Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (148573)	7/21/2002 1:46:44 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1572202

To her credit, Coulter has carefully documented every citation, so that an interested reader can easily check and cross-check her facts. This is critical in any meaningful research project. <<< The following passage gives a good example of how "Slander" works: Thanks for the find! ted

To: Thomas M. who wrote (148573)	7/21/2002 2:14:17 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572202

Coulter sets up the passage to give the impression that the Times called Thomas a "lawn jockey" and a "house Negro" and hopes that we won't notice that she's fudged it. The actual passage in Coulter's book was as follows (emphasis added): After Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion contrary to the clearly expressed position of the New York Times editorial page, the Times responded with an editorial on Thomas titled 'The Youngest, Cruelest Justice.' That was actually the headline on a lead editorial in the Newspaper of Record. Thomas is not engaged on the substance of his judicial philosophy. He is called 'a colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests,' 'race traitor,' 'black snake,' 'chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom,'(39) 'house Negro' and 'handkerchief head,' 'Benedict Arnold'(40) and "Judas Iscariot'.(41)" As you can see, it is literally inconceivable that a high-school educated person could have missed the explicit references to the sources of this material. In fact, it appears that the author of the Salon article attempted to mislead you, by suggesting that HE had researched the sources of the material RATHER THAN getting them from the footnotes referenced in Coulter's text. The passage is conveniently phrased to make it look as if the quotes, as well as the headline, appear in the Times editorial. They don't This is, quite simply, an out-and-out lie, and but one more example of liberal slander. Any person who reads this passage is put on ample notice that there are THREE SPECIFIC CITATIONS for this material. The risk you run when you get material from an extremist liberal publication like Salon is that you will be misinformed. These guys are experts at the very Slander Coulter is talking about, and frankly, I think this is a great example of it (perhaps she'll use IT in her next book). The bigger point is that this book provides an excellent, truthful, extensive, yet concise, reference to some of the ways in which the left deliberately misleads individuals who are not independent thinkers (most independent thinkers will have figured this stuff out for themselves already). I recommend it you read it.