media watchdogs have proven that the media is not leaning a certain direction. If you're republican, you'll be drawn to the democratic stories because they'll piss you off. You'll ignore the republican stories because they don't catch your attention as much. I've seen naught but glaring omissions in both parties favor over the years. There is no media bias!

:fluffle: Michael Moore and Ann Coulter should have a big fat long-legged baby that twists facts into it's agenda. It could easily become president.

Michael Moore and Ann Coulter should have a big fat long-legged baby that twists facts into it's agenda. It could easily become president.
GREAT! Now I have images of Moore and Coulter copulating etched into my cerebral tissue. Now I have to sandpaper my brain.

*kills you for that*

GET THEE HENCE, FOUL IMAGE!!! :headbang:

It isn't even a plausible event. Coulter has a JD degree and swims at the top of the intellectual shark pool. She'd make mince meat of the guy. (figuratively speaking...literally if she had the right insturments I think)

well, if you ask me, they both should be shot in the face. I am a militant moderate and know that both play games with facts. neither should debate because you're head would spin faster than the facts. I think that people should stop labeling themselves democrat and republican and listen to what the candidates (not tarded pundits trying to get their agenda accomplished) and fact check them themselves. It takes longer, but if you want something done truthfully, you have to do it yourself. We should also stop the electoral college and go to one man one vote. If you're in a blue state, it's futile to be red because the senators/congressmen will be forced to vote blue. Make your vote count. Stop the electoral college!

Also, numerous media watchdogs have proven that the media is not leaning a certain direction. If you're republican, you'll be drawn to the democratic stories because they'll piss you off. You'll ignore the republican stories because they don't catch your attention as much. I've seen naught but glaring omissions in both parties favor over the years. There is no media bias!



the reason the electoral college is in place is because it keeps the uninformed people from fucking it up for everyone else

"Sometimes the majority simply means all the fools are on the same side"

and bullshit there isn't a media bias, there sure as hell is, do some damn research, i've done the research and even wrote a damn thesis on it

Make your vote count. Stop the electoral college!

This is the "Yay! Intelligence!" quote...

Also, numerous media watchdogs have proven that the media is not leaning a certain direction. If you're republican, you'll be drawn to the democratic stories because they'll piss you off. You'll ignore the republican stories because they don't catch your attention as much. I've seen naught but glaring omissions in both parties favor over the years. There is no media bias!

...and this is the "WTF?" quote.

I'd love to see sources for this, since any halfway decent social psychology class opens your eyes unbelievably to the biases that exist. Most, however, are subtle - specific word choice, color schemes, etc - and are therefore unnoticed by the great majority of people, as we are used to the Moore/Coulter style of distortion and/or manipulation. Americans needs neon signs staring them in the face before they wake up.

Take Fox News, for example. If one were to acquire all the transcripts of news broadcasts in the weeks leading up to the 04' race, then run a search string on "good" nouns and adjectives, a sizable majority of them would belong to Bush & Co. The same is true for the colors used as backgrounds to specific polls and surveys - Bush had more reds, oranges, yellows and so-called "aggressive"/"positive" colors, while Kerry had more neutral colors.

You had a good point - namely, that people will read or watch whatever incenses them (why else would liberals read Coulter or conservatives see F9/11?) - but you failed to address the more subtle ways in which the mainstream media distorts things.

Remember: these things are being done by people who are paid more money than most of us will ever make in our lives, people who have more time and education to devote to these causes than most would probably care to imagine. They are going to influence you and they will do anything to prevent you from noticing that. And both sides do it.

We are all victims of psychological warfare.

:fluffle: Michael Moore and Ann Coulter should have a big fat long-legged baby that twists facts into it's agenda. It could easily become president.
It'll take In Vitro Fertilization because we know what happens if they try it naturally.

And the last thing we need is a Coulter/Moore baby. He'll so skilled at twisting facts and misrepresentation he'll grow up to become a supervillain named Bullshit.

Like most people who have not been brainwashed by the media elite, I could care less what you think.

Not quite what he meant, but more proof that you only get the truth from conservatives when they deliver it in ironic mistruths.

The quoted statement above means "I, and many others, have been brainwashed by the media elite. We wholeheartedly embrace the conservative views we've been brainwashed with, and we don't care what anyone who has not been brainwashed thinks."

Though undoubtedly it was intended to be taken to mean "I don't care what most brainwashed people think, and you are no exception."

Maybe she doesn't produce biased pile of shit in order to make people vote a certain way, however she DOES produce biased piles of shit. In fact her whole existence is based upon biased piles of shit. Its the only reason she's even acknowledged. Anne Coultier is NOT a feminazi by the way. She couldn't be a feminist if she tried. and she is so Militant a republican it would be IMPOSSIBLE. She's just a **** not a feminazi. ANd there are plenty of women in the world who the term "feminazi" applies.

