Conservative Ben Shapiro Destroys Liberal Memes

[PoliticalChic]

As the saying goes....in a debate, conservatives eat Liberal's lunch.

"Ben Shapiro on Baltimore Riots, Income Inequality, Racism and The BLM Movement"





Bears this out, huh:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press!

Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"
Coulter

 

[Kaykan]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Coulter....expert on Liberals.

As you've inadvertently proved.

 

[Fenton Lum]

When you have a political cohort that demonizes the educated and education, it's pretty clear who their target demographic is, and the political direction they have in mind for society.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Coulter....expert on Liberals.

Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When you have a political cohort that demonizes the educated and education, it's pretty clear who their target demographic is, and the political direction they have in mind for society.

As your post is the usual clownish form, it is difficult to determine which individual you are attempting to aim your hate at.....

Please try to be more articulate,so I can, as is our pattern, shred your post.



Oh....and, do try to study the vid before you post your analysis of same.....else you are verifying the OP.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Abject reality has no place in the ideology of some folks.

 

[Fenton Lum]

When you have a political cohort that demonizes the educated and education, it's pretty clear who their target demographic is, and the political direction they have in mind for society.

As your post is the usual clownish form, it is difficult to determine which individual you are attempting to aim your hate at.....

Please try to be more articulate,so I can, as is our pattern, shred your post.



Oh....and, do try to study the vid before you post your analysis of same.....else you are verifying the OP.

Oh look, another hissy fit, someone had another view.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Coulter....expert on Liberals.

Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman.

Now we reveal that you represent the windbag gallery of the USMB.

Watch this:

Coulter, a scholar and most witty observer of the Liberal scene, has written some dozen or so best sellers.


Please list the ones you have read, that lead you to this conclusion:
"Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman."



Shall I wait, or do you admit that what I just said about you is 100% correct?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Abject reality has no place in the ideology of some folks.

"Abject reality has no place in the ideology of some folks."

Oh, my.....this is far too easy.


OK...let's prove what a dunce you are:
ab·ject
ˈabˌjekt,abˈjekt/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a situation or condition) extremely bad, unpleasant, and degrading.

Your English lesson....from one whose first language is not English...yet is far more fluent in same than you are....
...the word you've searched for.....in vain....is "objective"


ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

See, now you've become a human "piñata"

 

[Fenton Lum]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Coulter....expert on Liberals.

Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman.

Now we reveal that you represent the windbag gallery of the USMB.

Watch this:

Coulter, a scholar and most witty observer of the Liberal scene, has written some dozen or so best sellers.


Please list the ones you have read, that lead you to this conclusion:
"Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman."



Shall I wait, or do you admit that what I just said about you is 100% correct?

She wrote books? Yes. So did Bill O'Reilly and he's no expert on anyting either. But they know their minions will obey and buy. So? They all push the same shit, and partisanshitheads on both sides follow their leaders to the alter of societal sacrifice. Coulter as "scholar"? Bwa ha ha ha ha, yeah, sure mac, I'm sure next to you she looks that way.

 

[norwegen]

College Republicans need to speak up more often. A tongue-tied liberal is more bearable than one who's talking.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When you have a political cohort that demonizes the educated and education, it's pretty clear who their target demographic is, and the political direction they have in mind for society.

As your post is the usual clownish form, it is difficult to determine which individual you are attempting to aim your hate at.....

Please try to be more articulate,so I can, as is our pattern, shred your post.



Oh....and, do try to study the vid before you post your analysis of same.....else you are verifying the OP.

Oh look, another hissy fit, someone had another view.

How so?

Here I sit, in seraphic calm....proving you a fool.
(Oooo....did I use more terms you lack understanding of???
So sorry I ended that sentence with a preposition.)

 

[Fenton Lum]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Abject reality has no place in the ideology of some folks.

"Abject reality has no place in the ideology of some folks."

Oh, my.....this is far too easy.


OK...let's prove what a dunce you are:
ab·ject
ˈabˌjekt,abˈjekt/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a situation or condition) extremely bad, unpleasant, and degrading.

Your English lesson....from one whose first language is not English...yet is far more fluent in same than you are....
...the word you've searched for.....in vain....is "objective"


ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

See, now you've become a human "piñata"

Thanks! You're correct!

Objective reality has no place in the ideology of some folks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Coulter....expert on Liberals.

Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman.

Now we reveal that you represent the windbag gallery of the USMB.

Watch this:

Coulter, a scholar and most witty observer of the Liberal scene, has written some dozen or so best sellers.


Please list the ones you have read, that lead you to this conclusion:
"Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman."



Shall I wait, or do you admit that what I just said about you is 100% correct?

She wrote books? Yes. So did Bill O'Reilly and he's no expert on anyting either. But they know their minions will obey and buy. So? They all push the same shit, and partisanshitheads on both sides follow their leaders to the alter of societal sacrifice. Coulter as "scholar"? Bwa ha ha ha ha, yeah, sure mac, I'm sure next to you she looks that way.

1. "She wrote books? Yes. So did Bill O'Reilly and he's no expert on anyting either. But they know their minions will obey and buy. So?"
Well....now that we've proven that you are a total windbag....having neither read nor seen any of her dozen of so scholarly, well-documented tomes (better look that up), you are....
...let's remind all of another of your disreputable characteristics.


2. "They all push the same shit, and partisanshitheads..."

Gutter language is a well-known trait of one who recognizes that they've utterly lost the argument.

Defaulting to vulgarity proves that your thoughts are no more articulated on this subject than on any other.: a second-rater with a third grader's vocabulary.



Isn't this fun?

