Your response to this dishonesty?
Frankly, I have no way to confirm whether the liberal allegation on this matter is correct. They lied in the first paragraph (so why bother with the remainder of the article), and frankly, every liberal attack on this book so far has been discredited as outright untruth (perhaps you saw the exchange on this thread a few days ago about the Salon article, where in the liberal's effort to accuse Ms. Coulter of lying, he himself lied about her purported lying -- which wasn't). Thus far, I've seen no credible challenge to her research or her writing.
For example, she ridiculed someone for saying that Cuba has a good health care system. She seems to hope her readers don't know that Cuba does indeed have a good health care system.
Yes, well, YOU go to Cuba to get your major illness treated. Personally, I'll stay here. Cuba has an excellent healthcare system for the region it is in, but makes HUGE sacrifices in other areas to do so (for example, food rationing). Ms. Coulter is entitled to her opinion on this matter.
She ridiculed someone for suggesting Reagan shouldn't run for a second term because of the risk of senility. She seems to be hope that her readers don't know that Reagan most likely was senile during his second term.
There is no credible evidence to suggest that Reagan was "most likely senile" during his second term, let alone BEFORE his second term. This is a liberal lie, and you are perpetuating it--which isn't a very decent thing to do about the greatest president since Teddy Roosevelt.
There IS evidence to suggest that he had begun to be occasionally forgetful -- obviously, it is possible he was in the initial stage of the disease at the end of his term. This is NOT senility.
You may remember Reagan made what was, arguably, the most important speech of the century during that second term in which you suggest he was senile.
It is interesting to me that the liberal attacks on her book have been so insubstantial. Donahue was laughable. He came across like a total idiot. I don't see any of you arguing the substantial points she makes, for example, the excellent discussion on the Democrat attempt to steal the 2000 election and the media attempts to affect the outcome of the election. The material she presents is indisuptably accurate and meaningful. The Democrats are awfully quiet about it.
I only skimmed the book
Perhaps that is your problem. Maybe if you actually READ the book you'd appreciate its intellectual honesty. Nah, probably not. |
