# Ann Coulter's Answer to Canada!



## PoliticalChic

"The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to mewidely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached mein advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.

What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")

How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?  

Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Ormy suspicionis it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?

I'm sure Canada's Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.  

Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward Muslimsnor was there the remotest possibility that they would. 

By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and I have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.

At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to Canada? How did the country that gave us Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Aykroyd and Catherine O'Hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies? " 
Conservative News: Coulter - University of Ottawa, Parliament condemn speech as "hate speech" - HUMAN EVENTS


----------



## eots

clearly a cry for attention it s not like some government official warned her about hate laws one leftist dean from one university did and no one banned her from speaking...but its a way better story to run away because of a body guards unsubstainated claims than to give her boring speech and get little attention beyond a letter and some lefty protest..universties all across America are full of such people and such incidents there is no real story here


----------



## xotoxi

*The kids in Ottawa made me sad!!!*


----------



## eots

Bilderberg-bound filmmaker held at airport

Canadian authorities detained an American activist filmmaker at the Ottawa airport late Wednesday night, confiscating his passport, camera equipment and most of his belongings.Citizenship and Immigration Canada agents stopped Alex Jones, whose films include Martial Law 9/11: The Rise of the Police State, and questioned him for nearly four hours before letting him go with only one change of clothes and telling him to return Thursday morning.&#8220;It&#8217;s really chilling, like a police state,&#8221; said Mr. Jones of his detention


Bilderberg-bound filmmaker held at airport


----------



## uscitizen

How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?


----------



## del




----------



## PubliusInfinitum

PoliticalChic said:


> "The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to mewidely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached mein advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
> 
> What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")
> 
> How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?
> 
> Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Ormy suspicionis it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?
> 
> I'm sure Canada's Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.
> 
> Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward Muslimsnor was there the remotest possibility that they would.
> 
> By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and I have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.
> 
> At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to Canada? How did the country that gave us Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Aykroyd and Catherine O'Hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies? "
> Conservative News: Coulter - University of Ottawa, Parliament condemn speech as "hate speech" - HUMAN EVENTS


 

LOL...  I think it's the pot... too beaucoup...   and the radical nature of Leftism in general; and its entirely possible that we're looking at a toxic combo...


----------



## PoliticalChic

uscitizen said:


> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?



I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.

Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
to do with the OP.

1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.

2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.

3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.

Still with me?

4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.

5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.

5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." 
Have someone explain it to you.


----------



## xotoxi

del said:


>


 
Coulter's lookin' mighty fine these days!!!


----------



## eots

PoliticalChic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, as see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
Click to expand...


*she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing


----------



## uscitizen

Tom Petty?

btw my apologies to the Equine breed for my previous post.


----------



## PoliticalChic

uscitizen said:


> Tom Petty?
> 
> btw my apologies to the Equine breed for my previous post.



The apology should be to the five teachers who the grades of schooling that you completed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

xotoxi said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coulter's lookin' mighty fine these days!!!
Click to expand...


Ah, the intellectual level of debate of a farm school grad...


----------



## uscitizen

PoliticalChic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Petty?
> 
> btw my apologies to the Equine breed for my previous post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apology should be to the five teachers who the grades of schooling that you completed.
Click to expand...


I did only go to 11 years of regular public school.
I was double promoted and did not have to attend one grade.
How about you?

Can't you tell how smart I am from my avatar?


----------



## Zona

Coulter is a funny guy.  It would have been funny if she went there and got arrested for her hatefull crap.  

Funny dude.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

eots said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, as see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing
Click to expand...

 

Well the Left's notorious for violence against their political opposition...

Need we remind ya that the ideological Left Murdered 150 MILLION people, IN PEACE TIME... in the 20th Century alone...

Hells bells... there's a list of over 100 'untimely deaths' surrounding just the Clinton Administration...  And the current President of the US comes out of CHICAGO!... Surely we don't have to run down the headlines of opposition who found themselves sleepin' with the fishes.

And let's be honest, Coulter's been attacked on campus several times...  and I don't blame her for not wanting to risk it with the Canukistanis...  I mean how is SHE suppose to know if everyone has enough pot?

All it would take is for her to show up a couple of days after the stash dried up and ANYTHING could happen.  It's just not worth the risk.


----------



## Zona

uscitizen said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Petty?
> 
> btw my apologies to the Equine breed for my previous post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apology should be to the five teachers who the grades of schooling that you completed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did only go to 11 years of regular public school.
> I was double promoted and did not have to attend one grade.
> How about you?
> 
> Can't you tell how smart I am from my avatar?
Click to expand...


Same thing happened to me.  They didnt call it double promoting, it was called getting skipped a grade when they bounced me from the 6th to the 8th grade.  I would not allow them to do anything like that to my daughter though.  I never really fit in to any class I was in all during high school.  In my mind.


----------



## PoliticalChic

eots said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, as see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing
Click to expand...


So, if I understand your point, such as it is, Ms. Coulter would have cancelled her speech to gain publicity, riot or no riot.

Astute.

Thanks for participating, and contributing a difference without a distinction.

"OTTAWA, March 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - American conservative firebrand Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her talk at the University of Ottawa on Tuesday night after hundreds of shouting student protesters showed up threatening disruption and violence if she was allowed to speak.

The University of Ottawa is really easy to get into, isnt it? Coulter said in a Washington Times interview after the cancelled event. I never get any trouble at the Ivy League schools. Its always the bush league schools.

This has never, ever, ever happened before  even at the stupidest American university, she said.

Coulter's security team told her they believed it would have been dangerous for her to appear to give her speech, according to the Ottawa Citizen."

U of Ottawa Student Rioters Shut Down Ann Coulter Talk


----------



## uscitizen

Zona said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The apology should be to the five teachers who the grades of schooling that you completed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did only go to 11 years of regular public school.
> I was double promoted and did not have to attend one grade.
> How about you?
> 
> Can't you tell how smart I am from my avatar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing happened to me.  They didnt call it double promoting, it was called getting skipped a grade when they bounced me from the 6th to the 8th grade.  I would not allow them to do anything like that to my daughter though.  I never really fit in to any class I was in all during high school.  In my mind.
Click to expand...


Yes the way the system is structured it is not a good thing and I would not recommend it.

I think you are the only other person I have met that has skipped a grade.


----------



## Bfgrn

Guess this Coulter guy never met Dale Hunter or Claude Lemieux...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

PoliticalChic said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, as see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if I understand your point, such as it is, Ms. Coulter would have cancelled her speech to gain publicity, riot or no riot.
> 
> Astute.
> 
> Thanks for participating, and contributing a difference without a distinction.
> 
> "OTTAWA, March 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - American conservative firebrand Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her talk at the University of Ottawa on Tuesday night after hundreds of shouting student protesters showed up threatening disruption and violence if she was allowed to speak.
> 
> The University of Ottawa is really easy to get into, isnt it? Coulter said in a Washington Times interview after the cancelled event. I never get any trouble at the Ivy League schools. Its always the bush league schools.
> 
> This has never, ever, ever happened before  even at the stupidest American university, she said.
> 
> Coulter's security team told her they believed it would have been dangerous for her to appear to give her speech, according to the Ottawa Citizen."
> 
> U of Ottawa Student Rioters Shut Down Ann Coulter Talk
Click to expand...

 

  LOL... I've told you people... 



  DON'T POKE THE BEAR!


----------



## Foxfyre

PoliticalChic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
Click to expand...


Last night Bill O'Reilly interviewed the spokesperson from U of O who defended the University's position and the truly rude and hateful students who apparently had been goaded by staff to exhibit such behavior.  When O'Reilly repeatedly asked her for an example of something Coulter had said to merit the letter and the treatment she received on campus, the person could only come up with Coulter's line "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. . . " line and "All Muslims should be on the no fly list". . .both obviously exaggerated for effect and said for humor.

When O'Reilly questioned the spokesperson about free speech rights in Canada, the spokesperson said, with a straight face, that Coulter would be welcome to speak anywhere else in Canada.  But a University was not an appropriate place.

I found that absolutely amazing.  And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to.


----------



## PoliticalChic

uscitizen said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Petty?
> 
> btw my apologies to the Equine breed for my previous post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apology should be to the five teachers who the grades of schooling that you completed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did only go to 11 years of regular public school.
> I was double promoted and did not have to attend one grade.
> How about you?
> 
> Can't you tell how smart I am from my avatar?
Click to expand...


So, you have 22 years of education, based on graduating 11th grade twice?

You probably have to carry the diploma in your wallet, so folks won't judge you on your writing skills.

But, I did know you were smart, since you passed the exam to gain entry to the USMB.


"How about you?"
Frankly, my education began after I graduated.


----------



## uscitizen

Students who were goaded by staff?

I call BS on that.


----------



## Kalam

Kalam's response to Monsieur Coulter on behalf of Canada:


----------



## PoliticalChic

Foxfyre said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last night Bill O'Reilly interviewed the spokesperson from U of O who defended the University's position and the truly rude and hateful students who apparently had been goaded by staff to exhibit such behavior.  When O'Reilly repeatedly asked her for an example of something Coulter had said to merit the letter and the treatment she received on campus, the person could only come up with Coulter's line "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. . . " line and "All Muslims should be on the no fly list". . .both obviously exaggerated for effect and said for humor.
> 
> When O'Reilly questioned the spokesperson about free speech rights in Canada, the spokesperson said, with a straight face, that Coulter would be welcome to speak anywhere else in Canada.  But a University was not an appropriate place.
> 
> I found that absolutely amazing.  And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to.
Click to expand...


"But a University was not an appropriate place.

I found that absolutely amazing.  And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to."

Great point.

I was amazed, as well. Here we are brought up to believe that the college campus is exactly where we want students to hear every permutation of argument, and this stenographer, er, journalist, claims exactly the opposite.

I think Coulter hit on this idea and, peripherially, slammed the libs who control almost every college and university as to how they control the intellectual pipeline.


----------



## uscitizen

After Coltface's statements I don't really advise her to ever go back to Canada.

Lucky Canada.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kalam said:


> Kalam's response to Monsieur Coulter on behalf of Canada:



I can't imagine even the local homeless folks would appoint you to speak for them.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> I found that absolutely amazing.  And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to.



The whole thing makes me wonder WTF Coulter had to say to Canadians that would get them so worked up. 

Maybe she wanted to speak French?


----------



## Kalam

PoliticalChic said:


> I can't imagine even the local homeless folks would appoint you to speak for them.



Per Canada's request, I'd like to reiterate the message to Coulter and point out that it applies doubly to fans of her inane vitriol:


----------



## eots

PoliticalChic said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, as see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if I understand your point, such as it is, Ms. Coulter would have cancelled her speech to gain publicity, riot or no riot.
> 
> Astute.
> 
> Thanks for participating, and contributing a difference without a distinction.
> 
> "OTTAWA, March 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - American conservative firebrand Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her talk at the University of Ottawa on Tuesday night after hundreds of shouting student protesters showed up threatening disruption and violence if she was allowed to speak.
> 
> The University of Ottawa is really easy to get into, isnt it? Coulter said in a Washington Times interview after the cancelled event. I never get any trouble at the Ivy League schools. Its always the bush league schools.
> 
> This has never, ever, ever happened before  even at the stupidest American university, she said.
> 
> Coulter's security team told her they believed it would have been dangerous for her to appear to give her speech, according to the Ottawa Citizen."
> 
> U of Ottawa Student Rioters Shut Down Ann Coulter Talk
Click to expand...


Riot ? what is this hysteria  who said riot ? if thee were any real concerns of riots..lol..ove ann..lol...campus security or police would of voiced concerns


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Kalam said:


> Kalam's response to Monsieur Coulter on behalf of Canada:


 
I was unable to get an official response to this from Miss Coulter...

But I feel comfortable in advancing the following as something closely representing her likely reaction:


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

eots said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I understand your point, such as it is, Ms. Coulter would have cancelled her speech to gain publicity, riot or no riot.
> 
> Astute.
> 
> Thanks for participating, and contributing a difference without a distinction.
> 
> "OTTAWA, March 24, 2010 *(LifeSiteNews.com)* - American conservative firebrand Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her talk at the University of Ottawa on Tuesday night after hundreds of shouting student protesters showed up threatening disruption and violence if she was allowed to speak.
> 
> The University of Ottawa is really easy to get into, isnt it? Coulter said in a Washington Times interview after the cancelled event. I never get any trouble at the Ivy League schools. Its always the bush league schools.
> 
> This has never, ever, ever happened before  even at the stupidest American university, she said.
> 
> Coulter's security team told her they believed it would have been dangerous for her to appear to give her speech, according to the Ottawa Citizen."
> 
> U of Ottawa Student Rioters Shut Down Ann Coulter Talk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riot ? what is this hysteria who said riot ? if thee were any real concerns of riots..lol..ove ann..lol...campus security or police would of voiced concerns
Click to expand...

 
Dude... what's with the denials of the riots?  It's written right there...  If you've some dispute with what is being reported by   *(LifeSiteNews.com) *take it up with them...


----------



## Kalam

PubliusInfinitum said:


> I was unable to get an official response to this from Miss Coulter...
> 
> But I feel comfortable in advancing the following his as something closely representing of her likely reaction:



If you're able to establish contact with Ms. Coulter, please tell her that although I'm flattered by her advances, I've decided to limit myself to sexual partners who are both human and female.


----------



## Foxfyre

PoliticalChic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last night Bill O'Reilly interviewed the spokesperson from U of O who defended the University's position and the truly rude and hateful students who apparently had been goaded by staff to exhibit such behavior.  When O'Reilly repeatedly asked her for an example of something Coulter had said to merit the letter and the treatment she received on campus, the person could only come up with Coulter's line "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. . . " line and "All Muslims should be on the no fly list". . .both obviously exaggerated for effect and said for humor.
> 
> When O'Reilly questioned the spokesperson about free speech rights in Canada, the spokesperson said, with a straight face, that Coulter would be welcome to speak anywhere else in Canada.  But a University was not an appropriate place.
> 
> I found that absolutely amazing.  And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But a University was not an appropriate place.
> 
> I found that absolutely amazing.  And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to."
> 
> Great point.
> 
> I was amazed, as well. Here we are brought up to believe that the college campus is exactly where we want students to hear every permutation of argument, and this stenographer, er, journalist, claims exactly the opposite.
> 
> I think Coulter hit on this idea and, peripherially, slammed the libs who control almost every college and university as to how they control the intellectual pipeline.
Click to expand...


I was blessed with an education at a university who invited EVERYBODY.  We had Democrats, Republicans, Birchers, a militant Communist from Russia--yes, the remnants of McCarthyism were still alive and well at that time--pacifists, passionate first strike war promoters, and you name it.  Many of these people were anathema to most of the faculty and students, but all invited speakers were treated with the utmost respect and courtesy.  Any student who would presume to be discourteous to an invited guests would be escorted off premises, not the guest.

But that was in the days when universities still educated, encouraged exploration of all sides of every issue, and required students to think.  The content of such programs would be discussed as appropriate in appropriate classes.  Student reporters were assigned to cover the events and were expected to write an objective and non judgmental story covering all the bases.

And that is what education should be everywhere.

Makes you wonder what passes for education at U of O these days though doesn't it.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> When O'Reilly questioned the spokesperson about free speech rights in Canada, the spokesperson said, with a straight face, that Coulter would be welcome to speak anywhere else in Canada.  But a University was not an appropriate place.
> 
> I found that absolutely amazing.  And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to.



Actually Coulter might NOT "be welcome to speak anywhere else in Canada:"



> .... university academic vice-president Francois Houle, who had written Coulter to warn her that Canadian laws make provisions for hate speech.
> 
> _*"Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges," he warned her in the letter, which Coulter quickly leaked to the media.*_




Canadians are such a humorless bunch.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Kalam said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was unable to get an official response to this from Miss Coulter...
> 
> But I feel comfortable in advancing the following as something closely representing of her likely reaction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're able to establish contact with Ms. Coulter, please tell her that although I'm flattered by her advances, I've decided to limit myself to sexual partners who are both human and female.
Click to expand...

 

Sadly... I don't think I'll be able to pass that on to her directly; but I will slip a note to let security know that you've apparently failed to refill your prescriptions...

Come on Haji... 

You know what's gonna happen if you don't get back on the cure... you're gonna be walkin' down the mall with your ball bearing coat on again; and you aren't always going to be able to count on their being a _Buy 1-get 1 Koran sale, with a free prayer rug_ at "*Muslims Are Us*", to pull ya out of it.

No one wants to see Muslim sprayed all over the food court man... It's bad for business and its a BITCH getting you people out of the grout.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> When O'Reilly questioned the spokesperson about free speech rights in Canada, the spokesperson said, with a straight face, that Coulter would be welcome to speak anywhere else in Canada. But a University was not an appropriate place.
> 
> I found that absolutely amazing. And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Coulter might NOT "be welcome to speak anywhere else in Canada:"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... university academic vice-president Francois Houle, who had written Coulter to warn her that Canadian laws make provisions for hate speech.
> 
> _*"Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges," he warned her in the letter, which Coulter quickly leaked to the media.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Canadians are such a humorless bunch.
Click to expand...

 

Well that's the nature of your fascists...  There's nothing less tolerant on earth than the ideological left...  It's the most lethal organism on the planetl; seconded, perhaps... to disease, from time to time.  But I think, the left took the title in the 20th century; with 150 million innocent murdered...  not 100% positive that disease didn't beat' em... but I think the Left took it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

eots said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I understand your point, such as it is, Ms. Coulter would have cancelled her speech to gain publicity, riot or no riot.
> 
> Astute.
> 
> Thanks for participating, and contributing a difference without a distinction.
> 
> "OTTAWA, March 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - American conservative firebrand Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her talk at the University of Ottawa on Tuesday night after hundreds of shouting student protesters showed up threatening disruption and violence if she was allowed to speak.
> 
> The University of Ottawa is really easy to get into, isnt it? Coulter said in a Washington Times interview after the cancelled event. I never get any trouble at the Ivy League schools. Its always the bush league schools.
> 
> This has never, ever, ever happened before  even at the stupidest American university, she said.
> 
> Coulter's security team told her they believed it would have been dangerous for her to appear to give her speech, according to the Ottawa Citizen."
> 
> U of Ottawa Student Rioters Shut Down Ann Coulter Talk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riot ? what is this hysteria  who said riot ? if thee were any real concerns of riots..lol..ove ann..lol...campus security or police would of voiced concerns
Click to expand...


So you're sticking to the thesis that there was no reason for Ms. Coulter's withdrawl from the venue?

Sherlock, the board is lucky to have your insight.

But, while I have your attention, you might want to fire off a nasty note to the following, as a couple have 'mistakenly' have use the word riot!!

"Security at the University of Ottawa scrapped the right-wing darling's talk when more than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying."

Read more: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying


"Last night, I started seeing stuff in my Twitter feed about #AnnCoulter, 2000 protesters, people throwing tables, and even people being whisked to the U.S. Embassy for protection. Ann Coulter was in our nations capital, to speak at the University of Ottawa.

Id seen her speak the night before, in London, Ontario, and like many people across Canada, was wondering what kind of reception shed get at this next venue. After all, it was a U of O provost, known Frenchman Francois Houle (his real name), whod sent Coulter that now-famous passive aggressive letter before her arrival, ever so politely advising her not to, you know, advocate genocide or incite violence on Canadian soil.

I expected a problem. I didnt expect a riot."
Ann Coulter riot in Ottawa: Day Two | NewsReal Blog


"The hate that is burning in the USA right now is due to a 100 year attempt at health care coverage for all Americans especially young adults. Health care in Canada is not just for the wealthy who can afford the rising health care insurance fees in the free market promoted by the conservative right wingers. But then Ann Coulter arrived in Canada to incite a riot."
Ann Coulter's Racial Hate Speech in Canada | Politicol News


----------



## NYcarbineer

Coulter wanted to speak at a university where she thinks the average student IQ is 0?

Well, at least she knows her fan base.


----------



## Samson

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> When O'Reilly questioned the spokesperson about free speech rights in Canada, the spokesperson said, with a straight face, that Coulter would be welcome to speak anywhere else in Canada. But a University was not an appropriate place.
> 
> I found that absolutely amazing. And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Coulter might NOT "be welcome to speak anywhere else in Canada:"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... university academic vice-president Francois Houle, who had written Coulter to warn her that Canadian laws make provisions for hate speech.
> 
> _*"Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges," he warned her in the letter, which Coulter quickly leaked to the media.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Canadians are such a humorless bunch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's the nature of your fascists...  There's nothing less tolerant on earth than the ideological left...  It's the most lethal organism on the planetl; seconded, perhaps... to disease, from time to time.  But I think, the left took the title in the 20th century; with 150 million innocent murdered...  not 100% positive that disease didn't beat' em... but I think the Left took it.
Click to expand...


I don't think Canadians are leathal to anything but Baby Harp Seals.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Now the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian Government admonishment to Miss Coulter; regarding Canadian laws for "hate-speech", in NO WAY reflected ANY sense of HATRED on the part of the LEFTISTS, who were; as one member of the board loves to note in her neg-rep-fests... : *HATIN' ON WOMEN!*

And such is the nature of the subjective interpretation common to Leftist government... Again; these people are HUMANIST; Humanists are Relativists and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...

But hey... that's EVIL FOR YA!


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Now the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian Government admonishment to Miss Coulter; regarding Canadian laws for "hate-speech", in NO WAY reflected ANY sense of HATRED on the part of the LEFTISTS, who were; as one member of the board loves to note in her neg-rep-fests... : *HATIN' ON WOMEN!*
> 
> And such is the nature of the subjective interpretation common to Leftist government... Again; these people are HUMANIST; Humanists are Relativists and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...
> 
> But hey... that's EVIL FOR YA!



Now, the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian government did not admonish anyone.  The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this.  

But facts are optional for blowhard conservatards.


----------



## uscitizen

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam's response to Monsieur Coulter on behalf of Canada:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was unable to get an official response to this from Miss Coulter...
> 
> But I feel comfortable in advancing the following as something closely representing her likely reaction:
Click to expand...


That is most definately not Coulter.
Which I am most thankful for.  I need to go eat a snack.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian Government admonishment to Miss Coulter; regarding Canadian laws for "hate-speech", in NO WAY reflected ANY sense of HATRED on the part of the LEFTISTS, who were; as one member of the board loves to note in her neg-rep-fests... : *HATIN' ON WOMEN!*
> 
> And such is the nature of the subjective interpretation common to Leftist government... Again; these people are HUMANIST; Humanists are Relativists and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...
> 
> But hey... that's EVIL FOR YA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian government did not admonish anyone. The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this.
> 
> But facts are optional for blowhard conservatards.
Click to expand...

 
Well in reviewing the footage...  I find that Sam was referring to the Leftists who organized the riots that prevented Miss Coulter from speaking; who in his letter to her, warned her that she could be judged by Canukistani Law as a criminal for her speech...

So it's true that the Canadian government has not commented on the issue; only the Canadian Academic Leftist, who interprets Canadian Law subjective to her compassionate and tolerant point of view...

So I hereby revise my comments; correcting the error:  

Now the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian Academic Leftist who organized the Riots that prevented Miss Coulter from speaking;  admonishing Miss Coulter for her point of view; threatened Miss Coulter with Canadian laws regarding "hate-speech"; and in so doing, the same Canadian Academic Leftist... FOUND NO sense of HATRED on the part of HERSELF or the LEFTISTS who RIOTED TO PREVENT Miss Coulter from SPEAKING...;  thus demonstrating, as one member of the board loves to note in her neg-rep-fests... : that their own behavior reflected their own: *HATIN' ON WOMEN!*

And such is the nature of the subjective interpretation common to Leftists  where they are interpreting invalid reasoning and unsound, unsustainable law common to LEFTIST government... 

Again; these people are HUMANIST; Humanists are Relativists and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...

But hey... that's EVIL FOR YA!

Thank you Toro for bringing that error to my attention...  I know I feel better about it...


----------



## Toro

You're welcome.


----------



## Ravi

Coulter fears Canadian school children.

What next, the French?


----------



## kyzr

What happened to "diversity of opinions" and "free speech"?  Whiny leftists just can't debate someone with a 3-digit IQ.


----------



## Samson

kyzr said:


> What happened to "diversity of opinions" and "free speech"?  Whiny leftists just can't debate someone with a 3-digit IQ.



Not happenin' in Canada.


----------



## Modbert

kyzr said:


> What happened to "diversity of opinions" and "free speech"?  Whiny leftists just can't debate someone with a 3-digit IQ.



What happened to being able to protest? Whiny rightists pick and choose when it's alright to protest.


----------



## Toro

Of course, the United States has a long history of banning people critical of America from entering the country.



> [Farley] Mowat has encountered criticism in the media, especially after he was in the forefront of protest against American cruise missile  testing in Canada. His activism famously led Ronald Reagan's administration to deny him entry from Canada to the U.S. for a routine speaking engagement; but the resultant public outcry in the U.S. eventually forced the Reagan administration to back down.



Farley Mowat at AllExperts



> Yusuf Islam&#8212;the former singer once known as Cat Stevens&#8212;has been banned from the United States . And not just banned, they actually diverted the plane 600 miles to Maine to remove him from it. He&#8217;s made some equivocal statements in the past, but more recently has been forthright in his condemnation of terrorism . Perhaps there&#8217;s something we don&#8217;t know, but, on the surface, this looks like a bad mistake. Ordinary Muslims will be bound to see this as hostility to their religion as such rather than just to extremists and terrorists.



Cat Stevens banned from the US &#8212; Crooked Timber


----------



## NYcarbineer

Personally I'm mildly surprised to even see Coulter's name in the news.  She's over, for all practical purposes.


----------



## Modbert

The fact Cat Stevens wasn't allowed to enter the U.S is something I've read before but still confuses the hell out of me as to how that logic worked.


----------



## eots

PubliusInfinitum said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I understand your point, such as it is, Ms. Coulter would have cancelled her speech to gain publicity, riot or no riot.
> 
> Astute.
> 
> Thanks for participating, and contributing a difference without a distinction.
> 
> "OTTAWA, March 24, 2010 *(LifeSiteNews.com)* - American conservative firebrand Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her talk at the University of Ottawa on Tuesday night after hundreds of shouting student protesters showed up threatening disruption and violence if she was allowed to speak.
> 
> &#8220;The University of Ottawa is really easy to get into, isn&#8217;t it?&#8221; Coulter said in a Washington Times interview after the cancelled event. &#8220;I never get any trouble at the Ivy League schools. It&#8217;s always the bush league schools.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;This has never, ever, ever happened before &#8212; even at the stupidest American university,&#8221; she said.
> 
> Coulter's security team told her they believed it would have been dangerous for her to appear to give her speech, according to the Ottawa Citizen."
> 
> U of Ottawa Student Rioters Shut Down Ann Coulter Talk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riot ? what is this hysteria who said riot ? if thee were any real concerns of riots..lol..ove ann..lol...campus security or police would of voiced concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude... what's with the denials of the riots?  It's written right there...  If you've some dispute with what is being reported by   *(LifeSiteNews.com) *take it up with them...
Click to expand...