Yes, she's actually rabidly anti-feminist. When the Abu Garaib story broke she said that it was the result of women "feminizing" the military and said that it was wrong to let women in it in the first place.

She seems to believe that a woman's place is in the home, and she's a living demonstration of how the world would be a better place if women were not allowed to work, read, leave the house etc. In the case of this particular woman, her place is most definitly in "the home."

If you go back and read my initial post, I said: "Ann doesn't play as fast and loose with the facts as Moore does." :)

Well, this is true. She simply makes them up. She outright lies.

You know that game "3 Card Monte" where you have to follow the card that's the queen but the guy shuffles them really fast and probably palms the real one? Remember that when you read about how she argues that Conservatives have the better track record on civil rights.

(the following is not a quote, merely her style of arguing as I have observed it in her writing, and the premise is based on a clip of an interview I heard her in)
Though LBJ, a Democrat, was president when the civil rights act was passed, it didn't pass with his approval. He warned the Democratic party "if we pass this legislation we will lose the South for a Generation." And the Democrats heeded his warning. Governor George C. Wallace, a Democrat, went so far as to hold an armed vigil to keep black students from entering a recently segregated college. Other notable Democrats like Strom Thurmond went so far as to proclaim "Segragation forever," and made a famous speech about the inability of even the strength of the US military to overcome Democratic families' resistance to forced segregation, the exact words of which were too inflamitory to reproduce here, suffice to say it contained the "N" word. It was Lincoln, a Republican, who first set American blacks free and it was the Republicans who safeguarded that freedom until it could be codified as law a century later.

So you see what I did there? I start off telling you I'm talking about liberals and conservatives, then I go and talk about Democrats and Republicans while conveniently failing to mention that most southern Democrats were staunchly conservative. Strom Thurmond even abandoned the Democratic party when it became clear that it had abandoned its racist constituency. That's intellectual "3 Card Monte."

I would think they would annihilater each other, like the collision of matter and antimatter.

*snip*

On a totally irrelevant note, I must now squeal fangirlishly over your "Yes, Minister" signature. Squeeee! :)

Edit: ...which seems to have disappeared in the last minute or so, making me look dumb. But hey, it was squee-worthy while it lasted.

I Wikki'd Anne Coulter just now. Took the time read it all. This bitch would win....unless it was a wrestling match, in which case Mike would just sit on her chest until she died, screaming invective to the last. She should do a tour of North Korean re-education camps: as a student.

The Coultergheist would win. Why? because, underneath the vacation-time bluntness and hostility, she's a trained debator, while Mooremyk is just kind of this fat guy with an axe to grind and a staff to handle the legwork of doing his research.
Provided the questions weren't leaked to the Debators ahead of time, Moore would wind up being the sacred-cow-converted-to-hamburgers used to feed Africa.

Ann Coulter would use the Force and choke Moore, then report to her Sith Master.

Both really suck, but michael moore can at least be entertaining at times. Moore doesn't (generally) insult a whole population (like ann coulter calling liberals treasonous for dissenting, even though Thomas Jefferson said "dissent is the highest form of patriotism). Moore just condemns an administration or industry. Plus, he uses some facts, although they are are somewhat twisted. Coulter, however, is just boring. If you read her books, which I have, they say the exact same thing over and over again. "Liberals are whiny and hate america!". OK, coulter, we get the point. Her editorials are just as bad. In addition, she also twists the facts until they scream, and then just gives out of context quotes to support her "insightful facts" most of which have "too much political insight" to be accepted by newspapers, except in certain editorials where they don't mind people mindlessly spewing hate. Out of fairness, Michael moore uses out of context quotes as well, but not nearly as often. Bush is also easy to make fun of, because when he talks he looks stupid, even if he is intelligent in reality. So in a debate, people would fall asleep in coulter's rebuttals because they heard the same points in previous coulter speeches in the debate,and while everyone was asleep, michael moore would drag her offstage, eat her for dinner, and be back giving his rebuttal before anyone found out.

Also, numerous media watchdogs have proven that the media is not leaning a certain direction. If you're republican, you'll be drawn to the democratic stories because they'll piss you off. You'll ignore the republican stories because they don't catch your attention as much. I've seen naught but glaring omissions in both parties favor over the years. There is no media bias!


HAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAH

Who the fuck cares who would win? They are, in many regards, mirror images of each at opposite ends of the fucking political spectrum far beyond where most sane people's opinions lie.


All I know is that I want to secure the pay-per-view rights for that whine-fest so I can retire from the proceeds.

And yes, I'd INVITE the pie-throwers to let Anne keep pretending she's a fucking victim, and to ensure that Mike doesn't collapse from a lowering blood-sugar level.

I should have qualified that by saying most liberals.