 

[Fenton Lum]

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Coulter....expert on Liberals.

Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman.

Now we reveal that you represent the windbag gallery of the USMB.

Watch this:

Coulter, a scholar and most witty observer of the Liberal scene, has written some dozen or so best sellers.


Please list the ones you have read, that lead you to this conclusion:
"Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman."



Shall I wait, or do you admit that what I just said about you is 100% correct?

She wrote books? Yes. So did Bill O'Reilly and he's no expert on anyting either. But they know their minions will obey and buy. So? They all push the same shit, and partisanshitheads on both sides follow their leaders to the alter of societal sacrifice. Coulter as "scholar"? Bwa ha ha ha ha, yeah, sure mac, I'm sure next to you she looks that way.

1. "She wrote books? Yes. So did Bill O'Reilly and he's no expert on anyting either. But they know their minions will obey and buy. So?"
Well....now that we've proven that you are a total windbag....having neither read nor seen any of her dozen of so scholarly, well-documented tomes (better look that up), you are....
...let's remind all of another of your disreputable characteristics.


2. "They all push the same shit, and partisanshitheads..."

Gutter language is a well-known trait of one who recognizes that they've utterly lost the argument.

Defaulting to vulgarity proves that your thoughts are no more articulated on this subject than on any other.: a second-rater with a third grader's vocabulary.



Isn't this fun?

What it is not, is coherent rational nonpartisanshit political discussion, but you're not up to that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Coulter....expert on Liberals.

Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman.

Now we reveal that you represent the windbag gallery of the USMB.

Watch this:

Coulter, a scholar and most witty observer of the Liberal scene, has written some dozen or so best sellers.


Please list the ones you have read, that lead you to this conclusion:
"Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman."



Shall I wait, or do you admit that what I just said about you is 100% correct?

She wrote books? Yes. So did Bill O'Reilly and he's no expert on anyting either. But they know their minions will obey and buy. So? They all push the same shit, and partisanshitheads on both sides follow their leaders to the alter of societal sacrifice. Coulter as "scholar"? Bwa ha ha ha ha, yeah, sure mac, I'm sure next to you she looks that way.

"Coulter as "scholar"? "


After the beating you've taken already....this seems hardly necessary....but I like doing it.

So...get this:

"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.


To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated 10 random footnotes from her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.

This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email me [email protected]

In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.

I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!

In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter. Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was correct."
curi: Fact Checking Ann Coulter



I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...




Reviewing her critics: curi: Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics



a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want: Fact Checking Al Franken



Isn't this fun?

 

[PoliticalChic]

College Republicans need to speak up more often. A tongue-tied liberal is more bearable than one who's talking.

I've said it before,and I'll say it again, wegie.....

You are a clever and funny little book worm!

 

[Fenton Lum]

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Coulter....expert on Liberals.

Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman.

Now we reveal that you represent the windbag gallery of the USMB.

Watch this:

Coulter, a scholar and most witty observer of the Liberal scene, has written some dozen or so best sellers.


Please list the ones you have read, that lead you to this conclusion:
"Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman."



Shall I wait, or do you admit that what I just said about you is 100% correct?

She wrote books? Yes. So did Bill O'Reilly and he's no expert on anyting either. But they know their minions will obey and buy. So? They all push the same shit, and partisanshitheads on both sides follow their leaders to the alter of societal sacrifice. Coulter as "scholar"? Bwa ha ha ha ha, yeah, sure mac, I'm sure next to you she looks that way.

"Coulter as "scholar"? "


After the beating you've taken already....this seems hardly necessary....but I like doing it.

So...get this:

"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.


To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated 10 random footnotes from her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.

This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email me [email protected]

In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.

I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!

In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter. Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was correct."
curi: Fact Checking Ann Coulter



I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...




Reviewing her critics: curi: Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics



a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want: Fact Checking Al Franken



Isn't this fun?

I'm sorry, Franken? Look, what you're after here is a partisanshithead pissing match on line. Not my thing, have a nice day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coulter....expert on Liberals.

Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman.

Now we reveal that you represent the windbag gallery of the USMB.

Watch this:

Coulter, a scholar and most witty observer of the Liberal scene, has written some dozen or so best sellers.


Please list the ones you have read, that lead you to this conclusion:
"Coulter....expert on propganda on "Liberals" as boogeyman."



Shall I wait, or do you admit that what I just said about you is 100% correct?

She wrote books? Yes. So did Bill O'Reilly and he's no expert on anyting either. But they know their minions will obey and buy. So? They all push the same shit, and partisanshitheads on both sides follow their leaders to the alter of societal sacrifice. Coulter as "scholar"? Bwa ha ha ha ha, yeah, sure mac, I'm sure next to you she looks that way.

1. "She wrote books? Yes. So did Bill O'Reilly and he's no expert on anyting either. But they know their minions will obey and buy. So?"
Well....now that we've proven that you are a total windbag....having neither read nor seen any of her dozen of so scholarly, well-documented tomes (better look that up), you are....
...let's remind all of another of your disreputable characteristics.


2. "They all push the same shit, and partisanshitheads..."

Gutter language is a well-known trait of one who recognizes that they've utterly lost the argument.

Defaulting to vulgarity proves that your thoughts are no more articulated on this subject than on any other.: a second-rater with a third grader's vocabulary.



Isn't this fun?

What it is not, is coherent rational nonpartisanshit political discussion, but you're not up to that.

I destroy your attempts at posts, with metronomic regularity.

Isn't that enough?

No?

Well....then consider that I post supported, documented, sourced posts....and....

.....I am never wrong.



Now....isn't THAT enough?