"Last night, I went on a Facebook page for some of the protesters and there were clear calls for violence. And not just in an abstract way, I mean there were instructions to bring vegetables and eggs to throw," Levant said.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/aboutlifesite/index.html

lol... alleged facebook threats...lol...and lifesite is a rightwing Christan front group with a agenda that report _facts _of the incident  different from those found elsewhere


----------



## Xenophon

del said:


>


She don't have to live like a refugee.


----------



## Samson

Dogbert said:


> The fact Cat Stevens wasn't allowed to enter the U.S is something I've read before but still confuses the hell out of me as to how that logic worked.




As I understand it, he was being followed by a "moonshadow." In fact, he claimed to be leapin and hoppin' on a moonshadow, which caused an irrational fear of having his hands amputated, and going blind. He accepted these horrible fates stoically, claiming without hands he wouldn't "have to work no more," and without eyes he wouldn't "have to cry no more."

Double negatives never bothered no Cat.


----------



## Ragnar

Canada has their own laws? How cute... just like a real country.


----------



## American Horse

xotoxi said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coulter's lookin' mighty fine these days!!!
Click to expand...


In your wet dreams


----------



## American Horse

eots said:


> *she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing



The police called her where she waited with her body guard for clearance to go on.  The police informed her her appearance was cancelled, without which cancellation she would've gone on.  Like Michelle Malkin, she can't be intimidated.  Liberals who appear in similar venues have nothing to fear; they always appear in their own element in front of friendly approving audiences. By comparison they are gutless.


----------



## Kalam

Dogbert said:


> The fact Cat Stevens wasn't allowed to enter the U.S is something I've read before but still confuses the hell out of me as to how that logic worked.


He changed his name to "Yusuf Islam," right? Sounds like a terrorist to me.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y-I0QW7zT8]YouTube - Yusuf Islam - "Peace Train" (Classic and blues)[/ame]


----------



## Kalam

Ragnar said:


> Canada has their own laws? How cute... just like a real country.



I know, right?

Kind of like Coulter has her own cute little political opinions... just like a grown-up.


----------



## eots

Her last flailing 15 Min's of fame


----------



## mdn2000

Cat Stevens, so he changed his name and became a Sunni Moslem, so he gives thousands of dollars to the people that murder other people, you cannot persecute someone simply because the money they give to people who are openly committing murder. This is how some people practice the Sunni/Islam religion, these acts are not against Sharia law in which these particular Moslems obey, its outside our country, its not our children that are dead because of Cat Steven's charity to murderers so what is the big deal.

Ann Coulter on the other hand, my god, imagine how many people will die if she is allowed to incite hatred.


----------



## Ragnar

Kalam said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada has their own laws? How cute... just like a real country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, right?
> 
> Kind of like Coulter has her own cute little political opinions... just like a grown-up.
Click to expand...


Ouch KaBlam! 

To bad some of the folks in Canada could not make that point. It seems that, for some reason, they will never get the chance to hear the other side of the debate. 

Oh well. The world spins on... and Canada tries as hard as it can to keep up.


----------



## eots

While it initial reports seemed to imply that the organizers made the decision to cancel the speech (hinting that Coulter was the innocent victim of some nefarious experiment in Canadian censorship) it later came to light that Coulter's bodyguard made the decision to cancel the speech in consultation with on-site security when someone pulled a fire alarm in the building. 

According to CBC news blogger Kady O'Malley Coulter was offered secure options, but chose instead to cancel.

First, contrary to what Coulter seems to suggest in a brief phone interview with Macleans.ca scribe Colby Cosh, it was not the police who "shut it down." I spoke with Ottawa Police Services media relations officer Alain Boucher this morning, and he told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was her security team that made the decision to call off the event. "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision." 



Michael Rowe: Sorry Ann Coulter, Canada's Just Not That Into You


----------



## Ravi

Coulter has conditionally agreed to speak at a French nursery school in Paris. France's President has promised her that most children will be carrying nothing other than teddy bears and security blankets. In fact, he has insisted that the children speak only in French in case Coulter mistakes a child whining about a dirty diaper as a threat against her person.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian Government admonishment to Miss Coulter; regarding Canadian laws for "hate-speech", in NO WAY reflected ANY sense of HATRED on the part of the LEFTISTS, who were; as one member of the board loves to note in her neg-rep-fests... : *HATIN' ON WOMEN!*
> 
> And such is the nature of the subjective interpretation common to Leftist government... Again; these people are HUMANIST; Humanists are Relativists and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...
> 
> But hey... that's EVIL FOR YA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian government did not admonish anyone. The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this.
> 
> But facts are optional for blowhard conservatards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in reviewing the footage... I find that Sam was referring to the Leftists who organized the riots that prevented Miss Coulter from speaking; who in his letter to her, warned her that she could be judged by Canukistani Law as a criminal for her speech...
> 
> So it's true that the Canadian government has not commented on the issue; only the Canadian Academic Leftist, who interprets Canadian Law subjective to her compassionate and tolerant point of view...
> 
> So I hereby revise my comments; correcting the error:
> 
> Now the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian Academic Leftist who organized the Riots that prevented Miss Coulter from speaking; admonishing Miss Coulter for her point of view; threatened Miss Coulter with Canadian laws regarding "hate-speech"; and in so doing, the same Canadian Academic Leftist... FOUND NO sense of HATRED on the part of HERSELF or the LEFTISTS who RIOTED TO PREVENT Miss Coulter from SPEAKING...; thus demonstrating, as one member of the board loves to note in her neg-rep-fests... : that their own behavior reflected their own: *HATIN' ON WOMEN!*
> 
> And such is the nature of the subjective interpretation common to Leftists where they are interpreting invalid reasoning and unsound, unsustainable law common to LEFTIST government...
> 
> Again; these people are HUMANIST; Humanists are Relativists and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...
> 
> But hey... that's EVIL FOR YA!
> 
> Thank you Toro for bringing that error to my attention... I know I feel better about it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're welcome.
Click to expand...

 
...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Samson said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to "diversity of opinions" and "free speech"? Whiny leftists just can't debate someone with a 3-digit IQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not happenin' in Canada.
Click to expand...

 

It's not happening anywhere....

The simple fact is, that the Canadians; who it should be pointed out, that Ravi, a Leftist... refers to _Children...; _felt IN THEIR OWN MINDS, that their point of view would NOT PREVAIL in a contest with Miss Coulter.

So to avoid that contest, they opted to force her from speaking.

It's the same everywhere...  from this forum, throughout the debate forums across the web; to every University on earth; at any point where Leftists are confronted with Conservatism... THE LEFT KNOWS THAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS LOST and will always LOSE!

Reason demands that IF the Left felt that they would prevail; that their argument would stand supreme; that their reasoning would discredit, refute or otherwise set aside any means by the objective observer to conclude that the Left's point of view was more sound; that the left's argument had been sustained and that it prevailed over it's competition...  then the Left would be LINING UP Debates with Miss Coulter... eagerly desiring that the world witness the supremacy of their reasoning.

But that's not what is happening is it?  Never has... Never will...

Wherever the Left is in a position to violently remove their opposition... they must take any option which precludes open, honest, objective debate.  Simply because their ideology; their ideas; their feelings... are unsound; thus they're unsustainable... thus THEY LOSE. 

And again... the coolest part here; is that THEY CONCEDE SUCH AS FACT; through their OWN ACTIONS.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

NYcarbineer said:


> Personally I'm mildly surprised to even see Coulter's name in the news. She's over, for all practical purposes.


 

ROFLMNAO...  

Ain't delusion, grand?

This is the same sort of reasoning that gave us the Hoper's for Change...   The setting aside of every point of reality, and re-creating a reality of their very OWN!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

eots said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riot ? what is this hysteria who said riot ? if thee were any real concerns of riots..lol..ove ann..lol...campus security or police would of voiced concerns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude... what's with the denials of the riots? It's written right there... If you've some dispute with what is being reported by *(LifeSiteNews.com) *take it up with them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Last night, I went on a Facebook page for some of the protesters and there were clear calls for violence. And not just in an abstract way, I mean there were instructions to bring vegetables and eggs to throw," Levant said.
> About LifeSiteNews.com
> 
> lol... alleged facebook threats...lol...and lifesite is a rightwing Christan front group with a agenda that report _facts _of the incident different from those found elsewhere
Click to expand...

 
Hey LOOK!  It's an assurance that threats set on Facebook are not worthy of consideration...  and should never be taken seriously.

And I love that whole "its a Christian front-group..." 

It's as if being Christian somehow discredits the whole group.

But look what we don't see...  we don't see any actual evidence that threats on facebook are not to be taken seriously...  which would likely be because of all the dictatorships who've banned such community sites... due to all the protests which such is organized through, around the world.

Nor do we find any evidence wherein it is shown that Christianity is a discrediting condition...  

Funny stuff...


----------



## Zona

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found that absolutely amazing.  And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing makes me wonder WTF Coulter had to say to Canadians that would get them so worked up.
> 
> Maybe she wanted to speak French?
Click to expand...


If that coulter dude actually got arrested, it would have been a hoot.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian Government admonishment to Miss Coulter; regarding Canadian laws for "hate-speech", in NO WAY reflected ANY sense of HATRED on the part of the LEFTISTS, who were; as one member of the board loves to note in her neg-rep-fests... : *HATIN' ON WOMEN!*
> 
> And such is the nature of the subjective interpretation common to Leftist government... Again; these people are HUMANIST; Humanists are Relativists and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...
> 
> But hey... that's EVIL FOR YA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian government did not admonish anyone.  The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this.
> 
> But facts are optional for blowhard conservatards.
Click to expand...


In the interests of accuracy, my friend, you may wish to re-analyze your post.

As it stands, it is, of course, not true.

The origin of the episode remains the letter from the provost of the U. of Otttawa, as:

"widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me -- in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech. 
Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges." 
Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

Now, when one compares the above with your frenzied statement "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this." it remains to be asked, who would bring charges or even arrest Ms. Coulter???

Would it be the private police of the university who might impose some penalties on Ms. Coulter for infracting 'Canadian law'? 

Or do you, in that fevered imagination, contemplate a vigilate army doing so???


Or is it possible that you are totally in error, and the laws of Canada are in some direct way related to "The Canadian government" ?

And, if that is the case, exactly what variety of blowhard would that make you, eh?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Zona said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The apology should be to the five teachers who the grades of schooling that you completed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did only go to 11 years of regular public school.
> I was double promoted and did not have to attend one grade.
> How about you?
> 
> Can't you tell how smart I am from my avatar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing happened to me.  They didnt call it double promoting, it was called getting skipped a grade when they bounced me from the 6th to the 8th grade.  I would not allow them to do anything like that to my daughter though.  I never really fit in to any class I was in all during high school.  In my mind.
Click to expand...


That explains a  lot.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Zona said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found that absolutely amazing.  And I fear for what kinds of things Universities think ARE important to expose their fragile students to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing makes me wonder WTF Coulter had to say to Canadians that would get them so worked up.
> 
> Maybe she wanted to speak French?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that coulter dude actually got arrested, it would have been a hoot.
Click to expand...




Zona said:


> Coulter is a funny guy.  It would have been funny if she went there and got arrested for her hatefull crap.
> 
> Funny dude.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/2139427-post15.html

Say it again, see if it gets funny .


----------



## Vanquish

The OP is a troll, but a fun one at least.

It doesnt take a genius to get the concept that a university should be able to set their own policy about the type of speech they allow. Read that again if you're thick-headed. That's not denying free speech...that's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Something that conservatives like to claim as their own issue. The university is taking responsibility for the level of hate-speech and unchecked rhetoric that passes on its campus. That's laudable.

The tired quip "they shouldn't have invited her to speak if they knew what kind of talk she'd give" is a chicken-and-the-egg kind of argument at best.  Coulter had to know as a speaker that each venue has its own groundrules. So backatcha with that one.  The common sense approach is "their house, their rules."

What's totally disingenuous about Coulter's position is...when she tells a Muslim to go ride a camel instead of a magic carpet...that sends up red flags. And that's not even the worst thing she's ever said. Live by the sword, die by the sword.  Hell ..it was just a freaking request and quasi-admonition.  She's manufacturing publicity...and trampling the truth to do it. 

Coulter was given secure options to stay and deliver the speech. That's been proven. For Coulter to play shock-jock and trump up a bunch of drama is expected...but can't be defended.  And it brings all her other comments into question when she'd rather trample truth than explain what really happened.

But of course...she still thinks Canada sent troops to fight in Vietnam ha ha ha ha


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kalam said:


> Kalam's response to Monsieur Coulter on behalf of Canada:



It is rather clear why you might be opposed to Ms. Coulter, based on your religious persuasion...

Understandable.

But you used to be able to express yourself in  a less vulgar manner.

Is this the real you peeking out, or merely a momentary lapse?


----------



## PoliticalChic

eots said:


> While it initial reports seemed to imply that the organizers made the decision to cancel the speech (hinting that Coulter was the innocent victim of some nefarious experiment in Canadian censorship) it later came to light that Coulter's bodyguard made the decision to cancel the speech in consultation with on-site security when someone pulled a fire alarm in the building.
> 
> According to CBC news blogger Kady O'Malley Coulter was offered secure options, but chose instead to cancel.
> 
> First, contrary to what Coulter seems to suggest in a brief phone interview with Macleans.ca scribe Colby Cosh, it was not the police who "shut it down." I spoke with Ottawa Police Services media relations officer Alain Boucher this morning, and he told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was her security team that made the decision to call off the event. "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision."
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Rowe: Sorry Ann Coulter, Canada's Just Not That Into You



Seems to a precipitous retreat from your earlier "Riot ? what is this hysteria who said riot ?"

Am I to assume that you agree that there was a reasonable basis for whoever decided that discretion was in order?

So there is an actual learning curve.


----------



## blindnessprevai

mdn2000>>>>"Ann Coulter on the other hand, my god, imagine how many people will die if she is allowed to incite hatred."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bingo!!  That's what it is all about...."inciting hatred" for the sake of various self serving agendas.  Unfortunately, it invites repaying evil for evil to the point we are eveloped in it from every aspect of social interaction.  I, at one time, despised her and took part in the name calling.  Now, I try my best to ignore her in a newly developed recognition that ALL political parties are equally corrupt and deceitful and to bash one or the other is nothing more than pathetic ignorance.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> "The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to mewidely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached mein advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
> 
> What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")
> 
> How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?
> 
> Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Ormy suspicionis it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?
> 
> I'm sure Canada's Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.
> 
> Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward Muslimsnor was there the remotest possibility that they would.
> 
> By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and I have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.
> 
> At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to Canada? How did the country that gave us Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Aykroyd and Catherine O'Hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies? "
> Conservative News: Coulter - University of Ottawa, Parliament condemn speech as "hate speech" - HUMAN EVENTS



I think probably the reason is quite simple: Canada doesn't want the hatred that has recently turned violent crossing the border and fomenting similar incidents there. Can't say as I blame them. Just Coulter's tone admonishing that decision is a clear indication that she had no intention of playing nice. Her angry attitude is what has always gotten her in trouble. Was Ann even invited to speak at the National Conservative Symposium this year? Did she even attend?


----------



## MaggieMae

eots said:


> Bilderberg-bound filmmaker held at airport
> 
> Canadian authorities detained an American activist filmmaker at the Ottawa airport late Wednesday night, confiscating his passport, camera equipment and most of his belongings.Citizenship and Immigration Canada agents stopped Alex Jones, whose films include Martial Law 9/11: The Rise of the Police State, and questioned him for nearly four hours before letting him go with only one change of clothes and telling him to return Thursday morning.Its really chilling, like a police state, said Mr. Jones of his detention
> 
> 
> Bilderberg-bound filmmaker held at airport



That was in 2006. I think he tried it again more recently, with Jesse Ventura in tow. Prison Planet clowns beg for attention by the national media any way they can get it. They know damned well there's no chance in hell they will get within five miles of a Bilderberg conference site.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
Click to expand...


Since when does our First Amendment apply to Canada? When in Rome...


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coulter's lookin' mighty fine these days!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the intellectual level of debate of a farm school grad...
Click to expand...


I'm a "farm school grad," and my level of pre-college education far, far exceeds what I witness on this board every day. I also had agricultural classes in high school and 4-H camp in summers. Pity those poor revolutionaries of today who would have this nation take a giant leap backward, eliminate all progress, and return to the land the way it was when the Constitution was written. They'll need to knock on the doors of those of us who actually know how.


----------



## Vanquish

Farm-school grad...meant as an insult...only ended up showing someone's ignorance.


----------



## MaggieMae

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was unable to get an official response to this from Miss Coulter...
> 
> But I feel comfortable in advancing the following as something closely representing of her likely reaction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're able to establish contact with Ms. Coulter, please tell her that although I'm flattered by her advances, I've decided to limit myself to sexual partners who are both human and female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly... I don't think I'll be able to pass that on to her directly; but I will slip a note to let security know that you've apparently failed to refill your prescriptions...
> 
> Come on Haji...
> 
> You know what's gonna happen if you don't get back on the cure... you're gonna be walkin' down the mall with your ball bearing coat on again; and you aren't always going to be able to count on their being a _Buy 1-get 1 Koran sale, with a free prayer rug_ at "*Muslims Are Us*", to pull ya out of it.
> 
> No one wants to see Muslim sprayed all over the food court man... It's bad for business and its a BITCH getting you people out of the grout.
Click to expand...


It's pretty obvious you've learned your lessons in vitriol directly from Ms. Coulter herself. Pathetic. I really did give you more credit for being less shallow than some of the other cons here. But maybe I have you mixed up with someone else. Your disgusting remarks only prove that you are no better than those to whom your remarks are directed. What's the word for that? Oh yeah, Hypocrite with a capital H.


----------



## mdn2000

blindnessprevai said:


> mdn2000>>>>"Ann Coulter on the other hand, my god, imagine how many people will die if she is allowed to incite hatred."
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Bingo!!  That's what it is all about...."inciting hatred" for the sake of various self serving agendas.  Unfortunately, it invites repaying evil for evil to the point we are eveloped in it from every aspect of social interaction.  I, at one time, despised her and took part in the name calling.  Now, I try my best to ignore her in a newly developed recognition that ALL political parties are equally corrupt and deceitful and to bash one or the other is nothing more than pathetic ignorance.



I inadvertently have just had an epiphany, I got to thank you for that. In composing a response to your post it occurred to me that Ann Coulter does incite hatred. By speaking the truth, by speaking of freedom, by speaking wisely and positively of the USA Ann Coulter incites the hatred within the hearts of Liberals and Marxist.

Ann Coulter does not lie, does not distort the truth, she simply tells it as it is with humor. 

This is more than enough to bring out the ugly hatred Liberals and Marxist hide within their hearts.


----------



## MaggieMae

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian Government admonishment to Miss Coulter; regarding Canadian laws for "hate-speech", in NO WAY reflected ANY sense of HATRED on the part of the LEFTISTS, who were; as one member of the board loves to note in her neg-rep-fests... : *HATIN' ON WOMEN!*
> 
> And such is the nature of the subjective interpretation common to Leftist government... Again; these people are HUMANIST; Humanists are Relativists and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...
> 
> But hey... that's EVIL FOR YA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian government did not admonish anyone. The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this.
> 
> But facts are optional for blowhard conservatards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in reviewing the footage...  I find that Sam was referring to the Leftists who organized the riots that prevented Miss Coulter from speaking; who in his letter to her, warned her that she could be judged by Canukistani Law as a criminal for her speech...
> 
> So it's true that the Canadian government has not commented on the issue; only the Canadian Academic Leftist, who interprets Canadian Law subjective to her compassionate and tolerant point of view...
> 
> So I hereby revise my comments; correcting the error:
> 
> Now the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian Academic Leftist who organized the Riots that prevented Miss Coulter from speaking;  admonishing Miss Coulter for her point of view; threatened Miss Coulter with Canadian laws regarding "hate-speech"; and in so doing, the same Canadian Academic Leftist... FOUND NO sense of HATRED on the part of HERSELF or the LEFTISTS who RIOTED TO PREVENT Miss Coulter from SPEAKING...;  thus demonstrating, as one member of the board loves to note in her neg-rep-fests... : that their own behavior reflected their own: *HATIN' ON WOMEN!*
> 
> And such is the nature of the subjective interpretation common to Leftists  where they are interpreting invalid reasoning and unsound, unsustainable law common to LEFTIST government...
> 
> Again; these people are HUMANIST; Humanists are Relativists and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...
> 
> But hey... that's EVIL FOR YA!
> 
> Thank you Toro for bringing that error to my attention...  I know I feel better about it...
Click to expand...


humanist - definition of humanist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

If you don't fit in there ^ then what species are you?


----------



## Vanquish

Dude...Coulter can't even get her facts about Canadians having troops that fought in VietNam right.

And she told a Muslim to ride a camel instead of a magic carpet? you dont think that's hateful?

She might have a valid point here and there...but the way she gets attention is by saying ridiculous things.
Quit defending her without thinking.


----------



## MaggieMae

kyzr said:


> What happened to "diversity of opinions" and "free speech"?  Whiny leftists just can't debate someone with a 3-digit IQ.



"Debating" someone who is a Coulterclone is impossible. She doesn't want to "debate." She wants to enrage.


----------



## MaggieMae

Toro said:


> Of course, the United States has a long history of banning people critical of America from entering the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Farley] Mowat has encountered criticism in the media, especially after he was in the forefront of protest against American cruise missile  testing in Canada. His activism famously led Ronald Reagan's administration to deny him entry from Canada to the U.S. for a routine speaking engagement; but the resultant public outcry in the U.S. eventually forced the Reagan administration to back down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Farley Mowat at AllExperts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yusuf Islam&#8212;the former singer once known as Cat Stevens&#8212;has been banned from the United States . And not just banned, they actually diverted the plane 600 miles to Maine to remove him from it. He&#8217;s made some equivocal statements in the past, but more recently has been forthright in his condemnation of terrorism . Perhaps there&#8217;s something we don&#8217;t know, but, on the surface, this looks like a bad mistake. Ordinary Muslims will be bound to see this as hostility to their religion as such rather than just to extremists and terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cat Stevens banned from the US &#8212; Crooked Timber
Click to expand...


I used to listen to Cat Stevens obsessively on the radio. My then uber conservative husband would always do an eyeroll, but relented one Christmas and bought me both of his cassettes with all the hits. There were strong "humanist" messages in all of his works.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlGLuRlhW3c]YouTube - Cat Stevens - Father And Son (live)[/ame]


----------



## MaggieMae

Dogbert said:


> The fact Cat Stevens wasn't allowed to enter the U.S is something I've read before but still confuses the hell out of me as to how that logic worked.



There was no logic other than the fact that he had converted to Islam and had a funny name. If anything, following the 911 attacks, he denounced his Islamic fundamentalist brothers for their actions.


----------



## del

MaggieMae said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the United States has a long history of banning people critical of America from entering the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Farley] Mowat has encountered criticism in the media, especially after he was in the forefront of protest against American cruise missile  testing in Canada. His activism famously led Ronald Reagan's administration to deny him entry from Canada to the U.S. for a routine speaking engagement; but the resultant public outcry in the U.S. eventually forced the Reagan administration to back down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Farley Mowat at AllExperts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yusuf Islamthe former singer once known as Cat Stevenshas been banned from the United States . And not just banned, they actually diverted the plane 600 miles to Maine to remove him from it. Hes made some equivocal statements in the past, but more recently has been forthright in his condemnation of terrorism . Perhaps theres something we dont know, but, on the surface, this looks like a bad mistake. Ordinary Muslims will be bound to see this as hostility to their religion as such rather than just to extremists and terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cat Stevens banned from the US  Crooked Timber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to listen to Cat Stevens obsessively on the radio. My then uber conservative husband would always do an eyeroll, but relented one Christmas and bought me both of his cassettes with all the hits. There were strong "humanist" messages in all of his works.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlGLuRlhW3c]YouTube - Cat Stevens - Father And Son (live)[/ame]
Click to expand...


this is one of my favorite humanist songs by cat stevens. 

we sing it in church around this time of year.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TWd3skb-Rw]YouTube - Cat Stevens - Morning Has Broken - Live 1973[/ame]


----------



## MaggieMae

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to "diversity of opinions" and "free speech"? Whiny leftists just can't debate someone with a 3-digit IQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not happenin' in Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not happening anywhere....
> 
> The simple fact is, that the Canadians; who it should be pointed out, that Ravi, a Leftist... refers to _Children...; _felt IN THEIR OWN MINDS, that their point of view would NOT PREVAIL in a contest with Miss Coulter.
> 
> So to avoid that contest, they opted to force her from speaking.
> 
> It's the same everywhere...  from this forum, throughout the debate forums across the web; to every University on earth; at any point where Leftists are confronted with Conservatism... THE LEFT KNOWS THAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS LOST and will always LOSE!
> 
> Reason demands that IF the Left felt that they would prevail; that their argument would stand supreme; that their reasoning would discredit, refute or otherwise set aside any means by the objective observer to conclude that the Left's point of view was more sound; that the left's argument had been sustained and that it prevailed over it's competition...  then the Left would be LINING UP Debates with Miss Coulter... eagerly desiring that the world witness the supremacy of their reasoning.
> 
> But that's not what is happening is it?  Never has... Never will...
> 
> Wherever the Left is in a position to violently remove their opposition... they must take any option which precludes open, honest, objective debate.  Simply because their ideology; their ideas; their feelings... are unsound; thus they're unsustainable... thus THEY LOSE.
> 
> And again... the coolest part here; is that THEY CONCEDE SUCH AS FACT; through their OWN ACTIONS.
Click to expand...


If the left has lost and know they will always lose, then why are you so angry? You should be starting a thread gloating, like so many others, that the left is about to go down in flames forever, blah blah blah. Could it be that you know deep down that will never happen?