Short of some of the people I work with at my job, I don't know many liberals who contribute in worthwhile ways to our society. They just complain and bitch about everything that most normal people agree on. Yes, I know you think my opinion is biased. Like most people who have not been brainwashed by the media elite, I could care less what you think.

So, the liberals you know are hard-working, productive members of this society, and you still think that everyone besides them are hippies who sit around all day smoking pot? Half this country is liberal, and if they weren't contributing just as much as the conservatives, we wouldn't be a superpower. We'd have 150 million people worth of dead-weight. So please, be quiet. You can argue with what we believe in. That's fine. But don't insult our contributions to this country. We love this country just as much as the conservatives... we just have the crazy notion that you can show that love by protecting the Constitution that makes it up. There are liberals and conservatives both in the military, fighting and dying for their country. If you will not recognize that, then it is you who have been brain-washed. Just look at what you are claiming!

Ann Coulter is evil incarnate. She has said almost nothing of value beyond sad amusement her entire life, and it frankly terrifies me that so many people have said things like "Ann Coulter doesn't play hard and loose with the facts."

Lets go through some of her gems, shall we?

On Muslims: "We should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

On desegregation: "School desegregation led to students knifing each other in the hallways in between acts of sodomy."

On Democrats: "There are no good Democrats."

On the environment: "God says, "'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"

On journalists: "I think, on the basis of the recent Supreme Court ruling that we can't execute the retarded, American journalists commit mass murder without facing the ultimate penalty," Ms. Coulter told me. "I think they are retarded. I'm trying to communicate to the American people and I have to work through a retarded person!"

On Dick Cheney: "Cheney is my ideal man. Because he's solid. He's funny. He's very handsome. He was a football player. People don't think about him as the glamour type because he's a serious person, he wears glasses, he's lost his hair. But he's a very handsome man. And you cannot imagine him losing his temper, which I find extremely sexy. Men who get upset and lose their tempers and claim to be sensitive males: talk about girly boys. No, there's a reason hurricanes are named after women and homosexual men, it's one of our little methods of social control. We're supposed to fly off the handle."

On Oklahoma City: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

On the Kennedys: ""This is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as "Camelot." Why would anyone want such people as their "good friends"?"

I doubt she could comport herself well in a debate, after reading these.

Thank you for actually going through the effort and digging these up. I know she's a whackjob, because I've seen her speak, but I didn't have the quotes. Thanks.

The Winter Alliance, what do you think about that? How's that for unbiased?

coulter would own moore in anything

like the book says "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man"

for one thing...when coulter uses facts, they are actually RELEVANT to one another

moore on the other hand would probably try and make the argument that having George W. Bush as the president (w00t!), it put him under so much stress he bloated like the chick from willy wonka

getting down to it...moore is a "fat, stupid, liberal, Commie, monkey-faced, unshaven, retarded, pinko, flatulent, socialist, globular", traitorous, worthless steaming pile of shit

coulter may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least she uses real facts

/rant
She does? That's news to me. I'll agree, however, that she's not the sharpest tool in the shed. She may not be the sharpest, but she's definitely a tool. :-D

Coulter uses facts like Michael Moore uses chicken

I will let your imaginations do the work

She is all bark. (haha, I didn't even intend any pun).

Did anyone else see tape-clip of a speech she gave where someone wielded a pastry at her and she instantly and cowardly fled offstage in terror? Hi-larious!

Yes were those brave young men or what! Cowardly female dare run from being assaulted. How dare she.

Liverbreath']Yes were those brave young men or what! Cowardly female dare run from being assaulted. How dare she.

...yes...

...nothing like a pastry to strike fear in the hearts of us all. I am terrified by pies.

I still can't get over

"the woman is smart"

...

seriously is this a joke?
To the world and especially my fellow Canadians... if you would like to remove all doubt that she might be intelligent... please visit this link

http://www.hugi.is/hahradi/bigboxes.php?box_id=51208&f_id=1211

I just watched this again... the women is so stupid it is kind of ridiculous... anyone who says otherwise might want to reinvent their definition of intelligent.

I still can't get over

"the woman is smart"

...

seriously is this a joke?
To the world and especially my fellow Canadians... if you would like to remove all doubt that she might be intelligent... please visit this link

http://www.hugi.is/hahradi/bigboxes.php?box_id=51208&f_id=1211

As much as I will probably get flamed for this, she does raise a few interesting points.

Just how can we call ourselves a peaceful nation and an ally of the united states if all we do is ridicule them and protest against things like the "Star Wars Defense" ? What kind of country says "NO" to free protection from a SUPERPOWER? Just who the hell are our allies nowadays?

You have to remember that we are the same nation that harbors terrorists and illegal aliens, votes for a corrupt government (liberals), cannot arm ourselves, and keeps serial killers safe since we don't have executions.

