Posted on 07/05/2017 12:48:16 PM PDT by Syncro
Ok It’s time for you to read the article.
“Ok It’s time for you to read the article.”
I already did - yesterday no less. That’s why I wish Ann had posted some evidence or corroboration for this:
“He lost his license as a “pharmacy technician.””
But she didn’t. I believe her, but I wish Ann had posted some evidence or corroboration for it.
Or this:
“(He was not a “doctor,” despite the media’s insistent reference to him as one.)”
Or this:
“His Third World approach to meeting women resulted in his being arrested in 2004 for lifting a 23-year-old woman off the ground in Greenwich Village, while trying to penetrate her through her underwear and saying “You’re coming with me.””
Or this:
“Although initially charged with felony assault, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor — otherwise he might have been deported and America’s beautiful mosaic would be diminished.”
Or this:
“In 2003, he was arrested for kicking in an ex-girlfriend’s door at 5:10 in the morning.”
Or this:
“In 2009, he was charged, in separate incidents, with harassing women by trying to look up their skirts.”
I did read the article. And I’m not the only one in this thread who noticed Ann Coulter didn’t include evidence and corroboration for many things she wrote. You claimed I was. You were wrong. Now read post #11.
Get back to me when you find the source for the quoted snippets fronm the column.
Good job so far, I’m proud of you.
“Get back to me when you find the source for the quoted snippets fronm the column.”
No, you get back to me when you find the source for the quoted snippets from the column. After all you just acknowledged they’re important - which proves my point,
Good job so far. I’m proud of you. It’s always interesting how you defeat yourself.
No I didn't
I called you one dissenter.
You are a master at changing what posters say to fit your agenda.
“No, you get back to me when you find the source for the quoted snippets from the column. After all you just acknowledged they’re important - which proves my point”
No, I acknowledged that the snippets from the column were/are important.
BTW, if you read the comments you will see that people that are not just interested in having a flame war with me (like you) have verified some of Ann's truism with links.
The column is received positively by 100K’ of intelligent people and there is one dissenter who would rather argue and twist the truth than debate.
I have never proved any of your mangled points.
Coulter is probably getting a chuckle out of your misdirections.
Yes, you are correct.
She is brilliant and accurate.
And very factual.
Thanks for posting the verifying link.
Good to have.
Some posters don’t accept anything unless it is footnoted.
She is always on her game and her research is impeccable.
Only uses well documented facts.
Isn’t it great that Coulter digs up facts, even some that the MSM knows are true?
As you can see, you got your answer up thread.
For more documentation, go to this link and type in what you wish to have verified.
It’ll all pan out.
It's a handy way to not get duped.
I did verify as soon as I posted.
Still, it would have been best that Coutler noted it.
It looks like she usually sees no reason to do it for her weekly columns.
I have no problem with her not citing sources for everything she posts.
Most of it can be seen elsewhere anyway.
Anyone who wants to question her integrity or the accuracy of her writings will get a good answer from her.
Depending on how hateful they are, some will slink away with their tails between their legs.
She has a way with words.
Thanks for your input on the thread.
“No I didn’t”
Yes, you did.
“I called you one dissenter.”
And that would still be incorrect no matter what.
“You are a master at changing what posters say to fit your agenda.”
I simply get things right. You don’t. You keep proving that in post after post after post.
“No, I acknowledged that the snippets from the column were/are important.”
And you denied that it was important to show evidence or corroboration.
“BTW, if you read the comments you will see that people that are not just interested in having a flame war with me (like you) have verified some of Ann’s truism with links.”
You’re the only one interested in a flame war. I didn’t even comment to you. I agreed with someone else. You started this.
“The column is received positively by 100K’ of intelligent people and there is one dissenter who would rather argue and twist the truth than debate.”
That’s you. You’re the only one here who is twisting the truth. I am not dissenting from Ann Coulter, for instance. You’re making that up out of thin air and that’s completely dishonest. Why are you doing that?
“I have never proved any of your mangled points.”
You prove all of them, all the time. You just did it now.
“Coulter is probably getting a chuckle out of your misdirections.”
She can chuckle over things that don’t exist. That’s her prerogative. You do not have the prerogative to make things up that are not true, however. And you’re doing it again and again. Why not just tell the truth? Are you such an enemy of just being honest?
“As you can see, you got your answer up thread.”
No, I didn’t since my question would be: “Why didn’t Coulter simply add evidence and corroboration to make her article even better and more convincing?” There is no answer to that question in this thread.
“For more documentation, go to this link and type in what you wish to have verified.”
And yet my point still stands – from the beginning – irrefutable, indisputable.
“It’ll all pan out.”
Your attempts won’t, however.
Most of it can be seen elsewhere anyway.
Yep. I suppose Ann assumed most people who were interested in the subject had already read the info available all over the net about this Bello person.
The drift of her article was the "immigrant diversity" angle. Not the guys whole life story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.