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian Government admonishment to Miss Coulter; regarding Canadian laws for "hate-speech", in NO WAY reflected ANY sense of HATRED on the part of the LEFTISTS, who were; as one member of the board loves to note in her neg-rep-fests... : *HATIN' ON WOMEN!*
> 
> And such is the nature of the subjective interpretation common to Leftist government... Again; these people are HUMANIST; Humanists are Relativists and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...
> 
> But hey... that's EVIL FOR YA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the thing to recognize here, is that the Canadian government did not admonish anyone.  The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this.
> 
> But facts are optional for blowhard conservatards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the interests of accuracy, my friend, you may wish to re-analyze your post.
> 
> As it stands, it is, of course, not true.
> 
> The origin of the episode remains the letter from the provost of the U. of Otttawa, as:
> 
> "widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me -- in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
> Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
> Welcome to AnnCoulter.com
> 
> Now, when one compares the above with your frenzied statement "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this." it remains to be asked, who would bring charges or even arrest Ms. Coulter???
> 
> Would it be the private police of the university who might impose some penalties on Ms. Coulter for infracting 'Canadian law'?
> 
> Or do you, in that fevered imagination, contemplate a vigilate army doing so???
> 
> 
> Or is it possible that you are totally in error, and the laws of Canada are in some direct way related to "The Canadian government" ?
> 
> And, if that is the case, exactly what variety of blowhard would that make you, eh?
Click to expand...


Being a lawyer herself, one would think Ann would be smart enough to check out Canadian law beforehand, no? Or at least have one of her staff do it, just in case.


----------



## Samson

del said:


> YouTube - Cat Stevens - Morning Has Broken - Live 1973



I'm a huge Cat Fan, and hearing this really is a great reason to visit a church.....

I bet he'd like:


----------



## Vanquish

The left has lost, Publius? Really? First of all, referring to an entire side of debate with a sweeping generalization is just imprecise. Some left leaning politicians have lost on certain points, but "the left has lost" makes you sound really deluded. Especially since healthcare just passed.

All I'm getting from your posts is a sense that you're frustrated, yet clinging to some hope for victory...not really any advancement of the debate about Coulter's validity.


----------



## MaggieMae

Vanquish said:


> The OP is a troll, but a fun one at least.
> 
> It doesnt take a genius to get the concept that a university should be able to set their own policy about the type of speech they allow. Read that again if you're thick-headed. That's not denying free speech...that's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Something that conservatives like to claim as their own issue. The university is taking responsibility for the level of hate-speech and unchecked rhetoric that passes on its campus. That's laudable.
> 
> The tired quip "they shouldn't have invited her to speak if they knew what kind of talk she'd give" is a chicken-and-the-egg kind of argument at best.  Coulter had to know as a speaker that each venue has its own groundrules. So backatcha with that one.  The common sense approach is "their house, their rules."
> 
> What's totally disingenuous about Coulter's position is...when she tells a Muslim to go ride a camel instead of a magic carpet...that sends up red flags. And that's not even the worst thing she's ever said. Live by the sword, die by the sword.  Hell ..it was just a freaking request and quasi-admonition.  She's manufacturing publicity...and trampling the truth to do it.
> 
> Coulter was given secure options to stay and deliver the speech. That's been proven. For Coulter to play shock-jock and trump up a bunch of drama is expected...but can't be defended.  And it brings all her other comments into question when she'd rather trample truth than explain what really happened.
> 
> But of course...she still thinks Canada sent troops to fight in Vietnam ha ha ha ha



My favorite Coulter quote was back when invading Iraq was being widely debated. "Why shouldn't we invade Iraq? They have oil and we need oil." [paraphrased] She simply says the most bizarre things without thinking anything through first. For that reason, Ann Coulter is no longer the darling of the GOP, nor even the ultra conservative wing thereof.


----------



## MaggieMae

mdn2000 said:


> blindnessprevai said:
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000>>>>"Ann Coulter on the other hand, my god, imagine how many people will die if she is allowed to incite hatred."
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Bingo!!  That's what it is all about...."inciting hatred" for the sake of various self serving agendas.  Unfortunately, it invites repaying evil for evil to the point we are eveloped in it from every aspect of social interaction.  I, at one time, despised her and took part in the name calling.  Now, I try my best to ignore her in a newly developed recognition that ALL political parties are equally corrupt and deceitful and to bash one or the other is nothing more than pathetic ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I inadvertently have just had an epiphany, I got to thank you for that. In composing a response to your post it occurred to me that Ann Coulter does incite hatred. By speaking the truth, by speaking of freedom, by speaking wisely and positively of the USA Ann Coulter incites the hatred within the hearts of Liberals and Marxist.
> 
> Ann Coulter does not lie, does not distort the truth, she simply tells it as it is with humor.
> 
> This is more than enough to bring out the ugly hatred Liberals and Marxist hide within their hearts.
Click to expand...


Oh bullshit. There are plenty of conservative speakers who make their points without the need to denigrate others to the point of sounding insane. Actually, PI used to be one (at least on a good hair day).


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the United States has a long history of banning people critical of America from entering the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Farley] Mowat has encountered criticism in the media, especially after he was in the forefront of protest against American cruise missile  testing in Canada. His activism famously led Ronald Reagan's administration to deny him entry from Canada to the U.S. for a routine speaking engagement; but the resultant public outcry in the U.S. eventually forced the Reagan administration to back down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Farley Mowat at AllExperts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yusuf Islamthe former singer once known as Cat Stevenshas been banned from the United States . And not just banned, they actually diverted the plane 600 miles to Maine to remove him from it. Hes made some equivocal statements in the past, but more recently has been forthright in his condemnation of terrorism . Perhaps theres something we dont know, but, on the surface, this looks like a bad mistake. Ordinary Muslims will be bound to see this as hostility to their religion as such rather than just to extremists and terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cat Stevens banned from the US  Crooked Timber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to listen to Cat Stevens obsessively on the radio. My then uber conservative husband would always do an eyeroll, but relented one Christmas and bought me both of his cassettes with all the hits. There were strong "humanist" messages in all of his works.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlGLuRlhW3c]YouTube - Cat Stevens - Father And Son (live)[/ame]
Click to expand...


On February 21, 1989, Yusuf Islam addressed students at Kingston University in London about his conversion to Islam and was asked about the controversy in the Muslim world and the fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie's execution. He replied, "He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear - if someone defames the prophet, then he must die."


----------



## MaggieMae

del said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the United States has a long history of banning people critical of America from entering the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Farley Mowat at AllExperts
> 
> 
> 
> Cat Stevens banned from the US  Crooked Timber
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to listen to Cat Stevens obsessively on the radio. My then uber conservative husband would always do an eyeroll, but relented one Christmas and bought me both of his cassettes with all the hits. There were strong "humanist" messages in all of his works.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlGLuRlhW3c]YouTube - Cat Stevens - Father And Son (live)[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is one of my favorite humanist songs by cat stevens.
> 
> we sing it in church around this time of year.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TWd3skb-Rw]YouTube - Cat Stevens - Morning Has Broken - Live 1973[/ame]
Click to expand...


My favorite was "I might die tonight." Short, sweet and scary at the same time. I might just have to go out and buy the CD of all his hits now. It doesn't take much for me to weep for the past.


----------



## PoliticalChic

mdn2000 said:


> blindnessprevai said:
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000>>>>"Ann Coulter on the other hand, my god, imagine how many people will die if she is allowed to incite hatred."
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Bingo!!  That's what it is all about...."inciting hatred" for the sake of various self serving agendas.  Unfortunately, it invites repaying evil for evil to the point we are eveloped in it from every aspect of social interaction.  I, at one time, despised her and took part in the name calling.  Now, I try my best to ignore her in a newly developed recognition that ALL political parties are equally corrupt and deceitful and to bash one or the other is nothing more than pathetic ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I inadvertently have just had an epiphany, I got to thank you for that. In composing a response to your post it occurred to me that Ann Coulter does incite hatred. By speaking the truth, by speaking of freedom, by speaking wisely and positively of the USA Ann Coulter incites the hatred within the hearts of Liberals and Marxist.
> 
> Ann Coulter does not lie, does not distort the truth, she simply tells it as it is with humor.
> 
> This is more than enough to bring out the ugly hatred Liberals and Marxist hide within their hearts.
Click to expand...


I tried to rep this post, but it would not allow.

Well said.


----------



## MaggieMae

Samson said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Cat Stevens - Morning Has Broken - Live 1973
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a huge Cat Fan, and hearing this really is a great reason to visit a church.....
> 
> I bet he'd like:
Click to expand...


Love that!


----------



## Vanquish

Noticing that PoliticalChic totally avoided my post...earlier...which I'm enjoying.


----------



## Claudette

Seems to me that the students in Ottowa just didn't want to hear someone elses POV.

Simple as that. 

Jeeze.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the United States has a long history of banning people critical of America from entering the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Farley Mowat at AllExperts
> 
> 
> 
> Cat Stevens banned from the US  Crooked Timber
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to listen to Cat Stevens obsessively on the radio. My then uber conservative husband would always do an eyeroll, but relented one Christmas and bought me both of his cassettes with all the hits. There were strong "humanist" messages in all of his works.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlGLuRlhW3c]YouTube - Cat Stevens - Father And Son (live)[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On February 21, 1989, Yusuf Islam addressed students at Kingston University in London about his conversion to Islam and was asked about the controversy in the Muslim world and the fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie's execution. He replied, "He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear - if someone defames the prophet, then he must die."
Click to expand...




> Salman Rushdie controversy
> Main article: Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie
> The singer attracted controversy in 1989, during an address to students at London's Kingston University, where he was asked about the fatwa calling for the death of author Salman Rushdie. The media interpreted his response as support for the fatwa. Yusuf released a statement the following day denying that he supported vigilantism, and claiming that he had merely recounted the legal Islamic punishment for blasphemy. In a BBC interview, he displayed a newspaper clipping from that time period, which quotes from his statement. Subsequent comments made by him in 1989 on a British television programme were also seen as being in support of the fatwa. In a statement in the FAQ section of his web site,[55] Yusuf asserted that he was joking and that the show was improperly edited. In the years since these comments, he has repeatedly denied ever calling for the death of Rushdie or supporting the fatwa.[6][48]
> 
> [edit] 11 September attacks
> Immediately following the 11 September 2001, attacks on the United States, he said:
> 
> I wish to express my heartfelt horror at the indiscriminate terrorist attacks committed against innocent people of the United States yesterday. While it is still not clear who carried out the attack, it must be stated that no right-thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action. The Qur'an equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of the whole of humanity. We pray for the families of all those who lost their lives in this unthinkable act of violence as well as all those injured; I hope to reflect the feelings of all Muslims and people around the world whose sympathies go out to the victims of this sorrowful moment.[56][57]
> 
> He appeared on videotape on a VH1 pre-show for the October 2001 Concert for New York City, condemning the attacks and singing his song "Peace Train" for the first time in public in more than 20 years, as an a cappella version. He also donated a portion of his box-set royalties to the Fund for victims' families, and the rest to orphans in underdeveloped countries.[58] During the same year, Yusuf Islam dedicated time and effort in joining the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism, an organization that worked towards battling misperceptions and acts against others because of their religious beliefs and/or racial identity, after many Muslims reported a backlash against them due in part to the grief caused by the events in the United States on 9-11.[44]



^From his Wikipedia entry (check footnotes therein). If Cat Stevens had indeed been a fundamentalist, he would not have gone to such great lengths to use his influence to attempt to educate other Muslims about the evils of "using" the Qu'ran to promote barbaric religious violence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when does our First Amendment apply to Canada? When in Rome...
Click to expand...


I'm surprised that you fail to understand the point of the the OP, and the fuss.

This is a critique of censorship.

Embracing the superiority of the first amendment as a concept is very different from allowing that other countries don't have it, 'and that's just fine', or 'when in Rome...'.

In the larger scheme of things, it paints you as a relativist, and establishes your lib creds. 

I, on the other hand, see the censorship of Canada, or of the EU, as akin to that of China, Iran, etc.


Although you may wear the title 'liberal' as a badge of honor, this is not the case.

While 'classical liberal' would be so, only a progressive-liberal would champion bridling of free speech.

You should know better.


----------



## del

MaggieMae said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is a troll, but a fun one at least.
> 
> It doesnt take a genius to get the concept that a university should be able to set their own policy about the type of speech they allow. Read that again if you're thick-headed. That's not denying free speech...that's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Something that conservatives like to claim as their own issue. The university is taking responsibility for the level of hate-speech and unchecked rhetoric that passes on its campus. That's laudable.
> 
> The tired quip "they shouldn't have invited her to speak if they knew what kind of talk she'd give" is a chicken-and-the-egg kind of argument at best.  Coulter had to know as a speaker that each venue has its own groundrules. So backatcha with that one.  The common sense approach is "their house, their rules."
> 
> What's totally disingenuous about Coulter's position is...when she tells a Muslim to go ride a camel instead of a magic carpet...that sends up red flags. And that's not even the worst thing she's ever said. Live by the sword, die by the sword.  Hell ..it was just a freaking request and quasi-admonition.  She's manufacturing publicity...and trampling the truth to do it.
> 
> Coulter was given secure options to stay and deliver the speech. That's been proven. For Coulter to play shock-jock and trump up a bunch of drama is expected...but can't be defended.  And it brings all her other comments into question when she'd rather trample truth than explain what really happened.
> 
> But of course...she still thinks Canada sent troops to fight in Vietnam ha ha ha ha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite Coulter quote was back when invading Iraq was being widely debated. "Why shouldn't we invade Iraq? They have oil and we need oil." [paraphrased] She simply says the most bizarre things without thinking anything through first. For that reason, Ann Coulter is no longer the darling of the GOP, nor even the ultra conservative wing thereof.
Click to expand...


my favorite coulter quote is "good-bye."


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact Cat Stevens wasn't allowed to enter the U.S is something I've read before but still confuses the hell out of me as to how that logic worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no logic other than the fact that he had converted to Islam and had a funny name. If anything, following the 911 attacks, he denounced his Islamic fundamentalist brothers for their actions.
Click to expand...


False.

His problems arose from the fact that aided terrorists.  Financially.


"According to at least one credible source, he was also involved in terrorist financing." The Jawa Report: Claim: Cat Stevens Financed Terrorists, Tied to Radical Clerics


"In the recording, Bakri tells supporters that Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam (now calling himself simply Yusuf) was once a frequent visitor to his offices in Britainand even worse, that Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens was also closely connected to the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently serving a life sentence for plotting terror attacks in the US...Bakri then intimates that Cat Stevens also helped support Abdel Rahmans family financially. He also claims that Yusuf Islam knowingly sent money to the families of the mujahidin in Egypt. Giving money to the families of so-called martyrs is a way for Muslims to support terrorism indirectly and yet remain shielded from most legal ramifications.."
Little Green Footballs - Audio: Cat Stevens Linked to Radical Islamists, Convicted Terrorists


----------



## csbarry

PoliticalChic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Have someone explain it to you.
Click to expand...


In reference to Voltaire's statement I couldn't agree more, that is, if you are of the same mind as Voltaire. If it is your desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction, I believe it is humanities obligation to stop you dead in your tracks.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Vanquish said:


> Noticing that PoliticalChic totally avoided my post...earlier...which I'm enjoying.



I have yet to see a post of yours that didn't self-destruct...

But, rather than have you feel ignored, please advise as to exactly what you wish me to respond to, and I will do my best to inflict the punishment you so relish.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact Cat Stevens wasn't allowed to enter the U.S is something I've read before but still confuses the hell out of me as to how that logic worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no logic other than the fact that he had converted to Islam and had a funny name. If anything, following the 911 attacks, he denounced his Islamic fundamentalist brothers for their actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> His problems arose from the fact that aided terrorists.  Financially.
> 
> 
> "According to at least one credible source, he was also involved in terrorist financing." The Jawa Report: Claim: Cat Stevens Financed Terrorists, Tied to Radical Clerics
> 
> 
> "In the recording, Bakri tells supporters that Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam (now calling himself simply Yusuf) was once a frequent visitor to his offices in Britainand even worse, that Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens was also closely connected to the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently serving a life sentence for plotting terror attacks in the US...Bakri then intimates that Cat Stevens also helped support Abdel Rahmans family financially. He also claims that Yusuf Islam knowingly sent money to the families of the mujahidin in Egypt. Giving money to the families of so-called martyrs is a way for Muslims to support terrorism indirectly and yet remain shielded from most legal ramifications.."
> Little Green Footballs - Audio: Cat Stevens Linked to Radical Islamists, Convicted Terrorists
Click to expand...


Little Green Footballs is a right wing blogsite; one that I once belonged to until I made a few comments that didn't fit with its agenda, and I suddenly found myself banned therefrom. Is that the best you can do? Anyone can SAY anything they want, IMPLY anything they want, use INNUENDO and hope that others will believe. But I still prefer facts. In _fact_, *facts* are what got me booted from LGF. It isn't a site that welcomes those pesky things.


----------



## PoliticalChic

csbarry said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In reference to Voltaire's statement I couldn't agree more, that is, if you are of the same mind as Voltaire. If it is your desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction, I believe it is humanities obligation to stop you dead in your tracks.
Click to expand...


Frankly, I'm surprised that you require remediation in the subject of free speech.

Your use "desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction," means that you are willing to place various levels of filter on speech, and this implies that you have not carefully reviewed the concept.

1. who will decide what speech would "incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction"? You?

You may simply decide not to present yourself at a Coulter seminar.

You may turn off the TV. Wasn't there a Will Rogers line about having no respect for someone who won't just turn the dial...?

2. The ACLU has often stated that the answer to bad speech is good speech. That's all, not blocked speech.

3. The worst censorship is that by authority, i.e. a government.

Isn't that your belief?  If not, why not?


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no logic other than the fact that he had converted to Islam and had a funny name. If anything, following the 911 attacks, he denounced his Islamic fundamentalist brothers for their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> His problems arose from the fact that aided terrorists.  Financially.
> 
> 
> "According to at least one credible source, he was also involved in terrorist financing." The Jawa Report: Claim: Cat Stevens Financed Terrorists, Tied to Radical Clerics
> 
> 
> "In the recording, Bakri tells supporters that Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam (now calling himself simply Yusuf) was once a frequent visitor to his offices in Britainand even worse, that Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens was also closely connected to the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently serving a life sentence for plotting terror attacks in the US...Bakri then intimates that Cat Stevens also helped support Abdel Rahmans family financially. He also claims that Yusuf Islam knowingly sent money to the families of the mujahidin in Egypt. Giving money to the families of so-called martyrs is a way for Muslims to support terrorism indirectly and yet remain shielded from most legal ramifications.."
> Little Green Footballs - Audio: Cat Stevens Linked to Radical Islamists, Convicted Terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Little Green Footballs is a right wing blogsite; one that I once belonged to until I made a few comments that didn't fit with its agenda, and I suddenly found myself banned therefrom. Is that the best you can do? Anyone can SAY anything they want, IMPLY anything they want, use INNUENDO and hope that others will believe. But I still prefer facts. In _fact_, *facts* are what got me booted from LGF. It isn't a site that welcomes those pesky things.
Click to expand...


Usually you are not one to deflect from a point with the so ethereal "I don't agree with the souce."

I would have no trouble finding more sources that state similar points, but I suggest you might have trouble documenting that the government moved against him because he"converted to Islam and had a funny name."

This, of course, was an absurdly flip and untrue post.  

I actually look forward to engaging with you, OK, locking horns, but today seems not to be one of your more profound days.

Time for a coffee?


----------



## Newby

eots said:


> While it initial reports seemed to imply that the organizers made the decision to cancel the speech (hinting that Coulter was the innocent victim of some nefarious experiment in Canadian censorship) it later came to light that Coulter's bodyguard made the decision to cancel the speech in consultation with on-site security when someone pulled a fire alarm in the building.
> 
> According to CBC news blogger Kady O'Malley Coulter was offered secure options, but chose instead to cancel.
> 
> First, contrary to what Coulter seems to suggest in a brief phone interview with Macleans.ca scribe Colby Cosh, it was not the police who "shut it down." I spoke with Ottawa Police Services media relations officer Alain Boucher this morning, and he told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was her security team that made the decision to call off the event. "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision."
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Rowe: Sorry Ann Coulter, Canada's Just Not That Into You



And if she hadn't canceled,  the haters would have jumped all over her for ignoring a dangerous situation and making it worse.  So, it really doesn't matter what route she took, she'd take shit for it either way.


----------



## L.K.Eder

PoliticalChic said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to Voltaire's statement I couldn't agree more, that is, if you are of the same mind as Voltaire. If it is your desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction, I believe it is humanities obligation to stop you dead in your tracks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm surprised that you require remediation in the subject of free speech.
> 
> Your use "desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction," means that you are willing to place various levels of filter on speech, and this implies that you have not carefully reviewed the concept.
> 
> 1. who will decide what speech would "incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction"? You?
> 
> You may simply decide not to present yourself at a Coulter seminar.
> 
> You may turn off the TV. Wasn't there a Will Rogers line about having no respect for someone who won't just turn the dial...?
> 
> 2. The ACLU has often stated that the answer to bad speech is good speech. That's all, not blocked speech.
> 
> 3. The worst censorship is that by authority, i.e. a government.
> 
> Isn't that your belief?  If not, why not?
Click to expand...


with great power comes great responsibility.

children should not run with scissors.


----------



## American Horse

MaggieMae said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happenin' in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not happening anywhere....
> 
> The simple fact is, that the Canadians; who it should be pointed out, that Ravi, a Leftist... refers to _Children...; _felt IN THEIR OWN MINDS, that their point of view would NOT PREVAIL in a contest with Miss Coulter.
> 
> So to avoid that contest, they opted to force her from speaking.
> 
> It's the same everywhere...  from this forum, throughout the debate forums across the web; to every University on earth; at any point where Leftists are confronted with Conservatism... THE LEFT KNOWS THAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS LOST and will always LOSE!
> 
> Reason demands that IF the Left felt that they would prevail; that their argument would stand supreme; that their reasoning would discredit, refute or otherwise set aside any means by the objective observer to conclude that the Left's point of view was more sound; that the left's argument had been sustained and that it prevailed over it's competition...  then the Left would be LINING UP Debates with Miss Coulter... eagerly desiring that the world witness the supremacy of their reasoning.
> 
> But that's not what is happening is it?  Never has... Never will...
> 
> Wherever the Left is in a position to violently remove their opposition... they must take any option which precludes open, honest, objective debate.  Simply because their ideology; their ideas; their feelings... are unsound; thus they're unsustainable... thus THEY LOSE.
> 
> And again... the coolest part here; is that THEY CONCEDE SUCH AS FACT; through their OWN ACTIONS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the left has lost and know they will always lose, then why are you so angry? You should be starting a thread gloating, like so many others, that the left is about to go down in flames forever, blah blah blah. Could it be that you know deep down that will never happen?
Click to expand...

Dear Maggie!  PI  wasn't angry. I detect no anger.  HE DOES though, seem to be gloating.


----------



## Foxfyre

PoliticalChic said:


> . . . ."desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction," means that you are willing to place various levels of filter on speech, and this implies that you have not carefully reviewed the concept.
> 
> 1. who will decide what speech would "incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction"? You?
> 
> You may simply decide not to present yourself at a Coulter seminar.
> 
> You may turn off the TV. Wasn't there a Will Rogers line about having no respect for someone who won't just turn the dial...?
> 
> 2. The ACLU has often stated that the answer to bad speech is good speech. That's all, not blocked speech.
> 
> 3. The worst censorship is that by authority, i.e. a government.
> 
> Isn't that your belief?  If not, why not?



Noting that the above quoted points could have effectively been directed at a number of people on USMB and elsewhere. . . .

It is always interesting to me to see how incensed Coulter critics are at the things she says while the same people shrug off similar lines from their own side as 'free speech' or 'no big deal'.

Coulter has built a lucrative career using impeccable scholarship along with some damn funny characterizations and metaphors and an inate knack for pushing just the right buttons or pulling just the right chains to generate laughter or righteous indignation depending on who her audience might be.

She is a widely attractive guest almost everywhere (except liberal academia presumably) and a prolific writer who does occasionally cross the line into bad taste, but who doesn't who has as much exposure as she gets?  Certainly the President and Vice President have done so and nobody presumes to ban them.

Mostly Ann is mischaracterized in what she says and what she means if you take her comments within the full context.  And some of the lines she is accused of never happened.  Even one of the lines that got her shouted off Ottawa University never happened.

But she hits so many liberal nerves, she must be doing something right.


----------



## csbarry

PoliticalChic said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to Voltaire's statement I couldn't agree more, that is, if you are of the same mind as Voltaire. If it is your desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction, I believe it is humanities obligation to stop you dead in your tracks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm surprised that you require remediation in the subject of free speech.
> 
> Your use "desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction," means that you are willing to place various levels of filter on speech, and this implies that you have not carefully reviewed the concept.
> 
> 1. who will decide what speech would "incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction"? You?
> 
> You may simply decide not to present yourself at a Coulter seminar.
> 
> You may turn off the TV. Wasn't there a Will Rogers line about having no respect for someone who won't just turn the dial...?
> 
> 2. The ACLU has often stated that the answer to bad speech is good speech. That's all, not blocked speech.
> 
> 3. The worst censorship is that by authority, i.e. a government.
> 
> Isn't that your belief?  If not, why not?
Click to expand...


As great as our Constitution is, it was written and adopted some 223 years ago, a time when those living had no idea what the future would hold. It is my belief and the belief of many others, that if the writers of the Constitution were to draft the document today, it would not resemble the 1787 version, not exactly. 

No one will ever know for sure; but I am of the belief that our forefathers would not tolerate the cries of "kill the blacks" or "kill the Jews" or anything along those lines, and would have written laws to prevent citizens of this Country from living in fear of persecution.


----------



## PoliticalChic

csbarry said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to Voltaire's statement I couldn't agree more, that is, if you are of the same mind as Voltaire. If it is your desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction, I believe it is humanities obligation to stop you dead in your tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm surprised that you require remediation in the subject of free speech.
> 
> Your use "desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction," means that you are willing to place various levels of filter on speech, and this implies that you have not carefully reviewed the concept.
> 
> 1. who will decide what speech would "incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction"? You?
> 
> You may simply decide not to present yourself at a Coulter seminar.
> 
> You may turn off the TV. Wasn't there a Will Rogers line about having no respect for someone who won't just turn the dial...?
> 
> 2. The ACLU has often stated that the answer to bad speech is good speech. That's all, not blocked speech.
> 
> 3. The worst censorship is that by authority, i.e. a government.
> 
> Isn't that your belief?  If not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As great as our Constitution is, it was written and adopted some 223 years ago, a time when those living had no idea what the future would hold. It is my belief and the belief of many others, that if the writers of the Constitution were to draft the document today, it would not resemble the 1787 version, not exactly.
> 
> No one will ever know for sure; but I am of the belief that our forefathers would not tolerate the cries of "kill the blacks" or "kill the Jews" or anything along those lines, and would have written laws to prevent citizens of this Country from living in fear of persecution.
Click to expand...