Besides, United States is scratching our back, why can't we scratch theirs? The reason why we haven't been attacked is because United States happens to be in our backyard.

Although if Ann were to read this, I would like to remind her that we isolate our french population. We don't cater to them. See...we aren't always bad.

<snip...> It was Lincoln, a Republican, who first set American blacks free and it was the Republicans who safeguarded that freedom until it could be codified as law a century later. <snip...>

Just thought I'd clear up the matter here... yes, Lincoln was a Republican. Back then, the Republicans were the liberal party, and the Democrats were the conservatives. They have since switched stances. The reason being that when times change, liberalism and conservatism start to mean different things. For example, the so-called "conservatives" that are in power now, the "neo-cons", don't conserve anything. They cut taxes to try to stop recessions, they cut taxes when there's a surplus ("the American people have been over-taxed") instead of paying down the debt, and then they blame it all on the Democrats. The Dems then have to try to clean up the mess when they get into power, so that the US government doesn't have to default on its debts (literally declaring bankruptcy, and destroying much of the world economy). To do this, they have to put taxes back where they were, which the Republicans complain about because it's "raising taxes". The Democrats are the responsible ones now, as opposed to before, when the Republicans had the lock on the claim of fiscal responsibility. Yet the Republicans still argue "small gov't" and "fiscal responsibility", even though they abandoned both of those things as of the Reagan administration...

Oh, and yes, FDR broke the bank too. But he gave the money to the people AND the corporations (not an across-the-board tax cut that does almost nothing for working families) so that the economy could get going again. It was temporary, emergency funding in a time of crisis, and it worked as opposed to the new "trickle-down" system.

Winter Alliance, how old are you exactly?

QUOTE "Just how can we call ourselves a peaceful nation and an ally of the united states if all we do is ridicule them and protest against things like the "Star Wars Defense"?"QUOTE

I don't see the contradiciton? We call ourselves a peacefull nation because we DO protest against things like Star Wars. I fail to see your point. We invented peacekeeping. Literally.

QUOTE "What kind of country says "NO" to free protection from a SUPERPOWER? Just who the hell are our allies nowadays?" QUOTE

... we said not to missile defence... weaponizing of space... because we DON'T believe it will help protect us but rather lead to a reaction by other nations to build up their arms. Well our allies still include the US, Britain, Fance... how about NATO... the free world. Good enough list? We can disagree with an ally and they are still called an ally. When you disagree with your friend are you no longer friends? I think not.


QUOTE "You have to remember that we are the same nation that harbors terrorists and illegal aliens, votes for a corrupt government (liberals), cannot arm ourselves, and keeps serial killers safe since we don't have executions."QUOTE

I'm not sure this deserves a response. You didn't say anything... you were worried about being 'flamed' but this is flaming. Small inflamatory statments that mean nothing, say nothing, and are not supported by a single thing. You don't even say what your point is for saying this. You've managed to hit several logical fallacies in one post. Congrats.

... we said not to missile defence... weaponizing of space... because we DON'T believe it will help protect us but rather lead to a reaction by other nations to build up their arms.


And...?

If Canada is such a neutral country, why would we care if other nations build arms? They are doing it already while we have a submarine used for amusement parks.


I don't see the contradiciton? We call ourselves a peacefull nation because we DO protest against things like Star Wars. I fail to see your point. We invented peacekeeping. Literally.


So Canada is peaceful by being whiners?


I'm not sure this deserves a response.


Because you know I'm right.

Ann Coulter would win because Ann Coulter would debate. Michael Moore would for the most part, name call and make things up, which is what he does for a living. When Al Franken attacks Ann Coulter, then she would shoot him and due to Michael Moore’s size, he would probably take a bullet for Frank and spring a slow lard leak, which would probably save him billions of dollars in liposuction.

Ann Coulter would win because Ann Coulter would debate. Michael Moore would for the most part, name call and make things up, which is what he does for a living. When Al Franken attacks Ann Coulter, then she would shoot him and due to Michael Moore’s size, he would probably take a bullet for Frank and spring a slow lard leak, which would probably save him billions of dollars in liposuction.
Because Ann Coulter has never insulted anyone or sat around calling people names or made things up EVER [/heavy mother fucking sarcasm]

Ok, I am also known as freedomland dictators and I made a mistake. I mean in general there is no media bias. there's conservative channels and liberal channels. all together, they even out. make up your mind and watch what you want.

Canada City']As much as I will probably get flamed for this, she does raise a few interesting points.

Just how can we call ourselves a peaceful nation and an ally of the united states if all we do is ridicule them and protest against things like the "Star Wars Defense" ? What kind of country says "NO" to free protection from a SUPERPOWER? Just who the hell are our allies nowadays?

You have to remember that we are the same nation that harbors terrorists and illegal aliens, votes for a corrupt government (liberals), cannot arm ourselves, and keeps serial killers safe since we don't have executions.

