Well, I read it… and I’m totally disappointed. I expected you’d be refuting her points… but you barely even tried.

Let’s dig in.. shall we?

Point #1 — You never even attempt to refute her. You just mock her. You should really dust off that PhD.

Point #2 — You don’t even present any point that she made… and so naturally you don’t refute it. Because there ain’t nuthin’ there.

Point #3 — You don’t present a point. Something about smells and shit. You’ll have to do better.

Point #4 — You finally catch Ann in a LIE!:
“She then lies that only two researchers are cited over and over on the claim that immigrants commit less crime.”

Except you lied about what she said which was:

“The two researchers whose work is cited over and over again for the proposition that immigrants are less criminal than Americans…”

She never said there were only two. She points to the two commonly cited.

Point #5-Point #10 None are actually points made by Ann, just links to “disprove” point #4… so they obviously can’t be “wrong”.

Point #11 — Oddly, even you say Ann isn’t wrong here: “Finally something I agree with Ann Coulter on.” Agreement isn’t the same as proving her “wrong”. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Point #12 — Again you misstate Ann’s position. She’s not claiming that the study is what it is. She is complaining that the Guardian misstated the scope of the study. From her column (because I’m fair like that):

“It turns out that neither Piquero nor Bersani compared immigrant crime to “the overall population” — as the British Guardian recently claimed in an article […] Rather, they compare immigrants’ crime rate to the crime rate of America’s most criminally inclined subgroups.”

“ Piquero and Bersani’s joint study, “Comparing Patterns and Predictors of Immigrant Offending Among a Sample of Adjudicated Youth,” used as its base group “adolescents who were found guilty of a serious offense.”

THAT’S NOT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF AMERICANS! It’s a representative sample of teenagers who are convicted criminals. “

She is calling the Guardian liars or imbecils. And she should be.

Point #13 — Again, you never refute her.

Point #14 — Not only do you fail to make a case that she is “wrong” here, but you admit to being confused: “What does that even mean Ann?”

Zero for 14. Not a good record my friend.

So for the most part… you attempted no refutation. Sad. And in the one clear case where you “caught” her telling a “lie”, you had to misstate her claim to do it.

Remember what I said? :”The only way you can outsmart Ann is to change her position… which is a technique I like to call “cheating”.”

So called it.