While the specific rantings that you give as examples of speech have to a great degree been addressed by the Supreme Court, and, generally require proximity and ability to commit physical acts, your post is exemplary in spotlighting the political-philosophical diffeences that spit our country today.

Traditionalists, or conservatives, place more faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence than do folks like yourself, Progressives or liberals.

You have stated a main theorem of the Progressives of the early 20th century, let me list them:
a. The Constitution was old, and not equipped to deal with new social ills.
b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives agenda.
d. Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.
f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.

The overriding weakness as my side sees your perspective is the dimunition of the individual as the most important denominator of society.

While it is difficult to predict exactly when your perspective will destroy our society, it is clear from history, that totalist viewpoints do just that.

Should any of the above list require elucidation, I would be only too happy to provide same.
Please don't hesitate- as this is a discussion of primary importance.


----------



## American Horse

csbarry said:


> As great as our Constitution is, it was written and adopted some 223 years ago, a time when those living had no idea what the future would hold. It is my belief and the belief of many others, that if the writers of the Constitution were to draft the document today, it would not resemble the 1787 version, not exactly.
> 
> No one will ever know for sure; but I am of the belief that our forefathers would not tolerate the cries of "kill the blacks" or "kill the Jews" or anything along those lines, and would have written laws to prevent citizens of this Country from living in fear of persecution.



The "Founders" were historians.  They drafted a document that is in so many ways a replica of the Roman consititution that an informed person, with that historical insight, can't help but notice it.  People like those whose perspective included the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, weren't at all naive, and did their best to draft a document that would hold up to the ages.

And as to your last paragraph...what's your point?


----------



## eots

Newby said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it initial reports seemed to imply that the organizers made the decision to cancel the speech (hinting that Coulter was the innocent victim of some nefarious experiment in Canadian censorship) it later came to light that Coulter's bodyguard made the decision to cancel the speech in consultation with on-site security when someone pulled a fire alarm in the building.
> 
> According to CBC news blogger Kady O'Malley Coulter was offered secure options, but chose instead to cancel.
> 
> First, contrary to what Coulter seems to suggest in a brief phone interview with Macleans.ca scribe Colby Cosh, it was not the police who "shut it down." I spoke with Ottawa Police Services media relations officer Alain Boucher this morning, and he told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was her security team that made the decision to call off the event. "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision."
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Rowe: Sorry Ann Coulter, Canada's Just Not That Into You
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if she hadn't canceled,  the haters would have jumped all over her for ignoring a dangerous situation and making it worse.  So, it really doesn't matter what route she took, she'd take shit for it either way.
Click to expand...


nonsense...


----------



## Foxfyre

csbarry said:


> As great as our Constitution is, it was written and adopted some 223 years ago, a time when those living had no idea what the future would hold. It is my belief and the belief of many others, that if the writers of the Constitution were to draft the document today, it would not resemble the 1787 version, not exactly.
> 
> No one will ever know for sure; but I am of the belief that our forefathers would not tolerate the cries of "kill the blacks" or "kill the Jews" or anything along those lines, and would have written laws to prevent citizens of this Country from living in fear of persecution.



You're right.  If the Constitution was written today, by the same kind of people who wrote it 223 years ago, it would reflect today's culture instead of theirs and would include all the components of subsequent amendments that still stand.  There would probably be some additional components to prevent the corruption of the document as has occured in the liberal courts and via interpretation of others on the Left.

Otherwise I think those same visionary people would leave the principles embodied in the Constitution exactly as they are because they have been proved to work everywhere they have been tried.

They would keep the Constitution as a document to secure our rights, and to prevent the federal government from otherwise interfering with us forming the society in which we wish to live.


----------



## csbarry

PoliticalChic said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm surprised that you require remediation in the subject of free speech.
> 
> Your use "desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction," means that you are willing to place various levels of filter on speech, and this implies that you have not carefully reviewed the concept.
> 
> 1. who will decide what speech would "incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction"? You?
> 
> You may simply decide not to present yourself at a Coulter seminar.
> 
> You may turn off the TV. Wasn't there a Will Rogers line about having no respect for someone who won't just turn the dial...?
> 
> 2. The ACLU has often stated that the answer to bad speech is good speech. That's all, not blocked speech.
> 
> 3. The worst censorship is that by authority, i.e. a government.
> 
> Isn't that your belief?  If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As great as our Constitution is, it was written and adopted some 223 years ago, a time when those living had no idea what the future would hold. It is my belief and the belief of many others, that if the writers of the Constitution were to draft the document today, it would not resemble the 1787 version, not exactly.
> 
> No one will ever know for sure; but I am of the belief that our forefathers would not tolerate the cries of "kill the blacks" or "kill the Jews" or anything along those lines, and would have written laws to prevent citizens of this Country from living in fear of persecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the specific rantings that you give as examples of speech have to a great degree been addressed by the Supreme Court, and, generally require proximity and ability to commit physical acts, your post is exemplary in spotlighting the political-philosophical diffeences that spit our country today.
> 
> Traditionalists, or conservatives, place more faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence than do folks like yourself, Progressives or liberals.
> 
> You have stated a main theorem of the Progressives of the early 20th century, let me list them:
> a. The Constitution was old, and not equipped to deal with new social ills.
> b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
> c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives agenda.
> d. Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
> e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.
> f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.
> 
> The overriding weakness as my side sees your perspective is the dimunition of the individual as the most important denominator of society.
> 
> While it is difficult to predict exactly when your perspective will destroy our society, it is clear from history, that totalist viewpoints do just that.
> 
> Should any of the above list require elucidation, I would be only too happy to provide same.
> Please don't hesitate- as this is a discussion of primary importance.
Click to expand...


We each have our opinion on this matter, and out of respect for the times we are in agreement, I will agree to disagree if you will.


----------



## PoliticalChic

eots said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it initial reports seemed to imply that the organizers made the decision to cancel the speech (hinting that Coulter was the innocent victim of some nefarious experiment in Canadian censorship) it later came to light that Coulter's bodyguard made the decision to cancel the speech in consultation with on-site security when someone pulled a fire alarm in the building.
> 
> According to CBC news blogger Kady O'Malley Coulter was offered secure options, but chose instead to cancel.
> 
> First, contrary to what Coulter seems to suggest in a brief phone interview with Macleans.ca scribe Colby Cosh, it was not the police who "shut it down." I spoke with Ottawa Police Services media relations officer Alain Boucher this morning, and he told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was her security team that made the decision to call off the event. "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision."
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Rowe: Sorry Ann Coulter, Canada's Just Not That Into You
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if she hadn't canceled,  the haters would have jumped all over her for ignoring a dangerous situation and making it worse.  So, it really doesn't matter what route she took, she'd take shit for it either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nonsense...
Click to expand...


Of course Newby is correct...

But your response!  

Insightful! Nuanced! A bit on the tortuous side,,,but, still subtle. And a little fruity and full-bodied.

And the hours of preparation! I am in awe.


----------



## Zona

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing makes me wonder WTF Coulter had to say to Canadians that would get them so worked up.
> 
> Maybe she wanted to speak French?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that coulter dude actually got arrested, it would have been a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coulter is a funny guy.  It would have been funny if she went there and got arrested for her hateful crap.
> 
> Funny dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2139427-post15.html
> 
> Say it again, see if it gets funny .
Click to expand...



That country wont accept her hate filled vile crap up there and if she was arrested for being the man she always is here, that would have been hilarious.  

She did not cancel this for her "safety", she didn't go because she was afraid of being arrested and that place didn't want her there.  Good for them.

Oh Canada!


----------



## eots

PoliticalChic said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if she hadn't canceled,  the haters would have jumped all over her for ignoring a dangerous situation and making it worse.  So, it really doesn't matter what route she took, she'd take shit for it either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nonsense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Newby is correct...
> 
> But your response!
> 
> Insightful! Nuanced! A bit on the tortuous side,,,but, still subtle. And a little fruity and full-bodied.
> 
> And the hours of preparation! I am in awe.
Click to expand...




She simply created a little_ if _story in her imaginings ..to try to ignore Any coulters lies and excagerations..the facts are no one but Ann Coulter canceled her speech and there were no reported or confirmed threats or violence


----------



## American Horse

eots said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> nonsense...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Newby is correct...
> 
> But your response!
> 
> Insightful! Nuanced! A bit on the tortuous side,,,but, still subtle. And a little fruity and full-bodied.
> 
> And the hours of preparation! I am in awe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She simply created a little_ if _story in her imaginings ..to try to ignore Any coulters lies and excagerations..the facts are no one but Ann Coulter canceled her speech and there were no reported or confirmed threats or violence
Click to expand...

Let me see if I have this right:  A Tea Party assembly would make you nervous because of the potential for threatenings of violence.  The noisy, rambunctious crowd in Canada, an entire order of magnitude more hostile and vocal than any TP crowd, would be completely non-threatening to you...if you were the object of their chants like Ann was?

And BTW Ann said to B. O'Reilly the police called where she and her BG were waiting for things to calm down and said it was cancelled.  My own assessment is that she is fearless, far more than many of those who allude to courage here at USMB.


----------



## blindnessprevai

MDN2000>>>"Ann Coulter does not lie, does not distort the truth, she simply tells it as it is with humor. 
This is more than enough to bring out the ugly hatred Liberals and Marxist hide within their hearts."
================================================
There is plenty of blame and very obvious hatred on both sides and all around.  I am not going to try to provoke yours, but if you want to be honest I think you will have to admit that you didn't discover the "ugly hatred Liberals and Marxists hide" while lacking any hatred of your own.  As for me, I myself "once was HALF BLIND, but now I see myself as well as I see others"   Therefore when I feel the uglies rising up, I bow out and come back when I feel more loving and kind.


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> She don't have to live like a refugee.



You just made my day... And it's FRIDAY. 

Then again, I think that song is stuck in my head now...


----------



## Mr. Peepers

Did those crazy kids blast this at her?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0JvF9vpqx8]YouTube - Don't Come Around Here No More[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

blindnessprevai said:


> MDN2000>>>"Ann Coulter does not lie, does not distort the truth, she simply tells it as it is with humor.
> This is more than enough to bring out the ugly hatred Liberals and Marxist hide within their hearts."
> ================================================
> There is plenty of blame and very obvious hatred on both sides and all around.  I am not going to try to provoke yours, but if you want to be honest I think you will have to admit that you didn't discover the "ugly hatred Liberals and Marxists hide" while lacking any hatred of your own.  As for me, I myself "once was HALF BLIND, but now I see myself as well as I see others"   Therefore when I feel the uglies rising up, I bow out and come back when I feel more loving and kind.



I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth.  Her scholarship is generally impeccable.  She does use metaphors annoying to certain ideologies or segments of society.  She does exaggerate for effect.  She does intentionally make provocative statements without qualifying them which often really does stir up hornets nexts among the prejudiced, highly partisan, and ignorant.  

But to the prejudiced, highly partisan, and ignorant, hers is hate speech that 'should not be tolerated' while they remain silent on rapper lyrics that absolutely do incite violence, degrade women in the most vulgar ways, and worse.  They tolerate the most idiotic anti-American rhetoric from revered celebrities.  They dismiss hateful or incendiary or insulting or intentionally dishonest rhetoric, illustrations, metaphors, et al from the left as 'free speech' or 'inconsequential'.

But when asked for a 'hateful' in context statement from Ann Coulter, they have a really hard time coming up with one.  She is successful.  She is popular.  She is conservative.  And that's plenty for them to condemn her to hell.


----------



## Modbert

Foxfyre said:


> * I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth. * Her scholarship is generally impeccable.  She does use metaphors annoying to certain ideologies or segments of society.  She does exaggerate for effect. * She does intentionally make provocative statements without qualifying them which often really does stir up hornets nexts among the prejudiced, highly partisan, and ignorant.  *
> 
> *But to the prejudiced, highly partisan, and ignorant, hers is hate speech that 'should not be tolerated' while they remain silent on rapper lyrics that absolutely do incite violence, degrade women in the most vulgar ways, and worse*.  They tolerate the most idiotic anti-American rhetoric from revered celebrities.  They dismiss hateful or incendiary or insulting or intentionally dishonest rhetoric, illustrations, metaphors, et al from the left as 'free speech' or 'inconsequential'.
> 
> *But when asked for a 'hateful' in context statement from Ann Coulter, they have a really hard time coming up with one*.  She is successful.  She is popular.  She is conservative.  And that's plenty for them to condemn her to hell.



Are you whacked out of your mind? Serious question.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dogbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> * I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth. * Her scholarship is generally impeccable.  She does use metaphors annoying to certain ideologies or segments of society.  She does exaggerate for effect. * She does intentionally make provocative statements without qualifying them which often really does stir up hornets nexts among the prejudiced, highly partisan, and ignorant.  *
> 
> *But to the prejudiced, highly partisan, and ignorant, hers is hate speech that 'should not be tolerated' while they remain silent on rapper lyrics that absolutely do incite violence, degrade women in the most vulgar ways, and worse*.  They tolerate the most idiotic anti-American rhetoric from revered celebrities.  They dismiss hateful or incendiary or insulting or intentionally dishonest rhetoric, illustrations, metaphors, et al from the left as 'free speech' or 'inconsequential'.
> 
> *But when asked for a 'hateful' in context statement from Ann Coulter, they have a really hard time coming up with one*.  She is successful.  She is popular.  She is conservative.  And that's plenty for them to condemn her to hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you whacked out of your mind? Serious question.
Click to expand...


Well first, to determine who is whacked out of his or her mind, you would have to demonstrate that you understood the sentences you bolded.   I don't believe you do.


----------



## Kalam

Ragnar said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada has their own laws? How cute... just like a real country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, right?
> 
> Kind of like Coulter has her own cute little political opinions... just like a grown-up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch KaBlam!
> 
> To bad some of the folks in Canada could not make that point. It seems that, for some reason, they will never get the chance to hear the other side of the debate.
> 
> Oh well. The world spins on... and Canada tries as hard as it can to keep up.
Click to expand...


Okay, I laughed at "KaBlam." That's funny as hell.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> His problems arose from the fact that aided terrorists.  Financially.
> 
> 
> "According to at least one credible source, he was also involved in terrorist financing." The Jawa Report: Claim: Cat Stevens Financed Terrorists, Tied to Radical Clerics
> 
> 
> "In the recording, Bakri tells supporters that Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam (now calling himself simply Yusuf) was once a frequent visitor to his offices in Britainand even worse, that Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens was also closely connected to the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently serving a life sentence for plotting terror attacks in the US...Bakri then intimates that Cat Stevens also helped support Abdel Rahmans family financially. He also claims that Yusuf Islam knowingly sent money to the families of the mujahidin in Egypt. Giving money to the families of so-called martyrs is a way for Muslims to support terrorism indirectly and yet remain shielded from most legal ramifications.."
> Little Green Footballs - Audio: Cat Stevens Linked to Radical Islamists, Convicted Terrorists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little Green Footballs is a right wing blogsite; one that I once belonged to until I made a few comments that didn't fit with its agenda, and I suddenly found myself banned therefrom. Is that the best you can do? Anyone can SAY anything they want, IMPLY anything they want, use INNUENDO and hope that others will believe. But I still prefer facts. In _fact_, *facts* are what got me booted from LGF. It isn't a site that welcomes those pesky things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually you are not one to deflect from a point with the so ethereal "I don't agree with the souce."
> 
> I would have no trouble finding more sources that state similar points, but I suggest you might have trouble documenting that the government moved against him because he"converted to Islam and had a funny name."
> 
> This, of course, was an absurdly flip and untrue post.
> 
> I actually look forward to engaging with you, OK, locking horns, but today seems not to be one of your more profound days.
> 
> Time for a coffee?
Click to expand...


Yup. Took a break, but not from debate. I suspect that in 2004, not long after the invasion of Iraq and around the time folks first began to doubt the value of doing so, it was also a time when members of the Bush Administration (Cheney, Ashcroft) were convincingly scaring the American people into believing that anyone with a Muslim name was a potential terrorist. There were many people on the terrorist watch and/or no-fly list that had no business being there for that reason alone. There's just too much counter evidence (not just the summary in Wikipedia) that prove Cat Stevens was not a terrorist sympathizer. If he was, he sure hid it well being such a highly visible person and all.


----------



## MaggieMae

American Horse said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not happening anywhere....
> 
> The simple fact is, that the Canadians; who it should be pointed out, that Ravi, a Leftist... refers to _Children...; _felt IN THEIR OWN MINDS, that their point of view would NOT PREVAIL in a contest with Miss Coulter.
> 
> So to avoid that contest, they opted to force her from speaking.
> 
> It's the same everywhere...  from this forum, throughout the debate forums across the web; to every University on earth; at any point where Leftists are confronted with Conservatism... THE LEFT KNOWS THAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS LOST and will always LOSE!
> 
> Reason demands that IF the Left felt that they would prevail; that their argument would stand supreme; that their reasoning would discredit, refute or otherwise set aside any means by the objective observer to conclude that the Left's point of view was more sound; that the left's argument had been sustained and that it prevailed over it's competition...  then the Left would be LINING UP Debates with Miss Coulter... eagerly desiring that the world witness the supremacy of their reasoning.
> 
> But that's not what is happening is it?  Never has... Never will...
> 
> Wherever the Left is in a position to violently remove their opposition... they must take any option which precludes open, honest, objective debate.  Simply because their ideology; their ideas; their feelings... are unsound; thus they're unsustainable... thus THEY LOSE.
> 
> And again... the coolest part here; is that THEY CONCEDE SUCH AS FACT; through their OWN ACTIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the left has lost and know they will always lose, then why are you so angry? You should be starting a thread gloating, like so many others, that the left is about to go down in flames forever, blah blah blah. Could it be that you know deep down that will never happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Maggie!  PI  wasn't angry. I detect no anger.  HE DOES though, seem to be gloating.
Click to expand...


Chic with that pic is a he? Who knew?


----------



## MaggieMae

Foxfyre said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . ."desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction," means that you are willing to place various levels of filter on speech, and this implies that you have not carefully reviewed the concept.
> 
> 1. who will decide what speech would "incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction"? You?
> 
> You may simply decide not to present yourself at a Coulter seminar.
> 
> You may turn off the TV. Wasn't there a Will Rogers line about having no respect for someone who won't just turn the dial...?
> 
> 2. The ACLU has often stated that the answer to bad speech is good speech. That's all, not blocked speech.
> 
> 3. The worst censorship is that by authority, i.e. a government.
> 
> Isn't that your belief?  If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noting that the above quoted points could have effectively been directed at a number of people on USMB and elsewhere. . . .
> 
> It is always interesting to me to see how incensed Coulter critics are at the things she says while the same people shrug off similar lines from their own side as 'free speech' or 'no big deal'.
> 
> Coulter has built a lucrative career using impeccable scholarship along with some damn funny characterizations and metaphors and an inate knack for pushing just the right buttons or pulling just the right chains to generate laughter or righteous indignation depending on who her audience might be.
> 
> She is a widely attractive guest almost everywhere (except liberal academia presumably) and a prolific writer who does occasionally cross the line into bad taste, but who doesn't who has as much exposure as she gets?  Certainly the President and Vice President have done so and nobody presumes to ban them.
> 
> Mostly Ann is mischaracterized in what she says and what she means if you take her comments within the full context.  And some of the lines she is accused of never happened.  Even one of the lines that got her shouted off Ottawa University never happened.
> 
> But she hits so many liberal nerves, she must be doing something right.
Click to expand...


Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?


----------



## Kalam

PoliticalChic said:


> It is rather clear why you might be opposed to Ms. Coulter, based on your religious persuasion...


I thought she was a bit of a tool when I wasn't as religious, to tell you the truth. But yes, I have nothing but contempt for those who advocate oppressing and "converting" Muslims. Generally, people with the wherewithal to put those beliefs into action end up dead or beleaguered relentlessly.  



PoliticalChic said:


> Understandable.
> 
> But you used to be able to express yourself in  a less vulgar manner.


If it becomes apparent that civility is futile, I'll adjust my responses to reflect the intellectual acuity of my opponent. 



PoliticalChic said:


> Is this the real you peeking out, or merely a momentary lapse?




I'll let you decide that for yourself.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm surprised that you require remediation in the subject of free speech.
> 
> Your use "desire to incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction," means that you are willing to place various levels of filter on speech, and this implies that you have not carefully reviewed the concept.
> 
> 1. who will decide what speech would "incite racial and ethnic hatred, or death and destruction"? You?
> 
> You may simply decide not to present yourself at a Coulter seminar.
> 
> You may turn off the TV. Wasn't there a Will Rogers line about having no respect for someone who won't just turn the dial...?
> 
> 2. The ACLU has often stated that the answer to bad speech is good speech. That's all, not blocked speech.
> 
> 3. The worst censorship is that by authority, i.e. a government.
> 
> Isn't that your belief?  If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As great as our Constitution is, it was written and adopted some 223 years ago, a time when those living had no idea what the future would hold. It is my belief and the belief of many others, that if the writers of the Constitution were to draft the document today, it would not resemble the 1787 version, not exactly.
> 
> No one will ever know for sure; but I am of the belief that our forefathers would not tolerate the cries of "kill the blacks" or "kill the Jews" or anything along those lines, and would have written laws to prevent citizens of this Country from living in fear of persecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the specific rantings that you give as examples of speech have to a great degree been addressed by the Supreme Court, and, generally require proximity and ability to commit physical acts, your post is exemplary in spotlighting the political-philosophical diffeences that spit our country today.
> 
> Traditionalists, or conservatives, place more faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence than do folks like yourself, Progressives or liberals.
> 
> You have stated a main theorem of the Progressives of the early 20th century, let me list them:
> a. The Constitution was old, and not equipped to deal with new social ills.
> b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
> c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives agenda.
> d. Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
> e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.
> f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.
> 
> The overriding weakness as my side sees your perspective is the dimunition of the individual as the most important denominator of society.
> 
> While it is difficult to predict exactly when your perspective will destroy our society, it is clear from history, that totalist viewpoints do just that.
> 
> Should any of the above list require elucidation, I would be only too happy to provide same.
> Please don't hesitate- as this is a discussion of primary importance.
Click to expand...


Before any amendments were passed there was probably as much debate as there was in the Federalist Papers which formed the basis of the original Constitution. It should be no surprise to anyone that the same types of ideological debates have continued over time, and right up until today. Ironically, I believe it is precisely that type of debate that the framers hoped would establish a middle ground. And THAT is what remains perfect about the Constitution.


----------



## Samson

MaggieMae said:


> Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?



Bill Meher.
George Carlin......

....Just off the top of my head..


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kalam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather clear why you might be opposed to Ms. Coulter, based on your religious persuasion...
> 
> 
> 
> I thought she was a bit of a tool when I wasn't as religious, to tell you the truth. But yes, I have nothing but contempt for those who advocate oppressing and "converting" Muslims. Generally, people with the wherewithal to put those beliefs into action end up dead or beleaguered relentlessly.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Understandable.
> 
> But you used to be able to express yourself in  a less vulgar manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it becomes apparent that civility is futile, I'll adjust my responses to reflect the intellectual acuity of my opponent.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the real you peeking out, or merely a momentary lapse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let you decide that for yourself.
Click to expand...


"If it becomes apparent that civility is futile, I'll adjust my responses to reflect the intellectual acuity of my opponent."
I don't believe that anyone reading my posts will find that there is and problem with my  "intellectual acuity ," nor do I believe that you find there to be any fault there as well.

Your statement comes across rather as a vapid excuse for your less than intellectual post, the one with the gesture that is so common in school yards and street corners.

No, it seems that you were unable to compete in the arena of ideas, and the result was a somewhat jejune cartoon.

If you are afraid to joust on a higher level, merely continue in that vein and I will read that as your capitulation.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Meher.
> George Carlin......
> 
> ....Just off the top of my head..
Click to expand...


Thank you.  (I am not allowed to respond to Maggie's posts.)  There are others assuming that Ann Coulter is verbally abusive.  I don't see her anywhere near as verbally abusive as many here on USMB, both left and right, but I suppose that sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## MaggieMae

Foxfyre said:


> blindnessprevai said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDN2000>>>"Ann Coulter does not lie, does not distort the truth, she simply tells it as it is with humor.
> This is more than enough to bring out the ugly hatred Liberals and Marxist hide within their hearts."
> ================================================
> There is plenty of blame and very obvious hatred on both sides and all around.  I am not going to try to provoke yours, but if you want to be honest I think you will have to admit that you didn't discover the "ugly hatred Liberals and Marxists hide" while lacking any hatred of your own.  As for me, I myself "once was HALF BLIND, but now I see myself as well as I see others"   Therefore when I feel the uglies rising up, I bow out and come back when I feel more loving and kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth.  Her scholarship is generally impeccable.  She does use metaphors annoying to certain ideologies or segments of society.  She does exaggerate for effect.  She does intentionally make provocative statements without qualifying them which often really does stir up hornets nexts among the prejudiced, highly partisan, and ignorant.
> 
> But to the prejudiced, highly partisan, and ignorant, hers is hate speech that 'should not be tolerated' while they remain silent on rapper lyrics that absolutely do incite violence, degrade women in the most vulgar ways, and worse.  They tolerate the most idiotic anti-American rhetoric from revered celebrities.  They dismiss hateful or incendiary or insulting or intentionally dishonest rhetoric, illustrations, metaphors, et al from the left as 'free speech' or 'inconsequential'.
> 
> But when asked for a 'hateful' in context statement from Ann Coulter, they have a really hard time coming up with one.  She is successful.  She is popular.  She is conservative.  And that's plenty for them to condemn her to hell.
Click to expand...


Comparing rappers to Ann Coulter? Who listens to rap music who would even have a clue who Ann Coulter is? I don't know why you guys can't just admit that she has one purpose, whenever she opens her mouth, and that is to elicit an angry reaction. Here are a few of her more infamous comments:

"We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say." --arguing that it would be better if we were all Christian. 
[Angering all Jews, of course] 

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'" 
[Angering MOST women, one would _hope_]

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration 
[Showing her complete lack of 'humanistic' sympathy]

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media." 
[Just being a dumb bitch]

"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals." 
[Even dumber]

*"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." 

*"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"

*"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." 

*"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

*"We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States." 

*"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President." 
[And then there's that nine-year old inner child which is also visible to even the most casual observer.]

* Each clearly shows the woman is also quite insane.