Besides, United States is scratching our back, why can't we scratch theirs? The reason why we haven't been attacked is because United States happens to be in our backyard.

Although if Ann were to read this, I would like to remind her that we isolate our french population. We don't cater to them. See...we aren't always bad.

Holy crap....you're kidding, right? I don't flame, that's not what I do, but I will respond.

1. Allies don't always agree with one another. And how does "ridicule" not make Canada peaceful? By the way, it's not like Canada doesn't hold their own... you guys took a beach at Normandy.
2. How are liberals automatically corrupt? You forget the definition of corruption, I think... let's see, which is the side funded by huge corporations, so that the pols serve their interests and not that of the people? Think the gun lobby, think the cigarette lobby, think the logging lobby, think of all of the big corporations who buy off politicians on both sides. Now which side is it that rolls over the most easily? Which side is it that wants to loosen the restrictions on arsenic in drinking water so that corporations don't have to spend as much money to clean up their own messes? 'nuff said.
3. Not becoming killers yourselves doesn't mean you "keep killers safe". Stooping to their level does not mean that justice has not been done. Do you have any idea how many innocent people are executed in the United States? Over 800 people on death row have been released because new evidence proves that they're innocent. These are people who were declared so definitely guilty that they could justify the death penalty. And then there are those who were killed, and only later was it discovered that they were completely and totally innocent. With a life sentence without possibility of parole, you can release them with whatever is left of their life if you discover that you were wrong, and the only way they could possibly be a danger to society would be if they break out. Hey, same thing with death row. If they break out, what's the difference?
4. You're in favour of segregation???.
5. Maybe, just maybe, the reason that Canada isn't attacked is that it minds its own business :roll:

[/education]

Michael Moore is fat, but ffs he's not so fat I'd constantly rag on it. I personally love the man. He makes me smile every time he opens his mouth. Regardless if it's biased bullshit, I still laugh. Every political entity in the nation lets biased shit slip out of their mouth on a daily basis, his is just in the form of entertainment so people watch/listen. Ann Coulter would win the debate, too.

I've read her editorials, and have seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Both are biased. Ann Coulter, however, is not a complete idiot.

You have nothing, sir. Rag on both or you are the biased idiot.

How are liberals automatically corrupt? You forget the definition of corruption, I think... let's see, which is the side funded by huge corporations, so that the pols serve their interests and not that of the people? Think the gun lobby, think the cigarette lobby, think the logging lobby, think of all of the big corporations who buy off politicians on both sides. Now which side is it that rolls over the most easily? Which side is it that wants to loosen the restrictions on arsenic in drinking water so that corporations don't have to spend as much money to clean up their own messes? 'nuff said.


Bribery, using millions of tax payers money to fund their corporate buddies, sheltering terrorists so they vote liberals (Tamil Tigers, someone mentioned it here before).

Remember our prime minister said he had the "moral authority" to rule Canada.

Maybe you should live up here before you start telling us who we should vote for.

Plus we get praised by Michael Moore. We are doing something terribly wrong if that happens.

I hate 'em both.

However, methinks that they would both loose, because when polar opposites of that magnitude collide, there will be a massive explosion that ruptures the fabric of the universe, thus getting rid of a few thousand galaxies, including our own.

Canada City']And...?

If Canada is such a neutral country, why would we care if other nations build arms? They are doing it already while we have a submarine used for amusement parks.
Thus proving his point... so...
Oh, and it affects Canada because they don't want to be invaded. They want to be the Swiss in WWII, not the Dutch in WWII, capisce?

Canada City']

So Canada is peaceful by being whiners?
No, they are peaceful by NOT BLOWING PEOPLE UP. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory. Sheesh.


Canada City']
Because you know I'm right.
Umm, no. If you would kindly read posts before replying to them, s/he already said why it didn't deserve a response. Because it was a flame that said nothing and supported nothing, using no evidence, only insults.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked before... how old are you?

Ann Coulter would win because Ann Coulter would debate. Michael Moore would for the most part, name call and make things up, which is what he does for a living. When Al Franken attacks Ann Coulter, then she would shoot him and due to Michael Moore’s size, he would probably take a bullet for Frank and spring a slow lard leak, which would probably save him billions of dollars in liposuction.

Ummm have you ever actually read some of the things Coulter writes? She does nothing but name-call and make things up, whereas Moore does that AND adds facts (some twisted, some not so twisted) to support his conspiracy theories.

Micheal Moore.

Just because when you type his name into a file-sharing program, you get more of him.

Ok, I am also known as freedomland dictators and I made a mistake. I mean in general there is no media bias. there's conservative channels and liberal channels. all together, they even out. make up your mind and watch what you want.

That's what I assumed you meant... I don't know why everyone else here is flying off the handle because of your comment.

