Remember when Muhammad Ali fought George Foreman in Zaire back in 1974?
(What the hell is he talking about?)
Well, for you older readers, surely you will never forget the rope-a-dope tactic Ali used to get Foreman to punch himself into exhaustion in the hot outdoor weather of Zaire, at which point Ali came off the ropes and knocked him out.
Check out this CNN interview of Rick ("Hit & Run") Sanchez as he comes out swinging against a real pro named Ann Coulter-and promptly gets a licking from the lady who doesn't even bother wasting any time on the ropes. Also notice how the interview begins, as Sanchez obviously tries to ambush Coulter with a topic other than what Coulter was told would be the topic. Cute trick, Rick. (No, that's not why they call him "Hit & Run".)
I think Rick Sanchez learned a lesson in that interview. He needs more seasoning before he tries to go toe to toe with Ann Coulter.
And don't even think about a rematch.
42 comments:
Only in the subjective reality of modern day conservative thought can dodging the question and changing the subject be considered a "win" in a debate.
I actually saw this when it was on, which is odd, considering that I rarely watch cable news (I prefer local and reading the paper - oh, no, wait, I mean that I get all my news from Jon Stewart.) I remember yelling at the TV and saying, "You're not answering the question!"
Hmmm...conservatives dodging the point and changing the subject. Why is that so familiar?
It happens on both sides, Lance, and if you think Sanchez won that match, you must have been looking at it through the subjective reality of modern day liberal thought.
I don't think that he "won". Nobody wins when somebody won't even address the point.
It reminded me of why I don't watch shows like this. Nothing is accomplished and nobody learns anything. All these shows do is reinforce people's predetermined beliefs. It's a circus.
Do you know what I want to see? A REAL debate show - with a moderator and somebody to call out both sides when they engage in ad hominems, strawmen, false dilemmas, appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies.
Unfortunately, the American public wants to be entertained more than they want to be educated.
As a matter of readily available fact, Coulter answered the question several times ..... she doesn't know the source of the selected video. She pointed out that the White House didn't either and yet they immediately asked for her resignation and got it without seeing the whole tape and presumably not allowing her to explain. Breitbart did not fire her or call for her to be fired as far as I know. Now her reputation has been more than restored. That's more than Bush or Bork or Thomas ever got after they were quoted out of context. If anyone ducked questions it was Rick who still asserts there was an epitaph shouted out 15 times by some Tea Partier without a bit of evidence and despite the numerous cell phone recorders and press at the scene as well as the unclaimed reward for evidence. Rather intentionally used phony evidence to sabotage Bush just before the election. His staff did the "investigation" before the hatchet job. I don't suppose that story was in the liberal main stream press or Lance would have known about it. Rick didn't want to talk about that either.
Gary, is it the way she constantly moves her hair back (it is irritating and someone ought to give her a couple of hair pins) or is it her screechy voice that turns you on to her? What did she say to win the argument? Just asking.
@ Lance: Why is that so familiar? Because that's what is taught political discussion in liberal kindergarten. Rick Sanchez is less a journalist than a "Springer" and his only goal is to ambush not report. He lives for the "gotcha" moment because that's what he does. In this case, he played "gotcha" with someone way out of his league and wound up bleeding on the floor...which, come to think of it, is where his ratings are.
Wait, you said that you get your news from Jon Stewart? Well, that I guess that explains everything.
Bill,
"Wait, you said that you get your news from Jon Stewart? Well, that I guess that explains everything."
I've been telling him that for years.
How dense ARE you guys? He was quite obviously being sarcastic, mocking your pre-conceived notions about him.
And nobody "won" in this "debate." With cable "news" talking heads, we ALL lose. It's nothing but infotainment and people yelling at/past each other.
Sorry, I wrote "As a matter of readily available fact,...", which is kinda crooked. What I meant was that here is a fact that is readily available to check. It was late and I didn't proof read it. Mea culpa ... mea maxima culpa.
Gary, how do you find all these gems?
How long does it take you to compose your views on all them? Thanks again for all your efforts to create such an interesting blog site.
Wait, you said that you get your news from Jon Stewart? Well, that I guess that explains everything.
It's called irony. Which explains quite a bit here, actually...
In all honesty, I don't know if your clip includes the part that I was referring to. Are they talking about the whole Breitbart/Sherrod thing? That's the bit that I saw.
I was going to try watching the clip in order to see if it was, but I have a pressing appointment to shave my head with a cheese grater.
Rick Sanchez is also a fool for even giving Coulter a platform. I put her in the same category as people like the Westboro Baptist Church (look them up): not even worth debating with or giving a platform to.