----------



## eots

American Horse said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Newby is correct...
> 
> But your response!
> 
> Insightful! Nuanced! A bit on the tortuous side,,,but, still subtle. And a little fruity and full-bodied.
> 
> And the hours of preparation! I am in awe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She simply created a little_ if _story in her imaginings ..to try to ignore Any coulters lies and excagerations..the facts are no one but Ann Coulter canceled her speech and there were no reported or confirmed threats or violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I have this right:  A Tea Party assembly would make you nervous because of the potential for threatenings of violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have little concern over tea part protest being violent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The noisy, rambunctious crowd in Canada, an entire order of magnitude more hostile and vocal than any TP crowd, would be completely non-threatening to you...if you were the object of their chants like Ann was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cant handle the heat stay out of the kitchen.. people protest ,just the other Day I saw a crowd  of about 30 loudly protesting the plight of the chicken at KFC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And BTW Ann said to B. O'Reilly the police called where she and her BG were waiting for things to calm down and said it was canceled.  My own assessment is that she is fearless, far more than many of those who allude to courage here at USMB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ottawa police state no such calls were ever made and Coulter alone chose to canceled the event
Click to expand...


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Meher.
> George Carlin......
> 
> ....Just off the top of my head..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  (I am not allowed to respond to Maggie's posts.)  There are others assuming that Ann Coulter is verbally abusive.  I don't see her anywhere near as verbally abusive as many here on USMB, both left and right, but I suppose that sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...


Just go ahead and say it.

JenyEliza.....m'k?

I'll also take some blame.

If I had to lecture Lesbian Canadians, I'm pretty sure the words "Rug-Munchers" would slip out and I'd suffer anal penetration at the tender mercies of some Bull-Dyke Mountie equipped with a 12 inch strap-on.


----------



## MaggieMae

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Meher.
> George Carlin......
> 
> ....Just off the top of my head..
Click to expand...


I actually should have said which _woman_ on the left. There are several men who make their living being nasties both on the left and right. But I can think of no woman on the left who rise to the level of Ann Coulter's viscious harrangues.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Meher.
> George Carlin......
> 
> ....Just off the top of my head..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  (I am not allowed to respond to Maggie's posts.)  There are others assuming that Ann Coulter is verbally abusive.  I don't see her anywhere near as verbally abusive as many here on USMB, both left and right, but I suppose that sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just go ahead and say it.
> 
> JenyEliza.....m'k?
> 
> I'll also take some blame.
> 
> If I had to lecture Lesbian Canadians, I'm pretty sure the words "Rug-Munchers" would slip out and I'd suffer anal penetration at the tender mercies of some Bull-Dyke Mountie equipped with a 12 inch strap-on.
Click to expand...


Okay, you got a belly laugh with that one.  But at some risk (for you), I will say that I didn't have you in mind with my comment.   

Edit.  I wish I had added that those quoting Coulter's hate speech be dangled over hot coals or something until they agree to go look up the full context of the stuff they quote.  In most cases, within the full context of her comments, the statements are not hateful at all.  What the media.....and internet pundits.....usually do is take one line without showing to what it refers.   Or in a 10-minute segment they take one line from the beginning and another five or ten minutes later and put them together making it look like she is saying something she didn't say at all.

Coulter is a far more honest person than are many who presume to judge her.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> As great as our Constitution is, it was written and adopted some 223 years ago, a time when those living had no idea what the future would hold. It is my belief and the belief of many others, that if the writers of the Constitution were to draft the document today, it would not resemble the 1787 version, not exactly.
> 
> No one will ever know for sure; but I am of the belief that our forefathers would not tolerate the cries of "kill the blacks" or "kill the Jews" or anything along those lines, and would have written laws to prevent citizens of this Country from living in fear of persecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the specific rantings that you give as examples of speech have to a great degree been addressed by the Supreme Court, and, generally require proximity and ability to commit physical acts, your post is exemplary in spotlighting the political-philosophical diffeences that spit our country today.
> 
> Traditionalists, or conservatives, place more faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence than do folks like yourself, Progressives or liberals.
> 
> You have stated a main theorem of the Progressives of the early 20th century, let me list them:
> a. The Constitution was old, and not equipped to deal with new social ills.
> b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
> c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives agenda.
> d. Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
> e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.
> f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.
> 
> The overriding weakness as my side sees your perspective is the dimunition of the individual as the most important denominator of society.
> 
> While it is difficult to predict exactly when your perspective will destroy our society, it is clear from history, that totalist viewpoints do just that.
> 
> Should any of the above list require elucidation, I would be only too happy to provide same.
> Please don't hesitate- as this is a discussion of primary importance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before any amendments were passed there was probably as much debate as there was in the Federalist Papers which formed the basis of the original Constitution. It should be no surprise to anyone that the same types of ideological debates have continued over time, and right up until today. Ironically, I believe it is precisely that type of debate that the framers hoped would establish a middle ground. And THAT is what remains perfect about the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Ah, the old Maggie has returned!

Good to see this one.

"...continued over time..." An excellent vertex for this discussion!

The preeminence of my perspective was the period of the ratification of the Constitution, until the Civil War.

For the Progressive, from the Civil War to the present.

The salient point is that the pendulum swing is beyond that of a normal lifespan.  Thus, we must apply more than individual experience to decide the benefits of each.

"...establish a middle ground..." is impossible!

Either one or the other will prevail...and the benefits of conservativism, free market and the superiority of the individual have been shown to benenfit society, while progressivism, socialism and statism, as seen in the totalist supremacies of the past century have resulted in torture, mass murder, enslavement and poverty.

I appreciate your endeavor of linking modern liberalism to an assumed interest by the Founders, but I fear this is more founded in your desires as a good person, than in any real desire by true progressives to fulfull the promise of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

No, my friend, there are too many syncretic inconsistencies between the two.

For one, the source of our "inalienable rights." 

We believe that all are born with them, and they come from, as stated in the Preamble, 
Laws of Nature and of Natures God. Locke stated as much.

Woodrow Wilson essay Socialism and Democracy  Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will. The collective is not limited by individual rights. 

I don't know if you saw the seminar at Hillsdale College called "Reviving the Constitiution," but if you wish to see it, you can on line, or you can purchase the DVD. An excellent presentation.


----------



## MaggieMae

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Meher.
> George Carlin......
> 
> ....Just off the top of my head..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  (I am not allowed to respond to Maggie's posts.)  There are others assuming that Ann Coulter is verbally abusive.  I don't see her anywhere near as verbally abusive as many here on USMB, both left and right, but I suppose that sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...


Why aren't you "allowed" to respond to my posts? That's ridiculous. There's only two people here that I formally complained to the mods about, one was a _long_ time ago, yet they both continue to respond to me. I didn't expect those complaints to generate any verbotten warnings; it was my way of venting against what appeared to be their stalking me. I also have only one person on ignore, and that's not you either. Whatever are you talking about?


----------



## Foxfyre

Will someone remind Maggie that it was she herself who not that long ago requested that I leave her alone.  And I have religiously respected that request ever since.


----------



## Conspiracist

Foxfyre said:


> Will someone remind Maggie that it was she herself who not that long ago requested that I leave her alone.  And I have religiously respected that request ever since.



People forget what they say at times in emotional fits or such. It's honorable of you to remember though.


----------



## Kalam

PoliticalChic said:


> "If it becomes apparent that civility is futile, I'll adjust my responses to reflect the intellectual acuity of my opponent."
> I don't believe that anyone reading my posts will find that there is and problem with my  "intellectual acuity ," nor do I believe that you find there to be any fault there as well.


I hope you've noticed the differences between the post I directed toward Coulter and my most recent response to you. If not, then perhaps I do have a problem. 



PoliticalChic said:


> Your statement comes across rather as a vapid excuse for your less than intellectual post, the one with the gesture that is so common in school yards and street corners.


It does? I simply can't imagine how I'll _ever _be able to live with that. In all seriousness, did you truly expect me to offer a point-by-point breakdown and analysis of Coulter's drivel? My response was at least as intelligent as anything uttered by Coulter and has the additional advantage of being more concise. 



PoliticalChic said:


> No, it seems that you were unable to compete in the arena of ideas, and the result was a somewhat jejune cartoon.
> 
> If you are afraid to joust on a higher level, merely continue in that vein and I will read that as your capitulation.


I'll do my best to hold back the tears if it ever comes to that. I haven't forgotten about the lackluster quality of your posts regarding my religion and I hardly believe that you'll have an easier time attempting to defend a buffoon like Coulter. Grandiloquence is not an adequate substitute for a cogent argument.


----------



## Samson

MaggieMae said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Meher.
> George Carlin......
> 
> ....Just off the top of my head..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually should have said which _woman_ on the left. There are several men who make their living being nasties both on the left and right. But I can think of no woman on the left who rise to the level of Ann Coulter's viscious harrangues.
Click to expand...



If I gave an example, and if it was a Black Woman, then would you say, "OH!, I should have said which _white woman_ on the left???"


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

MaggieMae said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're able to establish contact with Ms. Coulter, please tell her that although I'm flattered by her advances, I've decided to limit myself to sexual partners who are both human and female.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly... I don't think I'll be able to pass that on to her directly; but I will slip a note to let security know that you've apparently failed to refill your prescriptions...
> 
> Come on Haji...
> 
> You know what's gonna happen if you don't get back on the cure... you're gonna be walkin' down the mall with your ball bearing coat on again; and you aren't always going to be able to count on their being a _Buy 1-get 1 Koran sale, with a free prayer rug_ at "*Muslims Are Us*", to pull ya out of it.
> 
> No one wants to see Muslim sprayed all over the food court man... It's bad for business and its a BITCH getting you people out of the grout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty obvious you've learned your lessons in vitriol directly from Ms. Coulter herself. Pathetic. I really did give you more credit for being less shallow than some of the other cons here. But maybe I have you mixed up with someone else. Your disgusting remarks only prove that you are no better than those to whom your remarks are directed. What's the word for that? Oh yeah, Hypocrite with a capital H.
Click to expand...

 

ROFLMNAO

Oh I hear ya Sis...

No vitriol in the Kalam post to which I was responding:



Kalam said:


> Kalam's response to Monsieur Coulter on behalf of Canada:


 
ROFL... 

I call this the  "Palestinian syndrome..." Nothing they do requires accountability on their part.

Humanists...  The ends justify the deceitful means.


----------



## Toro

PoliticalChic said:


> In the interests of accuracy, my friend, you may wish to re-analyze your post.
> 
> As it stands, it is, of course, not true.
> 
> The origin of the episode remains the letter from the provost of the U. of Otttawa, as:
> 
> "widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me -- in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
> Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which *the provost, Francois A. Houle* advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
> Welcome to AnnCoulter.com
> 
> Now, when one compares the above with your frenzied statement "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this." it remains to be asked, who would bring charges or even arrest Ms. Coulter???
> 
> Would it be the private police of the university who might impose some penalties on Ms. Coulter for infracting 'Canadian law'?
> 
> Or do you, in that fevered imagination, contemplate a vigilate army doing so???
> 
> 
> Or is it possible that you are totally in error, and the laws of Canada are in some direct way related to "The Canadian government" ?
> 
> And, if that is the case, exactly what variety of blowhard would that make you, eh?



One who comprehends the paragraph you posted.

In the interests of accuracy, read it again.


----------



## L.K.Eder

i want to see coulter's endnotes supporting her theory that the provost's middle name starts with an A.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the specific rantings that you give as examples of speech have to a great degree been addressed by the Supreme Court, and, generally require proximity and ability to commit physical acts, your post is exemplary in spotlighting the political-philosophical diffeences that spit our country today.
> 
> Traditionalists, or conservatives, place more faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence than do folks like yourself, Progressives or liberals.
> 
> You have stated a main theorem of the Progressives of the early 20th century, let me list them:
> a. The Constitution was old, and not equipped to deal with new social ills.
> b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
> c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives agenda.
> d. Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
> e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.
> f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.
> 
> The overriding weakness as my side sees your perspective is the dimunition of the individual as the most important denominator of society.
> 
> While it is difficult to predict exactly when your perspective will destroy our society, it is clear from history, that totalist viewpoints do just that.
> 
> Should any of the above list require elucidation, I would be only too happy to provide same.
> Please don't hesitate- as this is a discussion of primary importance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before any amendments were passed there was probably as much debate as there was in the Federalist Papers which formed the basis of the original Constitution. It should be no surprise to anyone that the same types of ideological debates have continued over time, and right up until today. Ironically, I believe it is precisely that type of debate that the framers hoped would establish a middle ground. And THAT is what remains perfect about the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the old Maggie has returned!
> 
> Good to see this one.
> 
> "...continued over time..." An excellent vertex for this discussion!
> 
> The preeminence of my perspective was the period of the ratification of the Constitution, until the Civil War.
> 
> For the Progressive, from the Civil War to the present.
> 
> The salient point is that the pendulum swing is beyond that of a normal lifespan.  Thus, we must apply more than individual experience to decide the benefits of each.
> That said, then you do confess there ARE benefits of "each," yes?
> 
> "...establish a middle ground..." is impossible!
> 100%, of course not. But the reason separation of power is explicit in many clauses of the Constitution is an attempt at _*finding*_ middle ground. Without that attempt, a dictatorship (or monarchy) would have taken place almost immediately. "We the people" are the operative words in the Constitution, meaning no distinction between political persuasion or any other characteristic. (Of course, that had to be expanded upon almost immediately, however.)
> 
> Either one or the other will prevail...and the benefits of conservativism, free market and the superiority of the individual have been shown to benenfit society, while progressivism, socialism and statism, as seen in the totalist supremacies of the past century have resulted in torture, mass murder, enslavement and poverty.
> One or the other prevails in almost all election cycles because the one outgoing has been deemed NOT to be of benefit to the people. And I wouldn't be mentioning regimes that promote torture, mass murder or poverty as being exclusive of liberalism. I think you could just casually ask your average Iraqi trying to pick up the pieces from our great adventure in "liberating" them about that.
> 
> I appreciate your endeavor of linking modern liberalism to an assumed interest by the Founders, but I fear this is more founded in your desires as a good person, than in any real desire by true progressives to fulfull the promise of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
> I simply believe "freedom" means different things to different classes of people.
> 
> No, my friend, there are too many syncretic inconsistencies between the two.
> 
> For one, the source of our "inalienable rights."
> 
> We believe that all are born with them, and they come from, as stated in the Preamble,
> Laws of Nature and of Natures God. Locke stated as much.
> 
> Woodrow Wilson essay Socialism and Democracy  Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will. The collective is not limited by individual rights.
> 
> I don't know if you saw the seminar at Hillsdale College called "Reviving the Constitiution," but if you wish to see it, you can on line, or you can purchase the DVD. An excellent presentation.
Click to expand...


If things on a daily basis quiet down, I would love to watch the DVD. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Foxfyre

Conspiracist said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will someone remind Maggie that it was she herself who not that long ago requested that I leave her alone.  And I have religiously respected that request ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People forget what they say at times in emotional fits or such. It's honorable of you to remember though.
Click to expand...


Well thank you.  I wasn't trying to be honorable.  Just doing my thing, trying to stay out of trouble, and only stir the pot juuuuuuuuuuuust enuf.


----------



## Toro

PoliticalChic said:


> I, on the other hand, see the censorship of Canada, or of the EU, as akin to that of China, Iran, etc.



This is the kind of American conservative nonsense that drives me up a wall.

I was not in Ottawa, so I - like you - really have no idea what happened.  But I'm willing to give Coulter the benefit of the doubt, because I have seen this happen on Canadian universities before where the Left shouts down those with whom they disagree.  Universities are supposed to be bastions of free speech and free thought, and when a band of thugs shouts down someone - anyone - on campus, it diminishes the purpose of a university.

Having said that, to equate Canada and Europe with Iran and China displays an ignorance that absolutely staggering and is so ridiculous that it shouldn't even be dignified with a response.  Iran and China imprison, torture and kill those who speak out against the government.  Surely conservatives aren't so stupid as to realize the same thing is happening in Canada and Europe?  

In Canada, there is a widespread belief that American conservatives are ignorant, racist rednecks.  People like Anne Coulter merely reinforce that opinion.  I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time disabusing Canadians that American conservatives are not redneck racists, but its hard to contradict that they aren't ignorant.


----------



## Foxfyre

Toro said:


> In Canada, there is a widespread belief that American conservatives are ignorant, racist rednecks.  People like Anne Coulter merely reinforce that opinion.  I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time disabusing Canadians that American conservatives are not redneck racists, but its hard to contradict that they aren't ignorant.



However, we have a much higher standard for our 'ignorant, racist, rednecks' here in America:



> Ann Hart Coulter was born December 8, 1961 in New York City. Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University in 1984 and received her law degree at University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
> 
> Coulter served as a law clerk in Kansas City for Pasco Bowman II of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. After briefly working in private practice in New York City, Coulter went to work for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995, handling crime and immigration issues for Sen. Spencer Abraham of Michigan.


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth. Her scholarship is generally impeccable.




Impeccable?  Scholarship?  I don't think you are allowed to use her name and "scholarship" in the same sentence.  You typed that with a straight face, didn't you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the interests of accuracy, my friend, you may wish to re-analyze your post.
> 
> As it stands, it is, of course, not true.
> 
> The origin of the episode remains the letter from the provost of the U. of Otttawa, as:
> 
> "widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me -- in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
> Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which *the provost, Francois A. Houle* advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
> Welcome to AnnCoulter.com
> 
> Now, when one compares the above with your frenzied statement "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this." it remains to be asked, who would bring charges or even arrest Ms. Coulter???
> 
> Would it be the private police of the university who might impose some penalties on Ms. Coulter for infracting 'Canadian law'?
> 
> Or do you, in that fevered imagination, contemplate a vigilate army doing so???
> 
> 
> Or is it possible that you are totally in error, and the laws of Canada are in some direct way related to "The Canadian government" ?
> 
> And, if that is the case, exactly what variety of blowhard would that make you, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One who comprehends the paragraph you posted.
> 
> In the interests of accuracy, read it again.
Click to expand...


Usually you write a more coherent post.

Aside from your attempt to cloud the issue, and the palpable petulance, are you still standing by your original thesis that "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this."?

If so, how do you account for the phrase "criminal charges" in the provost's letter?


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> Having said that, to equate Canada and Europe with Iran and China displays an ignorance that absolutely staggering and is so ridiculous that it shouldn't even be dignified with a response.  Iran and China imprison, torture and kill those who speak out against the government.  Surely conservatives aren't so stupid as to realize the same thing is happening in Canada and Europe?.



Um...actually, I wouldn't go so far as to lump Canadan Social Norms in with European Ones.......The next week, Coulter flew to London and gave her schpeal despite some protesters.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

samson said:


> maggiemae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> bill meher.
> George carlin......
> 
> ....just off the top of my head..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i actually should have said which _woman_ on the left. There are several men who make their living being nasties both on the left and right. But i can think of no woman on the left who rise to the level of ann coulter's viscious harrangues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If i gave an example, and if it was a black woman, then would you say, "oh!, i should have said which _white woman_ on the left???"
Click to expand...

 

*slammed that one shut !*


----------



## Toro

PoliticalChic said:


> Usually you write a more coherent post.
> 
> Aside from your attempt to cloud the issue, and the palpable petulance, are you still standing by your original thesis that "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this."?
> 
> If so, how do you account for the phrase "criminal charges" in the provost's letter?



It is you who is clouding the issue.

If I tell you that what you are saying or doing is a criminal act, it does not mean that the American government is going to charge you for it.  That is me merely telling you my interpretation of the law.  It has nothing to do with what the American government is going to do.

The fact that the provost of a university says that what she is saying constitutes hate speech does not mean it is hate speech.  That is his opinion.  It has zero, zip, nilch, nada to do with the Canadian government.


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the interests of accuracy, my friend, you may wish to re-analyze your post.
> 
> As it stands, it is, of course, not true.
> 
> The origin of the episode remains the letter from the provost of the U. of Otttawa, as:
> 
> "widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me -- in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
> Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which *the provost, Francois A. Houle* advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
> Welcome to AnnCoulter.com
> 
> Now, when one compares the above with your frenzied statement "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this." it remains to be asked, who would bring charges or even arrest Ms. Coulter???
> 
> Would it be the private police of the university who might impose some penalties on Ms. Coulter for infracting 'Canadian law'?
> 
> Or do you, in that fevered imagination, contemplate a vigilate army doing so???
> 
> 
> Or is it possible that you are totally in error, and the laws of Canada are in some direct way related to "The Canadian government" ?
> 
> And, if that is the case, exactly what variety of blowhard would that make you, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One who comprehends the paragraph you posted.
> 
> In the interests of accuracy, read it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually you write a more coherent post.
> 
> Aside from your attempt to cloud the issue, and the palpable petulance, are you still standing by your original thesis that "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this."?
> 
> If so, how do you account for the phrase "criminal charges" in the provost's letter?
Click to expand...


The Canadian Govt. did not bar Coulter's visit.

The porovost merely warned her about Canadian Laws that she, an Unwary US Citizen may want to consider.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Mr. Peepers said:


> I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth. Her scholarship is generally impeccable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impeccable? Scholarship? I don't think you are allowed to use her name and "scholarship" in the same sentence. You typed that with a straight face, didn't you?
Click to expand...

 

Sweet fail Peeps...


----------



## MaggieMae

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Meher.
> George Carlin......
> 
> ....Just off the top of my head..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually should have said which _woman_ on the left. There are several men who make their living being nasties both on the left and right. But I can think of no woman on the left who rise to the level of Ann Coulter's viscious harrangues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I gave an example, and if it was a Black Woman, then would you say, "OH!, I should have said which _white woman_ on the left???"
Click to expand...


No, "woman" is sufficient. Actually, I just thought of one: Wanda Sykes, but she isn't as universally known as Ann Coulter. (So there.)


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kalam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If it becomes apparent that civility is futile, I'll adjust my responses to reflect the intellectual acuity of my opponent."
> I don't believe that anyone reading my posts will find that there is and problem with my  "intellectual acuity ," nor do I believe that you find there to be any fault there as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you've noticed the differences between the post I directed toward Coulter and my most recent response to you. If not, then perhaps I do have a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement comes across rather as a vapid excuse for your less than intellectual post, the one with the gesture that is so common in school yards and street corners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does? I simply can't imagine how I'll _ever _be able to live with that. In all seriousness, did you truly expect me to offer a point-by-point breakdown and analysis of Coulter's drivel? My response was at least as intelligent as anything uttered by Coulter and has the additional advantage of being more concise.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it seems that you were unable to compete in the arena of ideas, and the result was a somewhat jejune cartoon.
> 
> If you are afraid to joust on a higher level, merely continue in that vein and I will read that as your capitulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll do my best to hold back the tears if it ever comes to that. I haven't forgotten about the lackluster quality of your posts regarding my religion and I hardly believe that you'll have an easier time attempting to defend a buffoon like Coulter. Grandiloquence is not an adequate substitute for a cogent argument.
Click to expand...


 "I haven't forgotten about the lackluster quality of your posts regarding my religion ..."

Ah, now I see. 

Actually I don't recall my said arguments, but I certainly can understand you recalling such, and taking it personally. 

(But if they were of  'lackluster quality' you wouldn't take them so personally, eh? They must have been pretty good.)

Try to remember, each of us is no more than a collection and assembly of electrons here on the USMB.

But, I avoid the vulgar.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before any amendments were passed there was probably as much debate as there was in the Federalist Papers which formed the basis of the original Constitution. It should be no surprise to anyone that the same types of ideological debates have continued over time, and right up until today. Ironically, I believe it is precisely that type of debate that the framers hoped would establish a middle ground. And THAT is what remains perfect about the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the old Maggie has returned!
> 
> Good to see this one.
> 
> "...continued over time..." An excellent vertex for this discussion!
> 
> The preeminence of my perspective was the period of the ratification of the Constitution, until the Civil War.
> 
> For the Progressive, from the Civil War to the present.
> 
> The salient point is that the pendulum swing is beyond that of a normal lifespan.  Thus, we must apply more than individual experience to decide the benefits of each.
> That said, then you do confess there ARE benefits of "each," yes?
> 
> "...establish a middle ground..." is impossible!
> 100%, of course not. But the reason separation of power is explicit in many clauses of the Constitution is an attempt at _*finding*_ middle ground. Without that attempt, a dictatorship (or monarchy) would have taken place almost immediately. "We the people" are the operative words in the Constitution, meaning no distinction between political persuasion or any other characteristic. (Of course, that had to be expanded upon almost immediately, however.)
> 
> Either one or the other will prevail...and the benefits of conservativism, free market and the superiority of the individual have been shown to benenfit society, while progressivism, socialism and statism, as seen in the totalist supremacies of the past century have resulted in torture, mass murder, enslavement and poverty.
> One or the other prevails in almost all election cycles because the one outgoing has been deemed NOT to be of benefit to the people. And I wouldn't be mentioning regimes that promote torture, mass murder or poverty as being exclusive of liberalism. I think you could just casually ask your average Iraqi trying to pick up the pieces from our great adventure in "liberating" them about that.
> 
> I appreciate your endeavor of linking modern liberalism to an assumed interest by the Founders, but I fear this is more founded in your desires as a good person, than in any real desire by true progressives to fulfull the promise of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
> I simply believe "freedom" means different things to different classes of people.
> 
> No, my friend, there are too many syncretic inconsistencies between the two.
> 
> For one, the source of our "inalienable rights."
> 
> We believe that all are born with them, and they come from, as stated in the Preamble,
> Laws of Nature and of Natures God. Locke stated as much.
> 
> Woodrow Wilson essay Socialism and Democracy  Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will. The collective is not limited by individual rights.
> 
> I don't know if you saw the seminar at Hillsdale College called "Reviving the Constitiution," but if you wish to see it, you can on line, or you can purchase the DVD. An excellent presentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If things on a daily basis quiet down, I would love to watch the DVD. Thanks for the heads up.
Click to expand...


1. "...then you do confess there ARE benefits of "each," yes?"  Yes.  But, while I oftimes run on too long, the space restrictions of a message board require a more black-and-white argument. No?

2. "...separation of power is explicit in many clauses of the Constitution is an attempt at _*finding*_ middle ground..."
Not so.  The separation of powers is based on an understanding about the nature of man, i.e. man is both good and bad, and this nature is kept in check by keeping a consolidation of power from one person or branch.  The liberal idea is based on a belief that man is perfectible, especially by the right kind of laws or government.

Leon Trotsky wrote in his 'Literature and Revolution' :
"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will" 
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


3. "And I wouldn't be mentioning regimes that promote torture, mass murder or poverty as being exclusive of liberalism."
First, remember the distinction beween classical liberalism, much like conservativism, and progressivism, which is the parent of modern libealism.  One honors the individual, the other the state.  And communism, fascism, socialism, progressivism, are all totalist, and are the ones that are responsible for some 100 million deaths in the last century.