If you take the media as a whole, it does not go one way or the other. But there are stations that go different ways. But I'll disagree with you on one thing... I think you should watch a variety of things, instead of "what you want to watch", because people who only watch what they want to watch wind up as bigoted, hate-filled ideologues who don't know any of the facts.
And I'm talking about both sides, if they don't keep their eyes open instead of blindly listening to Al Franken/FOX news.

Ok, I am also known as freedomland dictators and I made a mistake. I mean in general there is no media bias. there's conservative channels and liberal channels. all together, they even out. make up your mind and watch what you want.

Network news for liberals:
CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN

Network news for Conservatives:
Fox News Channel

Network news for those in the middle:
MSNBC

Is MSNBC the least biased of them all?

...and Coulter would win.

Moore is a storyteller; Coulter is an analyst.

I agree with someone way back who said that Moore would end up name-calling... but Coulter would do the same.

It would probably be highly entertaining.

-------------------------------------
Moore: All these rich bastard capitalists who don't want to pay any taxes...

Coulter: Yeah, and these lazy left-wing socialists who want to steal other people's money are really helping...
-------------------------------------

Pacific Northwesteria & [NS]Canada City can you make a new thread to bash your country please? It is completely off topic. Thanks!

Is MSNBC the least biased of them all?

I wouldn't consider MSNBC unbiased, heh. Every channel is biased, it's just human nature to swing one way or the other. Isn't Dennis Miller on MSNBC, by the way? :rolleyes:

Canada City']Bribery, using millions of tax payers money to fund their corporate buddies,
Sounds like neo-cons to me... evidence por favor? I'm sorry, that's Spanish for "please"...
Canada City'] sheltering terrorists so they vote liberals (Tamil Tigers, someone mentioned it here before).
This is BS. They are not going to compromise their national security to get ONE vote. If it was a few hundred thousand votes? You might have a conspiracy theory there. But ONE VOTE? Are you insane? Who would go through that much trouble for one vote?
Canada City']
Remember our prime minister said he had the "moral authority" to rule Canada.
Ummm yeah it's called being elected by the people...
Canada City']
Maybe you should live up here before you start telling us who we should vote for.
I didn't tell you who to vote for. You told everyone else who to vote for. I merely tried to balance a few of your lies.
Canada City']
Plus we get praised by Michael Moore. We are doing something terribly wrong if that happens.
If Michael Moore said someone was a good person because they saved a dying puppy, would you assume that person was bad? Seriously... if that logic worked, all that Al Qaeda would have to do is say how great Bush is and he'd be out of office... too easy.
That entire argument is an "ad hominem" fallacy, meaning that you draw your conclusions based on the person, not on the argument.

Pacific Northwesteria & [NS]Canada City can you make a new thread to bash your country please? It is completely off topic. Thanks!

Ahem!

You two Canadian bastards join the real topic and stop hating on yourselves imo! :rolleyes:

Network news for liberals:
CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN

Network news for Conservatives:
Fox News Channel

Network news for those in the middle:
MSNBC

Is MSNBC the least biased of them all?
I'm not sure I totally agree with your list, there... although it's pretty close.
It may look like it's lopsided, but there's something you have to understand. All of the left-leaners are... sympathetic to the left, but don't trash the right. FOX, on the other hand, seems to make it its goal to viciously distort everything, and actually say on the air that liberals are destroying America.
So basically, CBS et al. are liberal-biased news networks that have journalistic integrity. FOX is a right-leaning channel with no journalistic integrity.
Oh, and if you think that the whole "Rather-gate" thing proves that the station leans WAY too far to the left... remember the Lewinsky scandal? They didn't exactly go easy on Clinton.
They're news networks. They sensationalize everything. That's their job, so that people watch. However, at least MOST of them care if what they're saying has any factual evidence behind it...

Michael Moore, because he'd be spinning facts and using appeal to emotion while Ann commits mass genocide on Arabs and Muslims. She'd lose by default because she's not present at the debate.

You two Canadian bastards join the real topic and stop hating on yourselves imo! :rolleyes:
To the multiple people who have said this:
Sorry, I post as I read and I didn't see all of your messages until I had already posted. Well, now I have. If you have the patience, I'd like to explain my position on this.

I clicked this thread to see what people thought. Then, some people started flamebaiting, using rather offensive mistruths, and saying things that really made me angry. However, not being one to flame, even when I've been baited, I decided to respond as calmly as I could considering the situation. For the record, I never bashed anybody except Coulter (and Moore, a bit) which is on topic, and I never bashed Canada... that was the other guy. And I'm not Canadian, I'm American, I just happen to know that the cannucks aren't schmucks, as it were :D
I won't get off topic unless it's responding to insults that I take personally. If you do not want me to even do that, then I will respect your wishes and leave the thread.

ann coulters totally a dude, have you seen her adams apple?

she might win because she would just spey so much filth out that he would drown

Oh God...Ann Coulter no question.