Also, THIS.
I've been telling him that for years.
If only I had made some attempt to clear that up for you and explain that it wasn't the case. Because after all, if you watch his show, it automatically means that's all you watch. (Even though the show is only funny if you pay attention to what's going on in the news.)
Miggie,
25 years of law enforcement results in a sort of twisted sense of humor and irony.
Anonymous,
To compare Ann Coulter with the Westboro baptist Church really destroys your credibility. If I had ever been present at a funeral disrupted by those bastards, I would have gone to jail for assault.
Anonymous,
"With cable "news" talking heads, we ALL lose."
Perhaps, but you lose more than normal.
If Ann Coulter loved her enemies, she would be a Christian.
Can anyone recall such pathetic narcissism abd caterwauling about being slandered and sidelined from a creature enjoying the proceeds of several lucrative book contracts?
I can't tell the substance of what was said from Gary's chortling analogies, but anyone who couldn't do this cretin in half way through the first round is simply providing another classic example of why I hate liberals -- they are too spineless to handle even such a self-absorbed lightweight as Coulter.
So I guess I am the only one here who likes Ann. Let me tell you why. Ann is smart. If you want to engage in a debate with her, you better do your homework. Yes, she says outrageous things, but she does it with a purpose-to drive liberals wild. That is the secret of her success. Half the people love her and half the people hate her. Meanwhile, she is laughing all the way to the bank.
Ann also has the courage to walk onto a university campus, a hostile atmosphere and say her piece. Often, she is hooted, jeered or had pies thrown at her on stage. You can disagree with her philosophy, but how many of us have done that? Not too many.
She may be a lot of things, but she is no cretin.
f you want to engage in a debate with her, you better do your homework.
This is very true, because she often doesn't do hers and instead makes all kinds of wild assertions with absolutely no basis in reality.
I got a chance to listen to her debate with Bill Maher that took place about a year ago (if I recall correctly). He only did okay (and my purpose isn't to defend him - I have plenty of criticisms of him as well, but at least I sometimes I agree with him).
The craziest things she said had to do with evolution and how there was a growing number of paleontologists who no longer support Darwin's basic theory. Bill didn't know how to counter that. I wouldn't be prepared either and for the same reason. Why? Because I wouldn't expect anybody to say something as blatantly false/crazy as that.
She isn't an idiot, but she is a creationist, which means that she can't possibly be all that smart either.
And I agree with Findalis on something. Doomsday is near.
Oh, and hey Gary, since you're always eager to point out anti-Semitism (which is a good thing) what do you think of Coulter's comments about how Jews need to be "perfected"? (In other words, they need to be Christian.)
I realize you don't like to read anything from Media Matters, but they have the video and the entire transcript from when she said it, so you can see it in its proper context. Just skip their commentary and you can get right to it.
Is it as bad as what some of those Muslim extremists say and write about killing all Jews? No. But it's unquestionably anti-Semitic.
Lance,
Well thank God for Media Matters as our resource.
She should not have said it.
So now what she should I say-that I hate Ann Coulter?
"So now what she should I say-that I hate Ann Coulter?"
I don't think anyone is expecting that, Gary. But you devote so much of this blog to supposed anti-semitism that it might be reasonable to expect a slightly stronger condemnation than just, "She should not have said that." I mean, that has to be about the most lukewarm response you could possibly give. Especially if we can imagine how you'd react if a Muslim had said such a thing about Jews.
Lance, thank you for bringing that incident up. I had forgotten about it otherwise I would have mentioned it myself. Hopefully Gary's head doesn't explode when he realizes that one of his favorite ideologues is anti-semitic.
Well thank God for Media Matters as our resource.
I hate to say it, but they report on things that neither Fox nor what you would call the MSM will. Also, their main focus is on correcting factual errors - something I wish that we'd get from the mainstream (including Fox).
Should you hate her? No. I still like Bill Maher for the most part, even though he's said a lot of things that I think are tacky/classless - and even worse, his anti-vaccination stance is pretty unforgivable and just about as bad as being a creationist. I guess I just like him on the occasions when I agree with him.
To Lance and his sidekick, Anonymous,
I do not consider Coulter to be anti-Semitic. I deal with anti-Semites on a regular basis. And no, if a Muslim made a similar statement, I would not make a big deal about it because both Islamn and Christianity place emphasis on ...what's the darn word?...spreading the message.
Media Matters' main focus is on correcting factual errors!?!?! Media Matters' focus is liberal-democratic ideology. C'mon!
PS Lance,
Media Matters- founded by John Podesta and david Brock and funded by George Soros, and you say thier focus is to correct factual errors?