It is a red herring, pun intended, bringing up Iraq.

4."One or the other prevails in almost all election cycles" Not even close to true.  Are you ready to posit that the electorate is regularly a) attuned, b) not swayed by the media, c) not more interested in the lastest perceived scandal as interpreted by the press, or the attributes of a candidate?

This election may be different. One hopes.

5. "freedom" means different things to different classes of people." How to address this?  
I think a clearer distinction would be between liberty and equality.  Folks would gravitate to one or the other as the more important. And that is a different debate.


Thank you, this has been fun.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mr. Peepers said:


> I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth. Her scholarship is generally impeccable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impeccable?  Scholarship?  I don't think you are allowed to use her name and "scholarship" in the same sentence.  You typed that with a straight face, didn't you?
Click to expand...


Well I posted a bit of her bio which establishes her credentials.  Are yours on a par with hers so that you are credible to critique her scholarship?

And as so far, nobody has been able to come up with a quotation of hers in its full context to establish her as using hate speech, I will add to that challenge one to you.  Find me an example of anything she has said or written in its full context that would demonstrate inadequate or sloppy research.


----------



## Modbert

Foxfyre said:


> Well first, to determine who is whacked out of his or her mind, you would have to demonstrate that you understood the sentences you bolded.   I don't believe you do.



Oh, I understand the sentences alright. I don't think you understand any of the concepts you seem to be sprouting off about however.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dogbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first, to determine who is whacked out of his or her mind, you would have to demonstrate that you understood the sentences you bolded.   I don't believe you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I understand the sentences alright. I don't think you understand any of the concepts you seem to be sprouting off about however.
Click to expand...


Well perhaps you're right.  But at least I can and have explained why I speak of such concepts.   But I'll have to admit that not one has included such an insightful observation as 'whacked out of his or her mind' presented as a valid argument.  You've definitely got me there.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, on the other hand, see the censorship of Canada, or of the EU, as akin to that of China, Iran, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of American conservative nonsense that drives me up a wall.
> 
> I was not in Ottawa, so I - like you - really have no idea what happened.  But I'm willing to give Coulter the benefit of the doubt, because I have seen this happen on Canadian universities before where the Left shouts down those with whom they disagree.  Universities are supposed to be bastions of free speech and free thought, and when a band of thugs shouts down someone - anyone - on campus, it diminishes the purpose of a university.
> 
> Having said that, to equate Canada and Europe with Iran and China displays an ignorance that absolutely staggering and is so ridiculous that it shouldn't even be dignified with a response.  Iran and China imprison, torture and kill those who speak out against the government.  Surely conservatives aren't so stupid as to realize the same thing is happening in Canada and Europe?
> 
> In Canada, there is a widespread belief that American conservatives are ignorant, racist rednecks.  People like Anne Coulter merely reinforce that opinion.  I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time disabusing Canadians that American conservatives are not redneck racists, but its hard to contradict that they aren't ignorant.
Click to expand...


"Oh, Canada, glorious and almost free..."

So you would like to split hairs and say that Canada is almost a freedom of speech zone, and therefore should not be linked to Iran and China?

Bogus.  Don't tell me that I can't express my viewpoint, unless you wear the label of censorship.

Mark Steyn in Canada faced similar thinking: In Canada, the official complaint about my own so-called "flagrant Islamophobia"filed by the Canadian Islamic Congressattributes to me the following "assertions":
America will be an Islamic Republic by 2040. There will be a break for Muslim prayers during the Super Bowl. There will be a religious police enforcing Islamic norms. The USS Ronald Reagan will be renamed after Osama bin Laden. Females will not be allowed to be cheerleaders. Popular American radio and TV hosts will be replaced by Imams. 
In fact, I didnt "assert" any of these things. They are plot twists I cited in my review of Robert Ferrignos novel, Prayers for the Assassin. Its customary in reviewing novels to cite aspects of the plot. For example, a review of Moby Dick will usually mention the whale. These days, apparently, the Canadian Islamic Congress and the governments human rights investigators (who have taken up the case) believe that describing the plot of a novel should be illegal. .  A Dark Day for the Enlightenment by Bruce Bawer, City Journal 20 January 2010

And you want the EU excused as well?
"January 20, 2010the Dutch establishments most serious effort yet against Wilders gets under way, as he is forced to go to criminal court to defend his right to speak his mind. Wilders is, of course, not the first European to face legal action for criticizing Islam; such luminaries as Oriana Fallaci and Brigitte Bardot also appear on that honor roll."
A Dark Day for the Enlightenment by Bruce Bawer, City Journal 20 January 2010

"Italian writer Oriana Fallaciafter writing of the contradiction between Islam and the Western tradition of libertywas being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland, and most other European jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely offensive, but criminal. "  https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=08

And, as for your valient defense, as in "I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time disabusing Canadians that American conservatives are not redneck racists" you might wish to pass this on to your oh-so-enlightened friends:
"On the bright side, Steyn states Its a different situation in America, which has the First Amendment and a social consensus that increasingly does not exist in Europe.  
But nowhere is it more evident that Jefferson was correct in stating that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

We must be eternally aware of any restrictions on our rights of free speech, whether it be regulation of the internet, of talk radio, or any communication." Ibid.


----------



## Ravi

Canada's freedom of speech rules are not America's freedom of speech rules.

But they are certainly entitled to interpret freedom of speech as they please...for their citizens and for their guests.

Jeesh, next PC will be calling for the UN to set rules for all nations.


----------



## Samson

Ravi said:


> Canada's freedom of speech rules are not America's freedom of speech rules.
> 
> But they are certainly entitled to interpret freedom of speech as they please...for their citizens and for their guests.
> 
> Jeesh, next PC will be calling for the UN to set rules for all nations.


----------



## kyzr

Note to self:  Don't go to Canada, my politically incorrect tendencies will get me arrested.


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> Well I posted a bit of her bio which establishes her credentials. Are yours on a par with hers so that you are credible to critique her scholarship?
> 
> And as so far, nobody has been able to come up with a quotation of hers in its full context to establish her as using hate speech, I will add to that challenge one to you. Find me an example of anything she has said or written in its full context that would demonstrate inadequate or sloppy research.



I didn't say anything about hate speech.  I was referring to her lies.  No, I do not think she is intelligent.  I think she is a partisan rube who relies on sensationalism to get attention.  Who cares where she went to college?  Shrub went to Yale, didn't he, and he's a complete moron.  Going to college doesn't make you automatically smart.  And no, she does not do research before she speaks.  Listen to anything she "claims" to know everything about.  Completely laughable.


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> Find me an example of anything she has said or written in its full context that would demonstrate inadequate or sloppy research.



She exclaimed that Canada fought in Vietnam alongside the US (they did not) and ARGUED when told she was wrong.  She's a mental lightweight.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ravi said:


> Canada's freedom of speech rules are not America's freedom of speech rules.
> 
> But they are certainly entitled to interpret freedom of speech as they please...for their citizens and for their guests.
> 
> Jeesh, next PC will be calling for the UN to set rules for all nations.


 

ROFLMNAO... Wow... that's HEAVY!  

So, one has the freedom to speak... if one is in America.

Understand kids...  Because your Rights are a purely function of what the US Government says that your Rights are...  

Recognize the humanist point of view?   

'If you go to Canada... you only have the rights that the CANADIAN government says ya have.'

Which is certainly a confusing point; where one considers that the British Crown felt the same way about the Rights of our founding Father's... yet, here we are a separate and sovereign nation, from Great Britain.

Here's a clue; our rights and their inherent responsibility, are endowed to us by our Creator; and this is without regard to what a government has to say on the issue; which necessarily includes the Canukistani Government or the subjective interpretation of the Progressive Academics... (read: fascists).


----------



## Ravi

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's freedom of speech rules are not America's freedom of speech rules.
> 
> But they are certainly entitled to interpret freedom of speech as they please...for their citizens and for their guests.
> 
> Jeesh, next PC will be calling for the UN to set rules for all nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO... Wow... that's HEAVY!
> 
> So, one has the freedom to speak... if one is in America.
> 
> Understand kids...  Because your Rights are a purely function of what the US Government says that your Rights are...
> 
> Recognize the humanist point of view?
> 
> 'If you go to Canada... you only have the rights that the CANADIAN government says ya have.'
> 
> Which is certainly a confusing point; where one considers that the British Crown felt the same way about the Rights of our founding Father's... yet, here we are a separate and sovereign nation, from Great Britain.
> 
> Here's a clue; our rights and their inherent responsibility, are endowed to us by our Creator; and this is without regard to what a government has to say on the issue; which necessarily includes the Canukistani Government or the subjective interpretation of the Progressive Academics... (read: fascists).
Click to expand...

Yes, you are obligated to follow the rules as a guest of another country. If you don't like it, stay in your bunker.


----------



## Modbert

Note to Pubes: Rights are not given to us by God.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2nFQK4iOBA]YouTube - God given rights or are they?[/ame]

4:20 to end.


----------



## Toro

PoliticalChic said:


> "Oh, Canada, glorious and almost free..."
> 
> So you would like to split hairs and say that Canada is almost a freedom of speech zone, and therefore should not be linked to Iran and China?
> 
> Bogus.  Don't tell me that I can't express my viewpoint, unless you wear the label of censorship.
> 
> Mark Steyn in Canada faced similar thinking: In Canada, the official complaint about my own so-called "flagrant Islamophobia"filed by the Canadian Islamic Congressattributes to me the following "assertions":
> America will be an Islamic Republic by 2040. There will be a break for Muslim prayers during the Super Bowl. There will be a religious police enforcing Islamic norms. The USS Ronald Reagan will be renamed after Osama bin Laden. Females will not be allowed to be cheerleaders. Popular American radio and TV hosts will be replaced by Imams.
> In fact, I didnt "assert" any of these things. They are plot twists I cited in my review of Robert Ferrignos novel, Prayers for the Assassin. Its customary in reviewing novels to cite aspects of the plot. For example, a review of Moby Dick will usually mention the whale. These days, apparently, the Canadian Islamic Congress and the governments human rights investigators (who have taken up the case) believe that describing the plot of a novel should be illegal. .  A Dark Day for the Enlightenment by Bruce Bawer, City Journal 20 January 2010
> 
> And you want the EU excused as well?
> "January 20, 2010the Dutch establishments most serious effort yet against Wilders gets under way, as he is forced to go to criminal court to defend his right to speak his mind. Wilders is, of course, not the first European to face legal action for criticizing Islam; such luminaries as Oriana Fallaci and Brigitte Bardot also appear on that honor roll."
> A Dark Day for the Enlightenment by Bruce Bawer, City Journal 20 January 2010
> 
> "Italian writer Oriana Fallaciafter writing of the contradiction between Islam and the Western tradition of libertywas being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland, and most other European jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely offensive, but criminal. "  https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=08
> 
> And, as for your valient defense, as in "I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time disabusing Canadians that American conservatives are not redneck racists" you might wish to pass this on to your oh-so-enlightened friends:
> "On the bright side, Steyn states Its a different situation in America, which has the First Amendment and a social consensus that increasingly does not exist in Europe.
> But nowhere is it more evident that Jefferson was correct in stating that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
> 
> We must be eternally aware of any restrictions on our rights of free speech, whether it be regulation of the internet, of talk radio, or any communication." Ibid.



Its beyond silly to analogize a _complaint_ against Mark Steyn to the Human Rights Tribunal as "splitting hairs" compared to violent political suppression in Iran and China.  Your argument is tantamount to saying that America, Iran and China are all pretty much the same in the application of human rights, given that America, Iran and China all kill prisoners.  A reasonable person would dismiss that argument as nonsense.  I would dismantle all the Human Rights Commissions in Canada, but to compare the HRCs with the kangaroo trials in Asia is not a serious argument.

Plus, Steyn has been there before. 



> Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine were filed in December 2007 by the Canadian Islamic Congress with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Maclean's magazine was accused of publishing eighteen Islamophobic  articles between January 2005 and July 2007. The articles in question included a column by Mark Steyn titled "The Future Belongs to Islam".[1][2]  The CIC complaint accused the Maclean's articles of being "flagrantly Islamophobic" and claimed the magazine "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt."[3]
> 
> The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal heard the complaint in June 2008 and issued a ruling on October 10, 2008 dismissing the complaint. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the federal complaint on June 26, 2008 without referring the matter to a tribunal.[4]



Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But its not like this doesn't happen in America.  



> In 2005 the Bush administration attempted to muzzle Dr. James Hansen, the worlds most famous climate scientist. Hansen, a top NASA scientist, publicly commented on data that convinced him 2005 was one of the hottest years on record. He also drew attention to the Bush administrations scientific censorship.
> 
> As Hansen courageously protested, public affairs offices at certain environmental science-oriented government agencies were imposing strict rules on employees. For example, they required that all media inquiries be referred to public affairs offices, which would then determine which staff could most appropriately answer them.
> 
> The public affairs offices went so far as to demand that public affairs officials sit in during all interviews with scientists.



EPA attempt to limit free speech by agency lawyers Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel violates the law (posting from Climate Science Watch)



> Other scientists working for the US federal government have also encountered problems with freedom of speech under the Bush administration. Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona told Congressional investigators that the federal officials weakened or suppressed public health reports to support a political agenda. He also said that the administration would not allow him to speak to the public about a number of different health policy issues, including stem cell research, emergency contraception, sex education, and global health. Administration officials have also written Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports on global warming for political purposes.



Freedom of Speech in Government Science


----------



## Modbert

Toro, trying to debate with Ann Coulter err Politicalchic is futile since she is batshit insane.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mr. Peepers said:


> Find me an example of anything she has said or written in its full context that would demonstrate inadequate or sloppy research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She exclaimed that Canada fought in Vietnam alongside the US (they did not) and ARGUED when told she was wrong.  She's a mental lightweight.
Click to expand...


Canada was obligated to stay non combative due to its NATO role in Vietnam though it did have some peace keeping troops there in 1973.  Canada was openly supportive of the US efforts in Vietnam however.

So give me the link to the quotation--IN CONTEXT--where Coulter said anything different.  And no I won't accept something off a leftwing blog for that.

And did you graduate from a university like Cornell with honors and/or get a law degree from a prestigious school?  Have you written six NY Times best sellers in a row?  Have you managed to write a highly successful syndicated column on political and social commentary?   Do you get repeatedly invited to speak at major universities and other prestigious institutions?

Let's compare your mental credentials with what you describe as Ann's 'lightweight' ones.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Let's compare your mental credentials with what you describe as Ann's 'lightweight' ones.



You think Coulter's hawt.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's freedom of speech rules are not America's freedom of speech rules.
> 
> But they are certainly entitled to interpret freedom of speech as they please...for their citizens and for their guests.
> 
> Jeesh, next PC will be calling for the UN to set rules for all nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO... Wow... that's HEAVY!
> 
> So, one has the freedom to speak... if one is in America.
> 
> Understand kids... Because your Rights are a purely function of what the US Government says that your Rights are...
> 
> Recognize the humanist point of view?
> 
> 'If you go to Canada... you only have the rights that the CANADIAN government says ya have.'
> 
> Which is certainly a confusing point; where one considers that the British Crown felt the same way about the Rights of our founding Father's... yet, here we are a separate and sovereign nation, from Great Britain.
> 
> Here's a clue; our rights and their inherent responsibility, are endowed to us by our Creator; and this is without regard to what a government has to say on the issue; which necessarily includes the Canukistani Government or the subjective interpretation of the Progressive Academics... (read: fascists).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are obligated to follow the rules as a guest of another country. If you don't like it, stay in your bunker.
Click to expand...

 
Well sure... because whatever the rules are in other countries define what's right?  right?

I mean if another nation provided for Rape as being legal and customary and the rightful entitlement of men; well then it would fall to women in that country to submit to violent sexual assualt.

If Adult/child sex was a function of accepted cultral mores... Perfectly fine...  because they're entitled to do whatever the hell they wanna DO!  

After all it's their COUNTRY... Right?

Slavery?  Hey, if they say it's cool... then it's their country.

OH!  Hey... How about racial, sexual bigotry?   Prejudice against fat-chicks? 

Wasn't it you that was lamenting Iran's recent execution of a dozen or so Iranian fags?

Or would ya like to take the time; here and now, to stand up and defend the RIGHT of the Iranian government to murder those queers?


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare your mental credentials with what you describe as Ann's 'lightweight' ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Coulter's hawt.
Click to expand...


If I was a guy I might.  Since she has been engaged to guys I'm assuming she's straight but I don't know for sure nor do I care.

I know I am straight though, so how 'hawt' she may or may not be is not much of an issue for me.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare your mental credentials with what you describe as Ann's 'lightweight' ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Coulter's hawt.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I was a guy I might.  Since she has been engaged to guys I'm assuming she's straight but I don't know for sure nor do I care.
> 
> I know I am straight though, so how 'hawt' she may or may not be is not much of an issue for me.
Click to expand...






















Are you implying you're NOT A GUY?


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Coulter's hawt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I was a guy I might.  Since she has been engaged to guys I'm assuming she's straight but I don't know for sure nor do I care.
> 
> I know I am straight though, so how 'hawt' she may or may not be is not much of an issue for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you implying you're NOT A GUY?
Click to expand...


Nope.  I may be chasing a few more loose marbles these days than I used to, but I'm pretty darn sure I'm not a guy.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare your mental credentials with what you describe as Ann's 'lightweight' ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Coulter's hawt.
Click to expand...

 
I actually certified that some years ago...  I looked for it and couldn't put my hands on it, but if memory serves the certification is a solid 9 point analysis of certifiable hotness.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was a guy I might.  Since she has been engaged to guys I'm assuming she's straight but I don't know for sure nor do I care.
> 
> I know I am straight though, so how 'hawt' she may or may not be is not much of an issue for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you implying you're NOT A GUY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  I may be chasing a few more loose marbles these days than I used to, but I'm pretty darn sure I'm not a guy.
Click to expand...



















So, that would make you female, right?


----------



## Modbert

Some of Ann's more "charming" quotes:



> "If you wanted to teach people about the great things about America, a college campus is the last place youd send them. Even fanatical Muslim terrorists dont hate America like liberals do." Ann Coulter -- CPAC conference, 2002



(Ironically, she wants to go speak to a college. Ignorant woman.)



> "On the bright side, and in conclusion, at least college campuses serve as sort of internment camp for useless leftists in wartime. We know where they are, this way. And, as General Patton said, 'I love it when they come out and shoot at me because then I know where they are and I can shoot the bastards.'" -- Ann Coulter, CPAC conference, 2002





> "This man should not be allowed near the president with a loaded gun. At the least, he's an immature nut. At worst, he's a ticking time bomb, in a simmering rage at America's supposed mistreatment of Muslims.
> 
> These alleged civil liberties concerns have only one purpose: to give Muslims a cushion for another attack on America. There is no principled basis for opposition to using Arab appearance as a factor in airport screening procedures." -- Ann Coulter's "If the profile fits...," 1/10/02





> "Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave....We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males." -- Coulter's columns within two weeks after September 11, 2001





> "In contemplating college liberals, you really regret, once again, that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out into outright traitors." -- CPAC conference, 2002





> "I don't know, how about ... NO ARABS?" -- Ann Coulter's "Would Mohamed Atta object to armed pilots?" 5/30/02



And from Ann to you Fox:



> *I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote.** No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting  and your Communists will back me up on this  is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it.* And when they take these polls, its always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.


----------



## midcan5

A genuine conservative on only one of Ann Coulter's so called 'jokes.'

"I watched Ann Coulter last night in the gayest way I could. I was on a stairmaster at a gym, slack-jawed at her proud defense of calling someone a "faggot" on the same stage as presidential candidates and as an icon of today's conservative movement. The way in which Fox News and Sean Hannity and, even more repulsively, Pat Cadell, shilled for her was a new low for Fox, I think - and for what remains of decent conservatism. "We're all friends here," Hannity chuckled at the end. Yes, they were. And no faggots were on the show to defend themselves. That's fair and balanced. 

I'm not going to breathe more oxygen into this story except to say a couple of things that need saying. Coulter has an actual argument in self-defense and it's worth addressing. Her argument is that it was a joke and that since it was directed at a straight man, it wasn't homophobic. It was, in her words, a "school-yard taunt," directed at a straight man, meaning a "wuss" and a "sissy". Why would gays care? She is "pro-gay," after all. Apart from backing a party that wants to strip gay couples of all legal rights by amending the federal constitution, kick them out of the military where they are putting their lives on the line, put them into "reparative therapy" to "cure" them, keep it legal to fire them in many states, and refusing to include them in hate crime laws, Coulter is very pro-gay. As evidence of how pro-gay she is, check out all the gay men and women in America now defending her. 

Her defense, however, is that she was making a joke, not speaking a slur. Her logic suggests that the two are mutually exclusive. They're not. And when you unpack Coulter's joke, you see she does both. Her joke was that the world is so absurd that someone like Isaiah Washington is forced to go into rehab for calling someone a "faggot." She's absolutely right that this is absurd and funny and an example of p.c. insanity. She could have made a joke about that - a better one, to be sure - but a joke. But she didn't just do that. She added to the joke a slur: "John Edwards is a faggot." That's why people gasped and then laughed and clapped so heartily. I was in the room, so I felt the atmosphere personally. It was an ugly atmosphere, designed to make any gay man or woman in the room feel marginalized and despised. To put it simply, either conservatism is happy to be associated with that atmosphere, or it isn't. I think the response so far suggests that the conservative elites don't want to go there, but the base has already been there for a very long time. (That's why this affair is so revealing, because it is showing which elites want to pander to bigots, and which do not.)"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/faggots.html


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Dogbert said:


> Note to Pubes: Rights are not given to us by God.
> 
> YouTube - God given rights or are they?
> 
> 4:20 to end.


 

ROFL... 

And this you're advancing on the intellectual authority of the hippy-dippy weatherman?

Well I'll see your bet and raise ya the Founding Father's the US: 

*"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."*

Now the distinction here, is that George Carlin made his observations... in jest, at absolutely no risk to himself or anyone else and towards the purpose of appealing to a decadent popularity.

Which sits in sharp contrast to the Founding Father's advancing their observations despite the near certainty that such would result in the loss of their property, their lives, the lives of their families, friends and constituents.

The truth is Junior; In the Absence of God, there are no human rights.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

midcan5 said:


> A genuine conservative on only one of Ann Coulter's so called 'jokes.'
> 
> "I watched Ann Coulter last night in the gayest way I could. I was on a stairmaster at a gym, slack-jawed at her proud defense of calling someone a "faggot" on the same stage as presidential candidates and as an icon of today's conservative movement. The way in which Fox News and Sean Hannity and, even more repulsively, Pat Cadell, shilled for her was a new low for Fox, I think - and for what remains of decent conservatism. "We're all friends here," Hannity chuckled at the end. Yes, they were. And no faggots were on the show to defend themselves. That's fair and balanced.
> 
> I'm not going to breathe more oxygen into this story except to say a couple of things that need saying. Coulter has an actual argument in self-defense and it's worth addressing. Her argument is that it was a joke and that since it was directed at a straight man, it wasn't homophobic. It was, in her words, a "school-yard taunt," directed at a straight man, meaning a "wuss" and a "sissy". Why would gays care? She is "pro-gay," after all. Apart from backing a party that wants to strip gay couples of all legal rights by amending the federal constitution, kick them out of the military where they are putting their lives on the line, put them into "reparative therapy" to "cure" them, keep it legal to fire them in many states, and refusing to include them in hate crime laws, Coulter is very pro-gay. As evidence of how pro-gay she is, check out all the gay men and women in America now defending her.
> 
> Her defense, however, is that she was making a joke, not speaking a slur. Her logic suggests that the two are mutually exclusive. They're not. And when you unpack Coulter's joke, you see she does both. Her joke was that the world is so absurd that someone like Isaiah Washington is forced to go into rehab for calling someone a "faggot." She's absolutely right that this is absurd and funny and an example of p.c. insanity. She could have made a joke about that - a better one, to be sure - but a joke. But she didn't just do that. She added to the joke a slur: "John Edwards is a faggot." That's why people gasped and then laughed and clapped so heartily. I was in the room, so I felt the atmosphere personally. It was an ugly atmosphere, designed to make any gay man or woman in the room feel marginalized and despised. To put it simply, either conservatism is happy to be associated with that atmosphere, or it isn't. I think the response so far suggests that the conservative elites don't want to go there, but the base has already been there for a very long time. (That's why this affair is so revealing, because it is showing which elites want to pander to bigots, and which do not.)"
> 
> Faggot - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan


 
ROFL... Oh GOD! That's precious... Andy Sullivan is a conservative?

LOL...





Sweet mother that's hysterical... (in at least two contexts and on several levels).

Now understand kids... these are the same people who PROUDLY changed a members avatar to reflect a similar denigration of the sacred  devients...

Sullivan needs to tuck it up tight, pull up his hose and quit being such a snarky little bitch...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

dogbert said:


> some of ann's more "charming" quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "if you wanted to teach people about the great things about america, a college campus is the last place youd send them. Even fanatical muslim terrorists dont hate america like liberals do." ann coulter -- cpac conference, 2002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (ironically, she wants to go speak to a college. Ignorant woman.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "on the bright side, and in conclusion, at least college campuses serve as sort of internment camp for useless leftists in wartime. We know where they are, this way. And, as general patton said, 'i love it when they come out and shoot at me because then i know where they are and i can shoot the bastards.'" -- ann coulter, cpac conference, 2002
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "i don't know, how about ... No arabs?" -- ann coulter's "would mohamed atta object to armed pilots?" 5/30/02
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and from ann to you fox:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *i think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. no, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting  and your communists will back me up on this  is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. and when they take these polls, its always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 

*ROFLMNAO... Funny stuff!*


----------



## Samson

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare your mental credentials with what you describe as Ann's 'lightweight' ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Coulter's hawt.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually certified that some years ago...  I looked for it and couldn't put my hands on it, but if memory serves the certification is a solid 9 point analysis of certifiable hotness.
Click to expand...


I prefer brunets.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Dogbert said:


> Some of Ann's more "charming" quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If you wanted to teach people about the great things about America, a college campus is the last place youd send them. Even fanatical Muslim terrorists dont hate America like liberals do." Ann Coulter -- CPAC conference, 2002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Ironically, she wants to go speak to a college. Ignorant woman.)
Click to expand...

 
So there's something ignorant about wanting to express your thoughts and advocacies where they are most radically oppossed?

ROFLMNAO!


