This is the thread for the Fox News "Daily Show for conservatives" thing

Politically Inc Guide to America History

Hasn't this been roundly discredited as an error-prone tome full of unsupported assertions and cherry-picked facts?

(SHOCKAH)

Science has been politicized—not by the Right, but by the Left, which sees global warming, Darwinism, stem cell research, and innumerable other issues as tools to advance its agenda (and in many cases expand the reach of government).

When liberals trot out scientists with white coats, debate is supposed to be silenced. But many of the high priests of science have something to hide—from blind intolerance of religion to jealous guarding of their federally financed research budgets...

and here's the NPR/Slate thing debunking the anti-history book

http://www.parade.com/images/2007/0211/Main021107.jpg

The Uzbeck leader is on there, but isn't the guy from Turkmenistan also a real good candidate?

Uh, check the dude on the left.

Those books.

Weept.

isn't it distintly odd that they use this terminology. i can't fathom it.

It's like they finally grabbed onto the postmordernism/relativism that they decried for decades when they figured out they could use it as a club. There are no objective truths or facts, only a battle of opinions. Empiric reality doesn't matter, since facts & opinions are the same.

xp exactly

OTM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These guys are the ULTIMATE relativists, they're not even aware of it most of the time.

But. That's a lot of layers of irony/ self-awareness that aren't evident elsewhere in that sketch; more than one layer anyway, which is as deep as the other jokes go at best. Specifically that RL line about the U.S.'s international reputation being a shambles after two years of a Democratic congress, cough cough. I almost think that the intent of the AC punchline was nothing more than "tweaking the left again with that great un-pc line about invading others people's countries,"
without the understanding of what they were actually suggesting. Could be wrong, but she says "invade your countries" instead of "invade your country," so it kinda looks like the latter case.

Very strange with this book -- Slate and the NY Times attack it for being too conservative and go on about how it's indicative of this and that and Hannity and so forth. But the conservatives who are attacking it seem to have a better point: the guy is not a conservative thinker, he's a bleedin' Confederate thinker. Total wack job. Didn't Slate of the Times read the book? There's your lead right there.

link to the RL/AC bit

That's right. A lot of conservative humor is based on the idea of offending liberal pc sensibilities, "throwing down the gauntlet."

"I just raped a bunch of baby seals"
"Har. Har. That'll really get 'em going."

All they need is like one disproving review, and it's "OMG, the liberal MSM went batshit crazy! Har har!"

That is, like, 80% of conservative humor.

To be fair, this distinction has been deliberately blurred for decades, from the segregation folks to the southern strategy to the "red state" thing.

Dude does tip his hand a bit much w/ the johnny reb officer on the cover.

They released "Female Chauvinist Pigs" with a different cover in America, then.

* Women’s lib has “liberated” men from having to commit, “freed” women from marriage, and often “unshackled” women from having a family.
* More than ever, women in their twenties and thirties live alone, are discarded by boyfriends after “living together,” and are watching their biological clocks tick past the point of no return.
* Women still prefer men who are breadwinners and can protect them physically.

TICK TICK TICK.

Silly 21st-Century feminists, burning their expensive bras & all that.

See what LUGs and vibrators hath wrought?

In that case that's gotta be the most OMGWTF-cosmically-insane thing ever, that Coulter and writers didn't get that she inadvertantly threatened to invade the U.S., kill U.S. leaders, convert U.S. citizens to Christianity, and so on. Mind blown, etc..