Good Golly Miss Molly!
Pity I can't post my laughing pictures in the comment section.
To Lance and his sidekick, Anonymous,
I can say in all honesty that I don't know who this Anonymous is.
Media Matters' main focus is on correcting factual errors!?!?! Media Matters' focus is liberal-democratic ideology. C'mon!
I visit their site infrequently, but every time I do, that's the purpose of the articles that they put up. They fact-check. I have heard conservatives like yourself make sweeping dismissals of them because they're "liberal" without ever addressing the substance of their arguments.
I think that conservatives don't like them because they point out truths that make conservatives look foolish. Would it be better if they went after liberals with equal vigor? Probably. Still, the only kinds of rebuttals I've ever read from you are along the lines of: "They're biased, so they're wrong." Not much of an argument, is it? If being biased made you wrong, then Fox would be wrong all the time.
Brock, Podesta and Soros. And you think they are trustworthy? BTW Do you know who George Soros is?
I got another on your Doomsday chart. I don't like Rush either. Not since he verbally attacked a12 year old child. That was just wrong.
Gary,
I judge each article on its own merits. Shoot, I once listened to Sean Hannity and thought that he had a good argument about something. In other words, I don't care who says it, I only care about what's said.
And it's one thing to say that it's not trustworthy (speaking of sweeping, vague dismissals). Where has Media Matters ever distorted the truth? (Shoot, I wouldn't really be surprised if they have. Like I said, I'm not exactly a loyal reader, and I'd like them better if they were like Factcheck and Politifact, both of which go after liberals and conservatives with equal vigor.)
Findalis, I was unaware of the thing with the 12 year old. Considering that Rush said that Michael J. Fox was "exaggerating" (actual word used by Limbaugh) his symptoms of Parkinson's, nothing really surprises me as to how completely classless that guy can be. Maybe next he can find some cancer patients to mock.
Oh, and I missed this:
I do not consider Coulter to be anti-Semitic. I deal with anti-Semites on a regular basis. And no, if a Muslim made a similar statement, I would not make a big deal about it because both Islamn and Christianity place emphasis on ...what's the darn word?...spreading the message.
That's fair. I think that the comment is anti-Semitic, but that's not a good word to describe her as a person. Maybe "Christian chauvinist" would be more accurate?
Oh, and the word you were looking for is "proselytizing".
Lance, you are almost too easy to debunk. You ought to get some kind of handicap. Your illustration of the "craziest things" Ann Coulter said, "how there was a growing number of paleontologists who no longer support Darwin's basic theory" happens to be absolutely true.
See http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/battson/stasis/2.html
and
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/09/1908_darwin_addresses.php
Sorry, but facts are facts... there ARE a growing number of paleontologists who no longer support Darwin's basic theory. Do you want to continue to live a life of cognitive dissonance or acknowledge the fact that Coulter knows far more about what she is talking about than you (or Rick Sanchez) do and it is most probably true in all other areas as well.
All these years you have been going around giving this example of how stupid Ann Coulter is and, in fact, she was right and you were dead wrong.
Proselytize-that is it. I was havng one of those brain blackouts that are becoming more frequent.
Don't respond to that.
Miggie, those are some rather lengthy articles you posted. I'm not sure that they're saying what you're saying that they're saying though. Maybe I'm dumb, but where is the relevant part of those articles that states the notion that growing numbers of paleontologists are rejecting Darwin's theory? I'm sorry, but you may be shooting your mouth off a bit here. Trust me, I'm not new to the evolution debate, and this is somewhere where I have done my homework.
If we're going to exchange links, have a look at these, which debunk Coulter's anti-evolution arguments. The second deals with her assertions about paleontology:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter2.cfm
I also found the Paleontological Society's page on evolution. Seems to me that they're pretty on the same page as the biologists.
If you go to their membership page, you'll see a whole lot of paleontologists who one can safely assume support the theory. Do you have some list of these (present-day) paleontologists who are rejecting the theory in greater numbers? Your links didn't seem to have those - maybe I missed them. So far, I still only see this vague claim of unnamed paleontologists.
I'm going to stand by what I said for now. Oh, and you might also want to check out PZ Myers' total obliteration of Ann Coulter's anti-evolution arguments.
Okay, Miggie, I finally got some time to look over those links. As for the first, I don't find anything about a growing number of paleontologists rejecting Darwin's basic theory. I also did some reading on the author, and he appears to be a creationist. Now, that doesn't make him and his research wrong, but it flies directly in the face of mainstream scientific consensus. I'm not a biologist or paleontologist, so I don't specifically know how to refute his arguments, but it's odd that he quotes Stephen Jay Gould, who was a very vocal proponent of Darwin's theory.