Both are pretty much idiots, but Ann Coulter doesn't produce biased piles of shit to try and pursuade Americans to vote a certain way. And fails.

no she doesnt need to, america is full of mindless denizens who believe everything their imperialist government tells them already. Hell they voted Bush back in for God's sake, if it wasn't true it'd almost be hillarious

that said I've love to meet this coulter woman.

First of all... feminazi? She said herself on national TV that women should not be allowed to vote. Including herself and the one woman that cheered for that statement. Apparently, all women are stupid and will waste government money on frivilous things like health care and education when it could go towards killing brown people.

In any case... these two people use two entirely different propaganda methods. You really can't compare the two. Michael Moore uses humor to catch you off your guard and get you on his side, then manipulates your emotions. Ann Coulter takes advantage of people's anger with the way things are, fine-tunes the anger into rage, and then funnels that rage towards liberals and non-whites. (Never, of course, Our Beloved Leader.)

So I predict that Michael Moore will be making jokes as Ann Coulter shrieks and throws things and calls him a genocidal madman. Therefore, Ann will win because she's louder and will drown out anything Moore attempts to say.

If Michael Moore said someone was a good person because they saved a dying puppy, would you assume that person was bad? Seriously... if that logic worked, all that Al Qaeda would have to do is say how great Bush is and he'd be out of office... too easy.
Actually, that already happened... remember the last video Osama bin Laden released? He was laughing his ass off at Bush, thanking him for making the middle east hate America so much that people were enlisting to join Al-Qaeda in droves. The American news networks happened to not air that particular part of the video.

Actually, that already happened... remember the last video Osama bin Laden released? He was laughing his ass off at Bush, thanking him for making the middle east hate America so much that people were enlisting to join Al-Qaeda in droves. The American news networks happened to not air that particular part of the video.
Hehe.... more proof that the media isn't being controlled by "the liberal elite"...

Anyway, in regards to Coulter... if I didn't know better, I'd say that she is literally crazy. As in has a mental disease, and that would explain the crazy view she has of the world (see above litany of examples, posted by people who are not me and thus not as lazy as I am).

that said I've love to meet this coulter woman.
Bring some long johns and a parka

no she doesnt need to, america is full of mindless denizens who believe everything their imperialist government tells them already. Hell they voted Bush back in for God's sake, if it wasn't true it'd almost be hillarious

I highly doubt that you've ever been to America. :rolleyes:

I highly doubt that you've ever been to America. :rolleyes:
I take it you are a mindless denizen?

Actually, that already happened... remember the last video Osama bin Laden released? He was laughing his ass off at Bush, thanking him for making the middle east hate America so much that people were enlisting to join Al-Qaeda in droves. The American news networks happened to not air that particular part of the video.


Proof?

Besides, if this is true, all it does is give a bigger reason to make the Middle East into a giant sheet of glass.

Canada City']Proof?

Besides, if this is true, all it does is give a bigger reason to make the Middle East into a giant sheet of glass.
I'm sure general nuking may win you a game of Civilization, but this is the REAL world

Ihatevacations']I'm sure general nuking may win you a game of Civilization, but this is the REAL world

I'm really bad at Civilization. I played that asstastic Superpowers game...just nuked everyone because it's fun :)

Think about it though...if its really true and the Middle East bascailly became the mecca of terrorists and screwing the major countries (not just the States), you honestly think they wouldn't nuke it?

I'm still waiting on that proof though.

Ihatevacations']I take it you are a mindless denizen?

Hey now, that's not very nice...

That's a pretty stupid assumption to make, that all Americans are mindless denizens.

WE'RE ALL COGS OF THE CORPORATE GAME, I TELL YOU! :rolleyes:

Most of us are rational thinkers.

I'd have to say Ann Coulter, and probaly half way into the debate Ann Coulter would be holding a whip over a crawling Moore....
MMMMM..... *ponder ponder ponder*
another image that distracts me from my CRT. Sigh. :)

Canada City']As much as I will probably get flamed for this, she does raise a few interesting points.

Just how can we call ourselves a peaceful nation and an ally of the united states if all we do is ridicule them and protest against things like the "Star Wars Defense" ? What kind of country says "NO" to free protection from a SUPERPOWER? Just who the hell are our allies nowadays?

You have to remember that we are the same nation that harbors terrorists and illegal aliens, votes for a corrupt government (liberals), cannot arm ourselves, and keeps serial killers safe since we don't have executions.

Besides, United States is scratching our back, why can't we scratch theirs? The reason why we haven't been attacked is because United States happens to be in our backyard.

Although if Ann were to read this, I would like to remind her that we isolate our french population. We don't cater to them. See...we aren't always bad.

