Conservative Ben Shapiro Destroys Liberal Memes

[Fenton Lum]

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?

Like I said, you don't want any discussion, you got it, good 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.

"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]

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?

Like I said, you don't want any discussion, you got it, good day.

Gads!!!!

These government school grads!!!

"Like I said,(sic)"

'As I said', you dope.

 

[Fenton Lum]

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.

Typical for what you consider "adult".

 

[Fenton Lum]

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?

Like I said, you don't want any discussion, you got it, good day.

Gads!!!!

These government school grads!!!

"Like I said,(sic)"

'As I said', you dope.

Educated people are your enemy, again love.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Typical for what you consider "adult".

Stop whinin'....

...you took your beatin'...

...now you're dismissed.

 

[Fenton Lum]

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.

Typical for what you consider "adult".

Stop whinin'....

...you took your beatin'...

...now you're dismissed.

How many posts ago were you told good day hon? You're not well.

 

[norwegen]

"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.

Typical for what you consider "adult".

Stop whinin'....

...you took your beatin'...

...now you're dismissed.

How many posts ago were you told good day hon? You're not well.

That's what I was wondering. You keep saying good day, yet you're still here.

Do you not know what you mean when you say it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Like I said, you don't want any discussion, you got it, good day.

Gads!!!!

These government school grads!!!

"Like I said,(sic)"

'As I said', you dope.

Educated people are your enemy, again love.

This post is perfect!!!!

I corrected you usage of 'abject' when you meant 'objective.'

I corrected you usage of 'Like I said" which should be "As I said."

I proved you had no basis for your statement about Queen Ann.

I proved you wrong to deny that she is a scholar.

I trampled all over you.....

....but....as is the case with Liberals....you post one fallacy after another....exactly as the OP was designed to show.....
...with this counterfactual statement:
"Educated people are your enemy..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

Typical for what you consider "adult".

Stop whinin'....

...you took your beatin'...

...now you're dismissed.

How many posts ago were you told good day hon? You're not well.

You keep saying it....but keep crawling back.


How often has the term masochist (better look that up) been associated with your name??

 

[Fenton Lum]

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

Typical for what you consider "adult".

Stop whinin'....

...you took your beatin'...

...now you're dismissed.

How many posts ago were you told good day hon? You're not well.

You keep saying it....but keep crawling back.


How often has the term masochist (better look that up) been associated with your name??

I find it curious, how long you can be this juvenile and have nothing to say of a political context at all on a political discussion board. But yeah, you're done, bye love.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Typical for what you consider "adult".

Stop whinin'....

...you took your beatin'...

...now you're dismissed.

How many posts ago were you told good day hon? You're not well.

That's what I was wondering. You keep saying good day, yet you're still here.

Do you not know what you mean when you say it?

wegie.....you know the one about the masochist who begs the sadist 'hit me, beat me...pleaseeeeee!!!'


The sadist says.....



....noooooo!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Typical for what you consider "adult".

Stop whinin'....

...you took your beatin'...

...now you're dismissed.

How many posts ago were you told good day hon? You're not well.

You keep saying it....but keep crawling back.


How often has the term masochist (better look that up) been associated with your name??

I find it curious, how long you can be this juvenile and have nothing to say of a political context at all on a political discussion board. But yeah, you're done, bye love.

You again????


I had a college professor who referred to some folks thus: "He sticks to me like manure sticks to a wet blanket"

Now I know what he meant.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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

Your bio set to music, Cynthia/Chica...enjoy!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Conservative Ben Shapiro Destroys Liberal Memes”

lol

No, just straw man fallacies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

Oh....and for the record....Coulter was correct.


"Canada's participation in the Vietnam war is not well documented.

Although Canada was "officially non-belligerent" in the war, the Canadian government helped the U.S. by sending medical equipment, weapons-making material, and technical assistance.

But it is the war efforts of tens of thousands of Canadian soldiers who joined the U.S. military forces that had a more profound effect on Ray Heimes. The 69-year-old Prince George resident and U.S. Army veteran witnessed firsthand the bravery of Canadian-born soldiers who fought alongside him while he served more than three years of combat duty in the 10-year war.

"People think it was an American war, but it wasn't," said Heimes, a native of Detroit. "There were 13 countries involved [helping the U.S.] and there were at least 40,000 Canadians in Vietnam."

- See more at: Canada played active role in Vietnam war

 

[Moonglow]

I what I like in the fallacy region of conservatives,, is that they think everyone who is not in their circle is a liberal...

 

[PoliticalChic]

“Conservative Ben Shapiro Destroys Liberal Memes”

lol

No, just straw man fallacies.

Congrats, C_Chamber_Pot.....you get the award as "The Most Boring Poster on USMB"!!!


I just received a copy of your acceptance speech...
....here it is:
"This fails as a straw man fallacy "


The crowd cheers!



Well....not actually 'cheers'.....more like roars with laughter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I what I like in the fallacy region of conservatives,, is that they think everyone who is not in their circle is a liberal...

Another of those posts you are famous for....disjointed nonsensical fallacious.


I'm beginning to sense a medical problem here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coulter

This Coulter? The History Expert?

"In counter-current to the movement of American draft-dodgers and deserters to Canada, about 30,000 Canadians volunteered to fight in southeast Asia.[36] Among the volunteers were fiftyMohawks from the Kahnawake reserve near Montreal.[37] One-hundred and ten (110) Canadians died in Vietnam, and seven remain listed as Missing in Action. U.S. Army Sergeant Peter C. Lemon, an American immigrant from Canada was awarded the U.S. Medal of Honor for his valour in the conflict. (This cross-border enlistment was not unprecedented: Both the First and the Second World War saw thousands of Americans join the Canadian Armed Forces before the U.S officially declared war on Germany)[38]"
Canada and the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So....yeah....Coulter turns out to be the history expert....unlike you lying journalist (a redundancy?) and you.



Is your apology on the way?



Wasn't that fun?