The bottom line? It doesn't debunk what I said.
As for your second source, I have no idea why you'd post that at all. (To be fair, your link didn't work. Did you mean to link this? If so, that has absolutely nothing to do with present-day paleontology, and its basically a historical account of issues revolving around evolution up until the mid-twentieth century.
You're certainly showing a lot of bravado in your supposed "debunking" of my argument. I'm tempted to do the same. However, I'll just say this, if you want to get into an evolution debate with me, let's spare Gary and take it to email. This is definitely not my first rodeo, and I'm always eager to get into this particular debate. You won't find me backing down quite as easily as I did regarding that debate over polls and health care reform. As I stated before, I'm pretty well-read on this.
One of the problems I have with liberals is that they take the bait and let this cretin drive them wild. Yes, she does get off on it, and yes, her every word is calculated to do that. It is pathetic that any self-respecting person who claims to have some intelligence, insight, and coherent analytical ability would allow her to get away with it.
I really could care less what number of individuals with some sort of degree in paleontology have published some article calling evolutionary biology into question. I also don't care how many people with theology degrees make sympathetic noises about evolution. Someone should have called Ann on the laziness of relying on citation to "a growing number" of anyone who says anything.
I don't decide what I accept as reasonably established truth by counting heads, and neither should anyone else who expects to be taken seriously. I read entire books, by people who are capable of laying out evidence and providing an analysis. I have found that evolutionary biology is supported by a steadily growing mountain of evidence, most of which has nothing to do with Charles Darwin, an early observer who imperfectly recognized a small bit of the truth.
I won't fill up a comment on Gary's site with whole columns on the subject, but for anyone who wants to debate, here are a few references, some of them obviously mine:
http://siarlysjenkins.blogspot.com/2006/04/genesis-of-fishapods.html
http://siarlysjenkins.blogspot.com/2005/12/it-takes-atheist-to-deny-evolution.html
http://siarlysjenkins.blogspot.com/2005/11/intelligent-voters-in-dover.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-52571-Science-Religion--Politics-Examiner~y2010m7d9-LIFE-The-First-Four-Billion-Years--Sound-Data-Makes-for-Great-Debate
If Coulter is a cretin, why is it that she mops the floor with those that try to nail her?
If Coulter is a cretin, why is it that she mops the floor with those that try to nail her?
Because she makes stuff up, and people who don't bother to fact-check are therefore impressed.
Siarlys makes a really good point. Scientific truth is not determined by popular opinion. Even if a growing number of paleontologists were suddenly calling it into question, that on its own wouldn't prove anything.
But still...I'm waiting for any evidence that this "growing number" even exists. (I reckon that it doesn't, despite Miggie's supposed "debunking" of what I wrote with articles that don't even say anything about that issue.)
Also, anybody who believes that there's some sort of 50/50 split in the scientific community regarding evolution would do well to read about Project Steve.
Basically, they were able to get more scientists who specialized in biology AND were named Steve who supported evolution than a creationist organization was able to get of scientists who called it into question. The creationists put no such limitations, and some of their "scientists" were mathematicians and engineers. Few were biologists, and some of the biologists claimed that they were duped into signing it in the first place!
Lance,
You and your (Media Matters) fact checks.
Good response, Lance!
A little off point but good DD.
I didn't intend to debate evolution. I wanted to say that Coulter was right when she said that a growing number of paleontologists no longer support Darwin's basic theory. The vast majority of them support the basic theory but X number of them don't and I was under the impression that X was getting bigger, not smaller. I don't know now how anyone, including Coulter, could know the trend. Your point was well taken.
Strictly ad hominem Gary.
And as for Coulter mopping the floor, first, she only does so in the eyes of those who want to say so, and, she comes off well when her opponent tries to outshout her at her own game. I would sort of smirk, pause, look dubiously at her, ask if she's finished with her childish temper tantrum and is ready to listen to reason, proceed slowly and deliberately in answering her... not the rise she tries to get out of those she deems to be liberals. Then I would speak fact to fiction.
You and your (Media Matters) fact checks.
Gary, despite Miggie's insistence that I got my facts wrong, (using articles that don't support, much less even address the point) I think it's pretty safe to say that I've done a pretty good job of proving that Ann Coulter was talking out her posterior when she made the claim about the paleontologists. I didn't need Media Matters for that. And don't dismiss it as some off-the-cuff remark. She devoted a whole section of her book to a series of lies.
To quote Miggie, "Facts are facts". It doesn't matter if it's a conservative, liberal, or Whig who says it.
Post a Comment