:D Well, Canada has it's share of illegal immigrants, but just take a look at Mexico. The place is fucking full of Mexicans. We gotta go down there and sort that place out quick before the Nueva Reconquista.

Hey now, that's not very nice...

That's a pretty stupid assumption to make, that all Americans are mindless denizens.

I think to spare people from having to assume it, I'll just have it printed up on a t-shirt. Check that... a baseball hat.

First of all... feminazi? She said herself on national TV that women should not be allowed to vote. Including herself and the one woman that cheered for that statement. Apparently, all women are stupid and will waste government money on frivilous things like health care and education when it could go towards killing brown people.

Well, she said something that contains 1/125,000,000 parts truth (assuming that women comprise about half of the 250,000,000 US population. I guess she can speak some truth sometimes.

In any case... these two people use two entirely different propaganda methods. You really can't compare the two. Michael Moore uses humor to catch you off your guard and get you on his side, then manipulates your emotions. Ann Coulter takes advantage of people's anger with the way things are, fine-tunes the anger into rage, and then funnels that rage towards liberals and non-whites. (Never, of course, Our Beloved Leader.)

So I predict that Michael Moore will be making jokes as Ann Coulter shrieks and throws things and calls him a genocidal madman. Therefore, Ann will win because she's louder and will drown out anything Moore attempts to say.

But then again a debate isn't the same as a shouting match. The presidential "debates" aren't really debates either, just parrallel campaign speeches. In a debate people are called upon to support their arguments and points are awarded for well supported arguments, not emotional appeals, circular logic, or vitriolic rage. They also have to take turns.

Essentially, the question on the thread starter is asking, "who would win in a debate between Michael Moore and Anne Coulter if neither one was allowed to talk?" In such a case, I would have to say "The Audience."

Hey now, that's not very nice...

That's a pretty stupid assumption to make, that all Americans are mindless denizens.

WE'RE ALL COGS OF THE CORPORATE GAME, I TELL YOU! :rolleyes:

Most of us are rational thinkers.
Unfortunately, most Americans aren't rational thinkers. I know this because I live here and half of the people I know just mindlessly believe whatever they're told first, and then makes up reasons why any contradicting evidence must be false. Often this "first opinion" comes from a certain Mr. O'Reilly, who is a bit like Coulter. Hey, we've come full circle, and actual landed on topic!

Canada City']Proof?

Besides, if this is true, all it does is give a bigger reason to make the Middle East into a giant sheet of glass.
....you've just been given evidence that bombing people only makes them angrier at you. In short, that if you kill a hundred people, you've made a hundred more enemies. And you take this as an indication that we should continue making enemies?!! :headbang:

Well, she said something that contains 1/125,000,000 parts truth (assuming that women comprise about half of the 250,000,000 US population. I guess she can speak some truth sometimes.
Um... no. Making a broad sweeping statement about half the population of the planet based purely on stereotypes is NOT "truth." It's stupidity.

But then again a debate isn't the same as a shouting match. The presidential "debates" aren't really debates either, just parrallel campaign speeches. In a debate people are called upon to support their arguments and points are awarded for well supported arguments, not emotional appeals, circular logic, or vitriolic rage. They also have to take turns.
Very true. Which is why this is a pointless thread: neither person knows - or cares - how to debate properly.

I think Ann would win. Fat boy thinks that guns are a joke. Ann seems to practice and carry all the time.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/104031.jpg

Who needs a debate? Michael Moore would just sit on her, and that would be it.

Thanks Northwestria... you about covered any response I might have to Canada City.

I like how half the points made against MM in this thread include he's fat... I really think that had little to do with his ability to debate. Many accuse him of making up facts or distorting them and condemn him for these things... and then you make fun of him for being fat? Civil discourse please. If he distorts facts prove it... don't make fun of his appearence.

I'm not sure how you can say that Coulter is a feminazi. Most feminazi are on the other end of the political spectrum, by Pelosi...

'femi' is from the fact that she is female, which she manifestly is, even if she's nowhere near as hot as she thinks :rolleyes: she is. And she is closer to an actual nazi in terms of political beliefs than most of the people the Big-Fat-Idiot calls 'feminazi'.

Nancy Pelosi, too, is female. And Pelosi isn't as hot as Ann Coulter thinks she is.

Ann Coulter is a stupid bitch who needs some sense beaten into her (the way she is it might take a while) and all who side with her deserve the same beating

Ann Coulter, whoever the fuk that is, only because Moore is a big fat lying hypocritical gutless backstabbing heap of steaming shit.

Moore is a storyteller; Coulter is an analyst.



Moore is a storyteller, sometimes an entertaining one; Coulter is a nutjob, selodom entertaining.

Moore is a storyteller...snip...

Exactly.

Neither. Al Franken would come in and kick both of their sorry asses.