You can't make this crap up kids...


Revolutionaries just aren't what they used to be. 

And understand kids... Gomer here, likely thinks of herself as a 'free-thinker'... willing to brave the threat of casting her point of view *EVEN IF EVERYONE AGREES WITH HER!*


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Samson said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Coulter's hawt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually certified that some years ago... I looked for it and couldn't put my hands on it, but if memory serves the certification is a solid 9 point analysis of certifiable hotness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer brunets.
Click to expand...

 
Oh Dude... who doesn't?

And how about those green eye'd red heads?


----------



## Samson

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually certified that some years ago... I looked for it and couldn't put my hands on it, but if memory serves the certification is a solid 9 point analysis of certifiable hotness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer brunets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Dude... who doesn't?
> 
> And how about those green eye'd red heads?
Click to expand...


When they're Hawt, They're HAWT.....when they're not......

There's not a lot of stuff between the ends of the spectrum with redheads.....


----------



## Modbert

Oh PI you make me laugh. Just because you make long winded posts doesn't mean you're right.

She's ignorant for the ignorant comments she's made.

As for rights, they are not God given. If they were God given, there would of been no slavery when this country was formed.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Samson said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer brunets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Dude... who doesn't?
> 
> And how about those green eye'd red heads?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they're Hawt, They're HAWT.....when they're not......
> 
> There's not a lot of stuff between the ends of the spectrum with redheads.....
Click to expand...

 
Oh man... I've searched to no end to find the point on the reds...  

Let me just say, that for whatever reason; I grew up with a zero-tolerance of the Reds...  Then somewhere around 45, the world flipped over on it's red-head... with the entrance of "that 70's show."

Can't say why... have absolutely no idea from where the attraction fluttered in... but the character Donna... she _Jingled_ _ma pringles_.    Can't get enough of 'em now.  Which of course comes as no small irony, considering the actress died her hair blonde.  

(BTW... Donna...  in the unlikely event ya happen across this... COME ON GIRL!  You are a beautiful red... give her back to us... you're adoring fan... PI.

PS.  Don't call... I'm 30 years deeply in love with Mrs. Infinitum...  But I'm just sayin'...  the red was workin'...  )


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Dogbert said:


> Oh PI you make me laugh. Just because you make long winded posts doesn't mean you're right.


 
Well that's true... DB... What makes me right is the immutable reasoning which rests within those longwinded posts.



> She's ignorant for the ignorant comments she's made.


 
Uh... either her comments are ignorant or they're not...  Thus far you've shown absolutely nothing which in any way demonstrates ignorance in what's she said.

If you'd like to do so... bring it.  My mind is wide open on the issue; and I'll be here for ya.



> As for rights, they are not God given. If they were God given, there would of been no slavery when this country was formed.


 
Well DB, you're confusing rights with power that usurps the means to exercise those rights...  a common misnomer.

God gave you the right and the responsibility to defend your means to exercise the rights...  What you need to understand is that if someone is trying to usurp your means to exercise your rights; it falls to you to repell that threat to your rights... and if you should perish in your bearing fo that responsibility; you do so, freely exercising your rights; where you fail to do so, you forfeit your rights.  Your choice... which is, FTR: your right.


----------



## Samson

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Dude... who doesn't?
> 
> And how about those green eye'd red heads?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they're Hawt, They're HAWT.....when they're not......
> 
> There's not a lot of stuff between the ends of the spectrum with redheads.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh man... I've searched to no end to find the point on the reds...
> 
> Let me just say, that for whatever reason; I grew up with a zero-tolerance of the Reds...  Then somewhere around 45, the world flipped over on it's red-head... with the entrance of "that 70's show."
> 
> Can't say why... have absolutely no idea from where the attraction fluttered in... but the character Donna... she _Jingled_ _ma pringles_.    Can't get enough of 'em now.  Which of course comes as no small irony, considering the actress died her hair blonde.
> 
> (BTW... Donna...  in the unlikely event ya happen across this... COME ON GIRL!  You are a beautiful red... give her back to us... you're adoring fan... PI.
> 
> PS.  Don't call... I'm 30 years deeply in love with Mrs. Infinitum...  But I'm just sayin'...  the red was workin'...  )
Click to expand...


Nicole Kidman


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> So give me the link to the quotation--IN CONTEXT--where Coulter said anything different. And no I won't accept something off a leftwing blog for that.



Here you go....  From faux news

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7IhR0ccgo]YouTube - Ann Coulter Gets Owned[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

Mr. Peepers said:


> So give me the link to the quotation--IN CONTEXT--where Coulter said anything different. And no I won't accept something off a leftwing blog for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go....  From faux news
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7IhR0ccgo]YouTube - Ann Coulter Gets Owned[/ame]
Click to expand...


My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973.  Is it wrong?

And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?'  It isn't as if she researched it at all.   If you want to hang her for that kind of error, you'll have to put a very large dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.

And Coulter's accuser there would also be wrong that Canada never sent troops at all.  No combat troops yes.  But he didn't specify.  Sloppy research on his part?

Or innocent error on both their parts?


----------



## Modbert

Foxfyre said:


> My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973.  Is it wrong?
> 
> And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?'  It isn't as if she researched it at all.   If you want to hang her for that, you'll have to put a dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.



 I love how you pulled that post off.

"Is she wrong?"

And then you follow up with "Well if she's wrong, then Obama and Biden are too. So HA! Coulter is never wrong!"

Canada and the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Canada did not fight in the Vietnam War and diplomatically it was officially "non-belligerent". The country's troop deployments to Vietnam were limited to a small number of national forces in 1973 to help enforce the Paris Peace Accords.[1]


----------



## Foxfyre

Dogbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973.  Is it wrong?
> 
> And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?'  It isn't as if she researched it at all.   If you want to hang her for that, you'll have to put a dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you pulled that post off.
> 
> "Is she wrong?"
> 
> And then you follow up with "Well if she's wrong, then Obama and Biden are too. So HA! Coulter is never wrong!"
> 
> Canada and the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada did not fight in the Vietnam War and diplomatically it was officially "non-belligerent". The country's troop deployments to Vietnam were limited to a small number of national forces in 1973 to help enforce the Paris Peace Accords.[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I never said she is never wrong.  I have never said I or anybody else always agrees with her.  I have never said that ANY human on Earth is never wrong.   I would imagine Jesus himself probably forgot a name or a date or the specifics of occasions from time to time, and certainly lesser mortals are going to have a memory lapse or an incorrect fact dislodged from the memory bank in an extemporaneous interview.

I said that her research is impeccable.  And if she was writing a piece on Canada's role in the Vietnam war she would have checked that out and would not have made an error that Canada had combat troops there.

In this case I suspect she probably meant combat troops and was in error, but since that was not specificed, we can't know.  We CAN know that it is not incorrect that Canada sent troops to Vietnam because they did and therefore the guy was in error too.

And neither are necessarily guilty of sloppy research because of it.

Mr. Peepers misquoted her as saying we 'fought alongside the Canadians in Vietnam'.  That wasn't said in that interview either.  So is it his research?   Or his memory that is flawed?


----------



## del

Foxfyre said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So give me the link to the quotation--IN CONTEXT--where Coulter said anything different. And no I won't accept something off a leftwing blog for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go....  From faux news
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7IhR0ccgo]YouTube - Ann Coulter Gets Owned[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973.  Is it wrong?
> 
> And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?'  It isn't as if she researched it at all.   If you want to hang her for that kind of error, you'll have to put a very large dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.
> 
> And Coulter's accuser there would also be wrong that Canada never sent troops at all.  No combat troops yes.  But he didn't specify.  Sloppy research on his part?
> 
> Or innocent error on both their parts?
Click to expand...


canada was a non participant in the vietnam war. they did send troops as neutral monitors after the ceasefire. coulter's statement that canada was *with us* in vietnam clearly implied that she thought they were fighting alongside the u.s. in a combat role. certainly, you can choose to excuse this as an innocent error, but one wonders why you feel the need to perform such contortions. she was wrong, imo, and the presenter was correct, in the context of the conversation. period.

personally, i find ms coulter's style repulsive, dishonest and hateful, but she certainly sells a lot of books and speeches to the various groups of mouth breathers that think she represents conservative thought. she is nothing more or less than a demagogue, and to pretend she is some kind of philosopher queen is nothing short of ludicrous.


----------



## Modbert

del said:


> canada was a non participant in the vietnam war. they did send troops as neutral monitors after the ceasefire. coulter's statement that canada was *with us* in vietnam clearly implied that she thought they were fighting alongside the u.s. in a combat role. certainly, you can choose to excuse this as an innocent error, but one wonders why you feel the need to perform such contortions. she was wrong, imo, and the presenter was correct, in the context of the conversation. period.
> 
> personally, i find ms coulter's style repulsive, dishonest and hateful, but she certainly sells a lot of books and speeches to the various groups of mouth breathers that think she represents conservative thought. she is nothing more or less than a demagogue, and to pretend she is some kind of philosopher queen is nothing short of ludicrous.





To add to that:

If she's a philosopher queen, I'm the next Pope.


----------



## eots

Foxfyre said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So give me the link to the quotation--IN CONTEXT--where Coulter said anything different. And no I won't accept something off a leftwing blog for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go....  From faux news
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7IhR0ccgo]YouTube - Ann Coulter Gets Owned[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973.  Is it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canada deployed  240 to implement UN humanitarian efforts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam*, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?'  It isn't as if she researched it at all.   If you want to hang her for that kind of error, you'll have to put a very large dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.
> 
> And Coulter's accuser there would also be wrong that Canada never sent troops at all.  No combat troops yes.  But he didn't specify.  Sloppy research on his part?
> 
> Or innocent error on both their parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> American draft dodgers and military deserters who sought refuge in Canada during the Vietnam War would ignite controversy among those seeking to immigrate to Canada, *some of it provoked by the Canadian government&#8217;s initial refusal to admit those who could not prove that they had been discharged from [American] military service. This changed in 1968.[5] According to Valerie Knowles, draft dodgers were usually college-educated sons of the middle class who could no longer defer induction into the Selective Service System. Deserters, *on the other hand, were predominantly sons of the lower-income and working classes who had been inducted into the armed services directly from high school or who had volunteered, hoping to obtain a skill and broaden their limited horizons.[5]
> 
> *Starting in 1965, Canada became a choice haven for American draft dodgers and deserters. Because they were not formally classified as refugees but were admitted as immigrants,* there is no official estimate of how many draft dodgers and deserters were admitted to Canada during the Vietnam War. One informed estimate puts their number between 30,000 and 40,000.[5] Whether or not this estimate is accurate, the fact remains that immigration from the United States was high as long as the war raged and that in 1971 and 1972 Canada received more immigrants from the United States than from any other country. Although some of these transplanted Americans returned home after the Vietnam War, most of them put down roots in Canada, making up the largest, best-educated group the country had ever received
> Canada and the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

del said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go....  From faux news
> 
> YouTube - Ann Coulter Gets Owned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973.  Is it wrong?
> 
> And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?'  It isn't as if she researched it at all.   If you want to hang her for that kind of error, you'll have to put a very large dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.
> 
> And Coulter's accuser there would also be wrong that Canada never sent troops at all.  No combat troops yes.  But he didn't specify.  Sloppy research on his part?
> 
> Or innocent error on both their parts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> canada was a non participant in the vietnam war. they did send troops as neutral monitors after the ceasefire. coulter's statement that canada was *with us* in vietnam clearly implied that she thought they were fighting alongside the u.s. in a combat role. certainly, you can choose to excuse this as an innocent error, but one wonders why you feel the need to perform such contortions. she was wrong, imo, and the presenter was correct, in the context of the conversation. period.
> 
> personally, i find ms coulter's style repulsive, dishonest and hateful, but she certainly sells a lot of books and speeches to the various groups of mouth breathers that think she represents conservative thought. she is nothing more or less than a demagogue, and to pretend she is some kind of philosopher queen is nothing short of ludicrous.
Click to expand...


You are certainly entitled to your opinion including your objective observation that it is 'various groups of mouth breathers' that think she represents conservative thought.  Thank you for including me in that characterization.  Very kind of you.

I personally dislike Ann's style of presentation from time to time.  I don't always agree with her but thoroughly enjoy her columns as the imagery she uses at times is brilliant and often really funny.  And it is there that it is darn near impossible to catch her in an error of fact.  At times she does wander into the realm of poor taste and I wish she wouldn't do that, but she has sort of built a 'what can I do to stir up the liberals today' image with that.  I think if she weren't a smart, strong, beautiful woman she wouldn't catch so much hell for that.

Look past the abrasive exterior to the content of what she is saying and writing, however, and you don't find either dishonesty or hate speech.

Not liking her or her style of presentation or communication is honest.  Accusing her of dishonesty or hatefulness because you dislike her is not honest.


----------



## mdn2000

Foxfyre said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973.  Is it wrong?
> And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?'  It isn't as if she researched it at all.   If you want to hang her for that kind of error, you'll have to put a very large dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.
> 
> And Coulter's accuser there would also be wrong that Canada never sent troops at all.  No combat troops yes.  But he didn't specify.  Sloppy research on his part?
> 
> Or innocent error on both their parts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> canada was a non participant in the vietnam war. they did send troops as neutral monitors after the ceasefire. coulter's statement that canada was *with us* in vietnam clearly implied that she thought they were fighting alongside the u.s. in a combat role. certainly, you can choose to excuse this as an innocent error, but one wonders why you feel the need to perform such contortions. she was wrong, imo, and the presenter was correct, in the context of the conversation. period.
> 
> personally, i find ms coulter's style repulsive, dishonest and hateful, but she certainly sells a lot of books and speeches to the various groups of mouth breathers that think she represents conservative thought. she is nothing more or less than a demagogue, and to pretend she is some kind of philosopher queen is nothing short of ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion including your objective observation that it is 'various groups of mouth breathers' that think she represents conservative thought.  Thank you for including me in that characterization.  Very kind of you.
> 
> I personally dislike Ann's style of presentation from time to time.
> I don't always agree with her but thoroughly enjoy her columns as the imagery she uses at times is brilliant and often really funny.  And it is there that it is darn near impossible to catch her in an error of fact.  At times she does wander into the realm of poor taste and I wish she wouldn't do that, but she has sort of built a 'what can I do to stir up the liberals today' image with that.  I think if she weren't a smart, strong, beautiful woman she wouldn't catch so much hell for that.
> 
> Look past the abrasive exterior to the content of what she is saying and writing, however, and you don't find either dishonesty or hate speech.
> 
> Not liking her or her style of presentation or communication is honest.  Accusing her of dishonesty or hatefulness because you dislike her is not honest.
Click to expand...


 I highlighted you comment in red, that is what I am curious about, what issue of Ann Coulters are you speaking of.


----------



## mdn2000

del said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go....  From faux news
> 
> YouTube - Ann Coulter Gets Owned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973.  Is it wrong?
> 
> And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?'  It isn't as if she researched it at all.   If you want to hang her for that kind of error, you'll have to put a very large dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.
> 
> And Coulter's accuser there would also be wrong that Canada never sent troops at all.  No combat troops yes.  But he didn't specify.  Sloppy research on his part?
> 
> Or innocent error on both their parts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> canada was a non participant in the vietnam war. they did send troops as neutral monitors after the ceasefire. coulter's statement that canada was *with us* in vietnam clearly implied that she thought they were fighting alongside the u.s. in a combat role. certainly, you can choose to excuse this as an innocent error, but one wonders why you feel the need to perform such contortions. she was wrong, imo, and the presenter was correct, in the context of the conversation. period.
> 
> personally, i find ms coulter's style repulsive, dishonest and hateful, but she certainly sells a lot of books and speeches to the various groups of mouth breathers that think she represents conservative thought. she is nothing more or less than a demagogue, and to pretend she is some kind of philosopher queen is nothing short of ludicrous.
Click to expand...


an example of her hate and dishonesty, please


----------



## Modbert

mdn2000 said:


> an example of her hate and dishonesty, please



Seriously? Did you not see the list of quotes earlier I posted?


----------



## Foxfyre

mdn2000, you better clarify that you want those examples in their full context.  The Coulter haters here really like to pull quotes off other sites--generally pretty hateful sites at that--and hold them up as valid.

Also be prepared to understand that 'in full context' is a term many of the leftists on the board don't seem to comprehend.


----------



## del

Foxfyre said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973.  Is it wrong?
> 
> And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?'  It isn't as if she researched it at all.   If you want to hang her for that kind of error, you'll have to put a very large dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.
> 
> And Coulter's accuser there would also be wrong that Canada never sent troops at all.  No combat troops yes.  But he didn't specify.  Sloppy research on his part?
> 
> Or innocent error on both their parts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> canada was a non participant in the vietnam war. they did send troops as neutral monitors after the ceasefire. coulter's statement that canada was *with us* in vietnam clearly implied that she thought they were fighting alongside the u.s. in a combat role. certainly, you can choose to excuse this as an innocent error, but one wonders why you feel the need to perform such contortions. she was wrong, imo, and the presenter was correct, in the context of the conversation. period.
> 
> personally, i find ms coulter's style repulsive, dishonest and hateful, but she certainly sells a lot of books and speeches to the various groups of mouth breathers that think she represents conservative thought. she is nothing more or less than a demagogue, and to pretend she is some kind of philosopher queen is nothing short of ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion including your objective observation that it is 'various groups of mouth breathers' that think she represents conservative thought.  Thank you for including me in that characterization.  Very kind of you.
> 
> I personally dislike Ann's style of presentation from time to time.  I don't always agree with her but thoroughly enjoy her columns as the imagery she uses at times is brilliant and often really funny.  And it is there that it is darn near impossible to catch her in an error of fact.  At times she does wander into the realm of poor taste and I wish she wouldn't do that, but she has sort of built a 'what can I do to stir up the liberals today' image with that.  I think if she weren't a smart, strong, beautiful woman she wouldn't catch so much hell for that.
> 
> Look past the abrasive exterior to the content of what she is saying and writing, however, and you don't find either dishonesty or hate speech.
> 
> Not liking her or her style of presentation or communication is honest.  Accusing her of dishonesty or hatefulness because you dislike her is not honest.
Click to expand...


i only dislike her because she's hateful and dishonest.

i'm sorry if you feel offended by my characterization of her followers, but i call them as i see them. the choice to be included in her legion of admirers is yours, not mine, after all.

honest.


----------



## del

mdn2000 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973.  Is it wrong?
> 
> And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?'  It isn't as if she researched it at all.   If you want to hang her for that kind of error, you'll have to put a very large dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.
> 
> And Coulter's accuser there would also be wrong that Canada never sent troops at all.  No combat troops yes.  But he didn't specify.  Sloppy research on his part?
> 
> Or innocent error on both their parts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> canada was a non participant in the vietnam war. they did send troops as neutral monitors after the ceasefire. coulter's statement that canada was *with us* in vietnam clearly implied that she thought they were fighting alongside the u.s. in a combat role. certainly, you can choose to excuse this as an innocent error, but one wonders why you feel the need to perform such contortions. she was wrong, imo, and the presenter was correct, in the context of the conversation. period.
> 
> personally, i find ms coulter's style repulsive, dishonest and hateful, but she certainly sells a lot of books and speeches to the various groups of mouth breathers that think she represents conservative thought. she is nothing more or less than a demagogue, and to pretend she is some kind of philosopher queen is nothing short of ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an example of her hate and dishonesty, please
Click to expand...


google is your friend.

 i'm sure any example i put up will be from a biased source or not presented in its full context because i'm a leftist. you're more than welcome to disagree with my opinion of her, but you've got zero chance of changing it.

good night.


----------



## Foxfyre

del said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> canada was a non participant in the vietnam war. they did send troops as neutral monitors after the ceasefire. coulter's statement that canada was *with us* in vietnam clearly implied that she thought they were fighting alongside the u.s. in a combat role. certainly, you can choose to excuse this as an innocent error, but one wonders why you feel the need to perform such contortions. she was wrong, imo, and the presenter was correct, in the context of the conversation. period.
> 
> personally, i find ms coulter's style repulsive, dishonest and hateful, but she certainly sells a lot of books and speeches to the various groups of mouth breathers that think she represents conservative thought. she is nothing more or less than a demagogue, and to pretend she is some kind of philosopher queen is nothing short of ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion including your objective observation that it is 'various groups of mouth breathers' that think she represents conservative thought.  Thank you for including me in that characterization.  Very kind of you.
> 
> I personally dislike Ann's style of presentation from time to time.  I don't always agree with her but thoroughly enjoy her columns as the imagery she uses at times is brilliant and often really funny.  And it is there that it is darn near impossible to catch her in an error of fact.  At times she does wander into the realm of poor taste and I wish she wouldn't do that, but she has sort of built a 'what can I do to stir up the liberals today' image with that.  I think if she weren't a smart, strong, beautiful woman she wouldn't catch so much hell for that.
> 
> Look past the abrasive exterior to the content of what she is saying and writing, however, and you don't find either dishonesty or hate speech.
> 
> Not liking her or her style of presentation or communication is honest.  Accusing her of dishonesty or hatefulness because you dislike her is not honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i only dislike her because she's hateful and dishonest.
> 
> i'm sorry if you feel offended by my characterization of her followers, but i call them as i see them. the choice to be included in her legion of admirers is yours, not mine, after all.
> 
> honest.
Click to expand...


That's okay.  It is my opinion, those who judge one person based on no more foundation than prejudice are likely to judge others based on no more foundation than prejudice.  I figure it is everybody's choice to draw whatever conclusions they do.

So you are perfectly within your right to judge me because I can find things about Ann Coulter to apprecaite.

I am perfectly within my right to judge unjustified prejudice when I think I see it.  So far those who hold her in such low esteem haven't been able to come up with much to justify their opinion.  You might be the exception but I doubt it.

Doesn't make me a bad person.  Doesn't make you a bad person.  We are who we are.

(And sighing.  No rep from Del for this post.   )


----------



## American Horse

del said:


> personally, i find ms coulter's style repulsive, dishonest and hateful, but she certainly sells a lot of books and speeches to the various groups of mouth breathers that think she represents conservative thought. she is nothing more or less than a demagogue, and to pretend she is some kind of philosopher queen is nothing short of ludicrous.



She may be a demagogue, but she's our demagogue and I like her. An example of a demagogue of the left is Bill Maher, and in a comparison between the two, Ann seems almost angelic, while Maher seems almost to be a syphilitic thug. There's no pretense about her being a philosopher queen, either on her part or any of her fans.


----------



## Foxfyre

American Horse said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> personally, i find ms coulter's style repulsive, dishonest and hateful, but she certainly sells a lot of books and speeches to the various groups of mouth breathers that think she represents conservative thought. she is nothing more or less than a demagogue, and to pretend she is some kind of philosopher queen is nothing short of ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She may be a demagogue, but she's our demagogue and I like her. An example of a demagogue of the left is Bill Maher, and in a comparison between the two, Ann seems almost angelic, while Maher seems almost to be a syphilitic thug. There's no pretense about her being a philosopher queen, either on her part or any of her fans.
Click to expand...


True. She is sometimes a completely polarizing figure but that is what makes her different from everybody else.  Love her, tolerate her, be annoyed by her, or hate her, but nobody doesn't know who she is and nobody doesn't have an opinion about her.  And it has made her a very sought after and very wealthy woman.


----------



## Ravi

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO... Wow... that's HEAVY!
> 
> So, one has the freedom to speak... if one is in America.
> 
> Understand kids... Because your Rights are a purely function of what the US Government says that your Rights are...
> 
> Recognize the humanist point of view?
> 
> 'If you go to Canada... you only have the rights that the CANADIAN government says ya have.'
> 
> Which is certainly a confusing point; where one considers that the British Crown felt the same way about the Rights of our founding Father's... yet, here we are a separate and sovereign nation, from Great Britain.
> 
> Here's a clue; our rights and their inherent responsibility, are endowed to us by our Creator; and this is without regard to what a government has to say on the issue; which necessarily includes the Canukistani Government or the subjective interpretation of the Progressive Academics... (read: fascists).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are obligated to follow the rules as a guest of another country. If you don't like it, stay in your bunker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well sure... because whatever the rules are in other countries define what's right?  right?
> 
> I mean if another nation provided for Rape as being legal and customary and the rightful entitlement of men; well then it would fall to women in that country to submit to violent sexual assualt.
> 
> If Adult/child sex was a function of accepted cultral mores... Perfectly fine...  because they're entitled to do whatever the hell they wanna DO!
> 
> After all it's their COUNTRY... Right?
> 
> Slavery?  Hey, if they say it's cool... then it's their country.
> 
> OH!  Hey... How about racial, sexual bigotry?   Prejudice against fat-chicks?
> 
> Wasn't it you that was lamenting Iran's recent execution of a dozen or so Iranian fags?
> 
> Or would ya like to take the time; here and now, to stand up and defend the RIGHT of the Iranian government to murder those queers?
Click to expand...

Why, or how, it would be desirable for you to be a guest in any such country is beyond me. Perhaps you've solved the mystery of why Rush goes to the DR with an oversized bottle of Viagra.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Foxfyre said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So give me the link to the quotation--IN CONTEXT--where Coulter said anything different. And no I won't accept something off a leftwing blog for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.... From faux news
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7IhR0ccgo"]YouTube - Ann Coulter Gets Owned[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My history book says Canada did send peace keeping troops to Vietnam in 1973. Is it wrong?
> 
> And given Canada's strong support for US presence in Vietnam, and the fact that she was speaking from memory and without notes on the subject, even if she did mean combat troops, is that really evidence of 'sloppy research?' It isn't as if she researched it at all. If you want to hang her for that kind of error, you'll have to put a very large dunce cap on both our President and Vice President.
> 
> And Coulter's accuser there would also be wrong that Canada never sent troops at all. No combat troops yes. But he didn't specify. Sloppy research on his part?
> 
> Or innocent error on both their parts?
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, this is one of those little episodes where those who Coulter bleeds on a daily basis, glom onto what they see as a little victory.

Think of this episode as analogical to Iraq's President Hussein, declaring VICTORY when US forces left him in power in the wake of Desert Storm. It represents a sociopathy which demonstrates the depth of self-delusion that is often witnessed, but rarely recognized for what it truly represents.

Even given the worst case scenario, assuming for the sake of argument that Coulter was incorrect and that Canada had not sent troops _anywhere near_ Indo-China during the period relevant to the US War in Vietnam; the fact is that it's inarguable that Canada has historically been a US ally... _Which was Coulter's point_.

It's also true, that Canada's support has always represented a lovely token; but has never been essential to any US effort; meaning that Canada's help has never carried any US effort over the top; meaning that the US could possibly have lost, if Canada hadn't ponied up their help.


