Should DUers link to websites that feature Ann Coulter columns & list her as "legal affairs"...

[Clintonista2]

Correspondent?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2043377 Links to Humanevents, a conservative news source that lists Ann Coulter as a contributor and it's "Legal affairs correspondent."

[babylonsister]

1. DUers should link to any site they think is interesting or relevant imo. nt

[Clintonista2]

4. But should they use that site as a "credible source" to prove their claim?

[babylonsister]

6. What site? I don't go to r/w sights. If I see something elsewhere, it's

fair game. And she's a putz who has just about exhausted her 15 min. of fame.

[Clintonista2]

8. Humanevents. nt.

[Blashyrkh]

2. Ann Coulter is not a reputable source for anything. Period.

[Clintonista2]

3. k I'm just wondering, because her site was referenced in an anti-hillary topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2043377

[Blashyrkh]

7. "Her site" and "Ann Coulter" are two different beasts.

I have not followed this but assumed the OP referred to someone linking to a Coulter statement, not bio information which can be confirmed elsewhere.

[Bjorn Against]

5. Human Events is not a credible source, but I don't see anything wrong with what that person posted

This is the only thing they quoted from Human Events:

Mr. Towery served as the chairman of former Speaker Newt Gingrich's political organization from 1992 until Gingrich left Congress. He is a former Georgia state representative, the author of several books and currently heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage.

Hardly controversial material. If it were citing a major "news" story from Human Events it would not be too credible, but simple biographical information is something else entirely. I mean honestly do you question anything in that bit that was quoted?

[Totally Committed]

9. Question and Comment

First the comment:

I am increasingly concerned about the chilling tone of this place as concerns criticism of certain political candidates and entities. The atmosphere has become one of censorship of ideas that do not agree with those of certain posters, candidate supporters, and supporters of the DLC. It seems as though any ideas they do not agree with, they assume should be forbidden and "disappeared". Any voices or opinions that don't gel with theirs should be tombstoned or driven off. They are packs of bullies who go from one thread to the next shutting down all dissent and challenging any disagreement until the reason for the thread is obliterated by the flamewars they start.

I'm pretty sick of it, actually. That's all. "Freedom of speech" should be one of the hallmarks of a site that has "Democratic" in the name, one would think.


Question:

Is your concern about the thread you've linked to really about the subject matter and where the subject matter came from, or are you just concerned it has, at present, *52 recommendations??? Would you be challenging this OP and its poster if it wasn't such a well-read thread, with what appears to be a lot of support? I wonder.

TC


*one of those recommendations is mine, to save anyone who's checking the effort of verifying that info.

ETA: Sadly, one doesn't need to go to "RW" websites to get disturbing information about HRC and the DLC these days. So, I think your concern about the ocassional "link" to one of those sites is overblown. Just my opinion.