The fact is that Canada, is free to grow the worlds best hydroponic pot; and spend their few billion a year in 'defense'; leaving the rest of their budget to the future policy failures sustained through massive social-spending... because it sits on the northern border of the United States; resting in the luxury of the means of the US to protect her in finality.

Coulter is precisely right where she notes in that piece, that Canada needs US, vastly more than we need Canada.

In truth, we've no need for Canada what so ever; and *IF *Canada ever did become hostile to the US... invading and CONQUERING the great white North... could be accomplished by the Rhode Island State Patrol... assuming of course that Scout Troop 1697 out of St. Paul was at full readiness.

So, while the girls love trotting out that little interview as their little standard... Coulter's been on the scene for two decades; she's written half a dozen NYT best selling books; participated in tens of thousands of such interviews... and from ALL OF THAT... the Left has ONE to which they can turn to demonstrate: "SEE... Coulter _MAY HAVE_ MADE A MISTAKE! PROVING THAT SHE'S AN IDIOT!"

Which only serves reason... given that we can be sure that somewhere out there is a video of a LEFTIST, POSSIBLY BEING _CORRECT_! Proving the potential for the possible innate genius of the feminine ideology.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Oh, Canada, glorious and almost free..."
> 
> So you would like to split hairs and say that Canada is almost a freedom of speech zone, and therefore should not be linked to Iran and China?
> 
> Bogus.  Don't tell me that I can't express my viewpoint, unless you wear the label of censorship.
> 
> Mark Steyn in Canada faced similar thinking: In Canada, the official complaint about my own so-called "flagrant Islamophobia"filed by the Canadian Islamic Congressattributes to me the following "assertions":
> America will be an Islamic Republic by 2040. There will be a break for Muslim prayers during the Super Bowl. There will be a religious police enforcing Islamic norms. The USS Ronald Reagan will be renamed after Osama bin Laden. Females will not be allowed to be cheerleaders. Popular American radio and TV hosts will be replaced by Imams.
> In fact, I didnt "assert" any of these things. They are plot twists I cited in my review of Robert Ferrignos novel, Prayers for the Assassin. Its customary in reviewing novels to cite aspects of the plot. For example, a review of Moby Dick will usually mention the whale. These days, apparently, the Canadian Islamic Congress and the governments human rights investigators (who have taken up the case) believe that describing the plot of a novel should be illegal. .  A Dark Day for the Enlightenment by Bruce Bawer, City Journal 20 January 2010
> 
> And you want the EU excused as well?
> "January 20, 2010the Dutch establishments most serious effort yet against Wilders gets under way, as he is forced to go to criminal court to defend his right to speak his mind. Wilders is, of course, not the first European to face legal action for criticizing Islam; such luminaries as Oriana Fallaci and Brigitte Bardot also appear on that honor roll."
> A Dark Day for the Enlightenment by Bruce Bawer, City Journal 20 January 2010
> 
> "Italian writer Oriana Fallaciafter writing of the contradiction between Islam and the Western tradition of libertywas being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland, and most other European jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely offensive, but criminal. "  https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=08
> 
> And, as for your valient defense, as in "I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time disabusing Canadians that American conservatives are not redneck racists" you might wish to pass this on to your oh-so-enlightened friends:
> "On the bright side, Steyn states Its a different situation in America, which has the First Amendment and a social consensus that increasingly does not exist in Europe.
> But nowhere is it more evident that Jefferson was correct in stating that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
> 
> We must be eternally aware of any restrictions on our rights of free speech, whether it be regulation of the internet, of talk radio, or any communication." Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its beyond silly to analogize a _complaint_ against Mark Steyn to the Human Rights Tribunal as "splitting hairs" compared to violent political suppression in Iran and China.  Your argument is tantamount to saying that America, Iran and China are all pretty much the same in the application of human rights, given that America, Iran and China all kill prisoners.  A reasonable person would dismiss that argument as nonsense.  I would dismantle all the Human Rights Commissions in Canada, but to compare the HRCs with the kangaroo trials in Asia is not a serious argument.
> 
> Plus, Steyn has been there before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine were filed in December 2007 by the Canadian Islamic Congress with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Maclean's magazine was accused of publishing eighteen Islamophobic  articles between January 2005 and July 2007. The articles in question included a column by Mark Steyn titled "The Future Belongs to Islam".[1][2]  The CIC complaint accused the Maclean's articles of being "flagrantly Islamophobic" and claimed the magazine "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt."[3]
> 
> The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal heard the complaint in June 2008 and issued a ruling on October 10, 2008 dismissing the complaint. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the federal complaint on June 26, 2008 without referring the matter to a tribunal.[4]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But its not like this doesn't happen in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2005 the Bush administration attempted to muzzle Dr. James Hansen, the worlds most famous climate scientist. Hansen, a top NASA scientist, publicly commented on data that convinced him 2005 was one of the hottest years on record. He also drew attention to the Bush administrations scientific censorship.
> 
> As Hansen courageously protested, public affairs offices at certain environmental science-oriented government agencies were imposing strict rules on employees. For example, they required that all media inquiries be referred to public affairs offices, which would then determine which staff could most appropriately answer them.
> 
> The public affairs offices went so far as to demand that public affairs officials sit in during all interviews with scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EPA attempt to limit free speech by agency lawyers Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel violates the law (posting from Climate Science Watch)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other scientists working for the US federal government have also encountered problems with freedom of speech under the Bush administration. Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona told Congressional investigators that the federal officials weakened or suppressed public health reports to support a political agenda. He also said that the administration would not allow him to speak to the public about a number of different health policy issues, including stem cell research, emergency contraception, sex education, and global health. Administration officials have also written Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports on global warming for political purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom of Speech in Government Science
Click to expand...


You know, this is truly disappointing. You are usually sharper, and less tortuous in your arguments.

I believe it is your unwavering love of all things Canadian that forces you to take on this uphill battle.

 My complaint is about censorship, and you attempt to conflate "violent political suppression."

So, it seems that you are unable to defend Canada against my assertion: Canada, unlike the United States, has a policy of surpression of free speech. Eh?

And I do appreciate your agreement with my point, as in "I would dismantle all the Human Rights Commissions in Canada."

You do realize that this is the same point Ms. Coulter has made.


As far as " the Bush administration attempted to muzzle Dr. James Hansen..." 
1. This is left wing global-scam propaganda.
2. I never brought up nor defended the Bush Administration
3. A clear untruth, as Dr. Hanson both kept his job, and gave over 1400 interviews:
"I see that we are once again having to hear how NASA's James Hansen was dissuaded from talking to the press on a few of the 1,400 media interviews he was involved in over the years."  .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

After all, this is America, not Canada, eh?

So, it seems we are again faced with an awesome decison: which of us is the, to use your terminology, 'blowhard'?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are obligated to follow the rules as a guest of another country. If you don't like it, stay in your bunker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well sure... because whatever the rules are in other countries define what's right? right?
> 
> I mean if another nation provided for Rape as being legal and customary and the rightful entitlement of men; well then it would fall to women in that country to submit to violent sexual assualt.
> 
> If Adult/child sex was a function of accepted cultral mores... Perfectly fine... because they're entitled to do whatever the hell they wanna DO!
> 
> After all it's their COUNTRY... Right?
> 
> Slavery? Hey, if they say it's cool... then it's their country.
> 
> OH! Hey... How about racial, sexual bigotry? Prejudice against fat-chicks?
> 
> Wasn't it you that was lamenting Iran's recent execution of a dozen or so Iranian fags?
> 
> Or would ya like to take the time; here and now, to stand up and defend the RIGHT of the Iranian government to murder those queers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, or how, it would be desirable for you to be a guest in any such country is beyond me. Perhaps you've solved the mystery of why Rush goes to the DR with an oversized bottle of Viagra.
Click to expand...

 

Well actually Slim... I can't really take credit for having proven anything here...  

I mean, such would be intellectually dishonest; given that you're the one that has proven that Humanist reasoning; that intellectual force known as Left-think... stands in direct opposition to the principles on which AMERICA rests; that God endows us with our human rights... and that we are responsible for securing the means to exercise those rights, without regard to WHAT any human power would prefer.

Coulter's was invited to speak by the Canadians; she accepted the invitation; Canadian Leftist rose up to PREVENT HER FROM _SPEAKING._

Thus, this demonstrates what? 

 It demonstrates that the Ideological Left; the would-be "_Liberals_"; those who define themselves as: _representing tolerance and compassion for the differing ideas of others_; that the Academic Liberal Left of Canada is claiming, by default: That speech represents ideas and that some ideas are bad ideas; and that where bad ideas exist, that it falls to the Mob to riot in violence; to do whatever is necessary to stop such speech from behing heard...  to prevent such ideas from infecting their culture.

And frankly, I will tell you, that if that's how you people want to proceed; frankly, that is an idea I could get behind fairly quickly.  

If that's the principle ya want to lay down; then fine...  all that's to be determined then is who sustains the power to  determine what ideas are determined to be dangerous.

So... make a decision Sis...  Just keep me posted on what ya decide.

Now for your edification; I believe that there are ideas which are not suitable to a sustainable culture; and which should not be advanced, particularly around children...   such as the bulk of those matriculating at university; accept where such is being advanced for the purposes of study; for debate... to foster a better understanding of the idea itself; towards provoking the young mind explore the reasoning, towards helping them to see the natural, albeit fatal flaws inherent in the reasoning.  

So as far as that goes, the Canadians and myself would disagree...  

I would provide for Left-think to be advanced in a sterile, intellectual environment; for debate; for the purposes of education...  and for my own entertainment; while you people; _the forces of Tolerance and Compassion for the differing ideas of others..._ are determined that Ideas which rest in American principle... are not to be heard; period.

So in closing, No... I can't take credit for that which you've proven.  But I appreciate your position, in needing me to do so.


----------



## Bfgrn

Here's the problem you share with that guy Coulter PC...Canada is a sovereign nation, it is not an annex of the United States.

University of Ottawa Academic Vice President and Provost Francois Houle e-mailed Coulter prior to his visit. He wrote:

  "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here."

He continued, "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

Houle also reminded Coulter of the strong Canadian* tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration." *

Sure SOUNDS like what used to be defined as conservative ideals...before incendiary and hate-filled goons like Coulter and Limbaugh started spreading their hate, disrespect and lack of ANY consideration for anyone that doesn't share their hate...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bfgrn said:


> Here's the problem you share with that guy Coulter PC...Canada is a sovereign nation, it is not an annex of the United States.
> 
> University of Ottawa Academic Vice President and Provost Francois Houle e-mailed Coulter prior to his visit. He wrote:
> 
> "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here."
> 
> He continued, "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
> 
> Houle also reminded Coulter of the strong Canadian* tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration." *
> 
> Sure SOUNDS like what used to be defined as conservative ideals...before incendiary and hate-filled goons like Coulter and Limbaugh started spreading their hate, disrespect and lack of ANY consideration for anyone that doesn't share their hate...



Your feeling toward Queen Ann clouds your understanding of the fundemental question involved.

Allow me to redirect you concentration: "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States."
If one were to research 'oxymoron' in a dictionary, that sentence would be an example of same. 

Either there is free speech, or there is censorship. 

The CYA terminology "Promoting hatred" should appeal to you, since a hallmark of the liberal is 'feeling is as good as knowing.'

And, of course, you are identifiable as a liberal by you as hominum attack on the Queen with the less-than-witty "that guy Coulter."  I guess that makes you an "incendiary and hate-filled goon..."

In what frame of reference is restricting free speech considered "as conservative ideals.'?

And for the purposes of reviewing the OP and this thread, and to show how you have again veered off the path, your phrase "Canada is a sovereign nation..."  
1. No one has claimed otherwise.
2. No one thinks that this is particularly clever.
3. No one has insisted that Canada change its speech policy.
4. Most thinking folks believe that free speech is a higher value than restricted speech.

Except Progressives, and you...I don't wish to insult Progressives, by seeming to include you in their group: they don't want any BoringFriendlessGuys.

And now, I'd like to invite our Canadian friends to join in celebrating the Seattle Metropolitans, who, on this day (March 27) of 1917, defeated the Montreal Canadians to become the first US team to win the Stanley Cup!
 Hip hip hooray!

And a big cheer for Ann Coulter, as well!   

No, huh? OK, be like that.


----------



## blindnessprevai

As I read through some of the angry posts this morning both accusing and defending A.C., I suffered an ambivalent moment.  In part I was feeling victorious for having departed from the *main arena *of hatred, which I believe is truly a deliberate manipulative tactic to keep us divided and busy stoning each other, while the masters get about their malicious corrupt agendas *TOGETHER*.  However, the pain of defeat kills the joy in the reality that so many good people are still captives in that ugly giant arena.  I once shared that hatred for one against the other until the Obama campaign when I saw the self serving uglies on both sides of the fence.  For the record, I am against abortion, gay rights, government handouts, ACLU, NAACP, the presentation of Corpus Christi in a Texas university and most of the garbage we debate to death. AND it is not even that I am against all of it....I am against the EXTREMES of most of it and the *NEVER ENDING *debating!!   Maybe if we steered away from the vanity, self serving mentalities, and disrespect for others, that has not only become acceptable, but somehow honorable we may be able to begin a peace making era. AND for the record, I still struggle with "hatred" which is wrong and I which I don't want to have, but I win more than I lose. If we all practiced stepping back and thought about who, what, why, and when we feel what, we may be surprised at what we could do.


----------



## Samson

blindnessprevai said:


> If we all practiced stepping back and thought about who, what, why, and when we feel what, we may be surprised at what we could do.



I'd like to teach the world to sing,
In Perfect Harmony.......


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> blindnessprevai said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we all practiced stepping back and thought about who, what, why, and when we feel what, we may be surprised at what we could do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to teach the world to sing,
> In Perfect Harmony.......
Click to expand...


OK, enough!

We believe in diversity on this board.

We are overstocked with the right, and the left, the smart, and the...others, and now we finally get to hear from the Insipid precinct,,,and you want attack 'em.


Just can't stand folks who are different, huh?


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blindnessprevai said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we all practiced stepping back and thought about who, what, why, and when we feel what, we may be surprised at what we could do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to teach the world to sing,
> In Perfect Harmony.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, enough!
> 
> We believe in diversity on this board.
> 
> We are overstocked with the right, and the left, the smart, and the...others, and now we finally get to hear from the Insipid precinct,,,and you want attack 'em.
> 
> 
> Just can't stand folks who are different, huh?
Click to expand...




I was only trying to make them feel welcome......


----------



## Tariq

Rants agianst minorites that are intended to incite violence is hate speech. When is the last time you heard a white American call Negro people ******, or jungle-bunny, or soade? Would that language be acceptable? I dont think so. 

And so, foolish American infidels, if you live in a glass house don't throw rocks.


----------



## Samson

Tariq said:


> Rants agianst minorites that are intended to incite violence is hate speech. When is the last time you heard a white American call Negro people ******, or jungle-bunny, or soade? Would that language be acceptable? I dont think so.
> 
> And so, foolish American infidels, if you live in a glass house don't throw rocks.



WTF?



You don't like Pepsi?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Tariq said:


> Rants agianst minorites that are intended to incite violence is hate speech. When is the last time you heard a white American call Negro people ******, or jungle-bunny, or soade? Would that language be acceptable? I dont think so.
> 
> And so, foolish American infidels, if you live in a glass house don't throw rocks.



So, this is your resume for some sort of comedy gig?

Not bad.

I know it's not meant to be serious, since you threw in the oh-so-inclusive "foolish American infidels" thing...  

Pretty funny.

BTW, was that meant to incite violence?


----------



## Ravi

Pubic: If you don't like the rules in another country, don't be their guest.

It's really that simple.


----------



## Bfgrn

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem you share with that guy Coulter PC...Canada is a sovereign nation, it is not an annex of the United States.
> 
> University of Ottawa Academic Vice President and Provost Francois Houle e-mailed Coulter prior to his visit. He wrote:
> 
> "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here."
> 
> He continued, "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
> 
> Houle also reminded Coulter of the strong Canadian* tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration." *
> 
> Sure SOUNDS like what used to be defined as conservative ideals...before incendiary and hate-filled goons like Coulter and Limbaugh started spreading their hate, disrespect and lack of ANY consideration for anyone that doesn't share their hate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your feeling toward Queen Ann clouds your understanding of the fundemental question involved.
> 
> Allow me to redirect you concentration: "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States."
> If one were to research 'oxymoron' in a dictionary, that sentence would be an example of same.
> 
> Either there is free speech, or there is censorship.
> 
> The CYA terminology "Promoting hatred" should appeal to you, since a hallmark of the liberal is 'feeling is as good as knowing.'
> 
> And, of course, you are identifiable as a liberal by you as hominum attack on the Queen with the less-than-witty "that guy Coulter."  I guess that makes you an "incendiary and hate-filled goon..."
> 
> In what frame of reference is restricting free speech considered "as conservative ideals.'?
> 
> And for the purposes of reviewing the OP and this thread, and to show how you have again veered off the path, your phrase "Canada is a sovereign nation..."
> 1. No one has claimed otherwise.
> 2. No one thinks that this is particularly clever.
> 3. No one has insisted that Canada change its speech policy.
> 4. Most thinking folks believe that free speech is a higher value than restricted speech.
> 
> Except Progressives, and you...I don't wish to insult Progressives, by seeming to include you in their group: they don't want any BoringFriendlessGuys.
> 
> And now, I'd like to invite our Canadian friends to join in celebrating the Seattle Metropolitans, who, on this day (March 27) of 1917, defeated the Montreal Canadians to become the first US team to win the Stanley Cup!
> Hip hip hooray!
> 
> And a big cheer for Ann Coulter, as well!
> 
> No, huh? OK, be like that.
Click to expand...


Do you_ feel_ your obfuscation, diversion and chaotic verse is a sign of intelligence? It only reveals your underlying insecurity. 

Let's keep it real simple just for you...Canada has the right to decide what THEY believe is acceptable. Not you or Coulter guy.

You, Coulter guy or I don't have to agree with it, we just have to respect it. It is THEIR laws and THEIR country.  

If you _feel _a need to emote on oxymoron...let's look at 'free'... 

Is Coulter guy offering to spiel for 'free'?
Is the use of the university's facilities, utility costs, security detail and clean up afterward 'free'?
Is the university 'free' to decline Coulter guy's spiel?

As far as conservative ideals of not restricting speech, maybe you should take up that noble cause with David Frum...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem you share with that guy Coulter PC...Canada is a sovereign nation, it is not an annex of the United States.
> 
> University of Ottawa Academic Vice President and Provost Francois Houle e-mailed Coulter prior to his visit. He wrote:
> 
> "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here."
> 
> He continued, "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
> 
> Houle also reminded Coulter of the strong Canadian* tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration." *
> 
> Sure SOUNDS like what used to be defined as conservative ideals...before incendiary and hate-filled goons like Coulter and Limbaugh started spreading their hate, disrespect and lack of ANY consideration for anyone that doesn't share their hate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your feeling toward Queen Ann clouds your understanding of the fundemental question involved.
> 
> Allow me to redirect you concentration: "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States."
> If one were to research 'oxymoron' in a dictionary, that sentence would be an example of same.
> 
> Either there is free speech, or there is censorship.
> 
> The CYA terminology "Promoting hatred" should appeal to you, since a hallmark of the liberal is 'feeling is as good as knowing.'
> 
> And, of course, you are identifiable as a liberal by you as hominum attack on the Queen with the less-than-witty "that guy Coulter."  I guess that makes you an "incendiary and hate-filled goon..."
> 
> In what frame of reference is restricting free speech considered "as conservative ideals.'?
> 
> And for the purposes of reviewing the OP and this thread, and to show how you have again veered off the path, your phrase "Canada is a sovereign nation..."
> 1. No one has claimed otherwise.
> 2. No one thinks that this is particularly clever.
> 3. No one has insisted that Canada change its speech policy.
> 4. Most thinking folks believe that free speech is a higher value than restricted speech.
> 
> Except Progressives, and you...I don't wish to insult Progressives, by seeming to include you in their group: they don't want any BoringFriendlessGuys.
> 
> And now, I'd like to invite our Canadian friends to join in celebrating the Seattle Metropolitans, who, on this day (March 27) of 1917, defeated the Montreal Canadians to become the first US team to win the Stanley Cup!
> Hip hip hooray!
> 
> And a big cheer for Ann Coulter, as well!
> 
> No, huh? OK, be like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you_ feel_ your obfuscation, diversion and chaotic verse is a sign of intelligence? It only reveals your underlying insecurity.
> 
> Let's keep it real simple just for you...Canada has the right to decide what THEY believe is acceptable. Not you or Coulter guy.
> 
> You, Coulter guy or I don't have to agree with it, we just have to respect it. It is THEIR laws and THEIR country.
> 
> If you _feel _a need to emote on oxymoron...let's look at 'free'...
> 
> Is Coulter guy offering to spiel for 'free'?
> Is the use of the university's facilities, utility costs, security detail and clean up afterward 'free'?
> Is the university 'free' to decline Coulter guy's spiel?
> 
> As far as conservative ideals of not restricting speech, maybe you should take up that noble cause with David Frum...
Click to expand...


This is one of your most scatterbrained posts. And that's saying something!

You're really letting it out that you post just have someone to talk to...even if it's an anonymous mass of electrons.

I usually don't respond to you post, and this one is a prime example of why... it makes no sense, and ignores all the ways I've already destroyed any alleged-points you might have intented in the prior post.

The fact that you reiterate points with which I have already dispensed indicates how needy you are for some partner in posting.  And, worse, it is obvious to all. So very sad.

But, that is the essence of being a BoringFriendlessGuy, huh? You must be used to this kind of reponse.

"...obfuscation, diversion and chaotic verse ..." none of which was included in my so-salient post.

And I felt like being charitable. My mistake.


----------



## Alpha1

uscitizen said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Petty?
> 
> btw my apologies to the Equine breed for my previous post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apology should be to the five teachers who the grades of schooling that you completed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did only go to 11 years of regular public school.
> I was double promoted and did not have to attend one grade.
> How about you?
> 
> Can't you tell how smart I am from my avatar?
Click to expand...


I've seen that before.
They do tend to "promote you"  when you're 20 years old and still can't pass HS legitimately......


----------



## Bfgrn

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your feeling toward Queen Ann clouds your understanding of the fundemental question involved.
> 
> Allow me to redirect you concentration: "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States."
> If one were to research 'oxymoron' in a dictionary, that sentence would be an example of same.
> 
> Either there is free speech, or there is censorship.
> 
> The CYA terminology "Promoting hatred" should appeal to you, since a hallmark of the liberal is 'feeling is as good as knowing.'
> 
> And, of course, you are identifiable as a liberal by you as hominum attack on the Queen with the less-than-witty "that guy Coulter."  I guess that makes you an "incendiary and hate-filled goon..."
> 
> In what frame of reference is restricting free speech considered "as conservative ideals.'?
> 
> And for the purposes of reviewing the OP and this thread, and to show how you have again veered off the path, your phrase "Canada is a sovereign nation..."
> 1. No one has claimed otherwise.
> 2. No one thinks that this is particularly clever.
> 3. No one has insisted that Canada change its speech policy.
> 4. Most thinking folks believe that free speech is a higher value than restricted speech.
> 
> Except Progressives, and you...I don't wish to insult Progressives, by seeming to include you in their group: they don't want any BoringFriendlessGuys.
> 
> And now, I'd like to invite our Canadian friends to join in celebrating the Seattle Metropolitans, who, on this day (March 27) of 1917, defeated the Montreal Canadians to become the first US team to win the Stanley Cup!
> Hip hip hooray!
> 
> And a big cheer for Ann Coulter, as well!
> 
> No, huh? OK, be like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you_ feel_ your obfuscation, diversion and chaotic verse is a sign of intelligence? It only reveals your underlying insecurity.
> 
> Let's keep it real simple just for you...Canada has the right to decide what THEY believe is acceptable. Not you or Coulter guy.
> 
> You, Coulter guy or I don't have to agree with it, we just have to respect it. It is THEIR laws and THEIR country.
> 
> If you _feel _a need to emote on oxymoron...let's look at 'free'...
> 
> Is Coulter guy offering to spiel for 'free'?
> Is the use of the university's facilities, utility costs, security detail and clean up afterward 'free'?
> Is the university 'free' to decline Coulter guy's spiel?
> 
> As far as conservative ideals of not restricting speech, maybe you should take up that noble cause with David Frum...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of your most scatterbrained posts. And that's saying something!
> 
> You're really letting it out that you post just have someone to talk to...even if it's an anonymous mass of electrons.
> 
> I usually don't respond to you post, and this one is a prime example of why... it makes no sense, and ignores all the ways I've already destroyed any alleged-points you might have intented in the prior post.
> 
> The fact that you reiterate points with which I have already dispensed indicates how needy you are for some partner in posting.  And, worse, it is obvious to all. So very sad.
> 
> But, that is the essence of being a BoringFriendlessGuy, huh? You must be used to this kind of reponse.
> 
> "...obfuscation, diversion and chaotic verse ..." none of which was included in my so-salient post.
> 
> And I felt like being charitable. My mistake.
Click to expand...


That is the most long winded 'cut & run' I can recall...you may _feel_ you destroyed and dispensed what I said...but the reality is you failed. All you destroy and dispense with is your credibility.

Your continued personal attacks reveal the depth & scope of your insecurity. It exudes a 'cornered rat' aura...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ravi said:


> Pubic: If you don't like the rules in another country, don't be their guest.
> 
> It's really that simple.


 
ROFL... Poor Ravi.

She SO needs to believe that Ann Coulter was invading Canada; failed to respect 'their rules' and was repelled by the rule enforcing Hosers...

But such is the nature of delusion kids... and the obtuse projection of a repeatedly refuted assertion is part and parcel of the sociopathy common to Left-think and the aforementioned Leftist Hosers; WHO TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO MISTREAT AN INVITED GUEST...

.

. 

.

.

.

Now all ya have to know, to understand the reason being employed by Ravi, which requires the need to push this absurdity, is that Ravi is an imbecile; meaning that she is a person of sub-standard cognitive means; a 'Hoper for Change'; an employer of 'left-think'... thus someone who has time and again witnessed Miss Coulter's refutation of any of hundreds; if not thousands of Leftist 'ideas'... .

Not the least of which is the Leftist Notion that your God given human rights stop at the Canadian border.

I have a right to speak my mind in Canada or anywhere else on this earth; and if the entire focus of the Canadian Culture was in total defiance of that fact; AND if the entire Canadian legal code was designed around NOTHING BUT laws which prevented me from speaking my mind in Canada; and IF I ventured into the great white north and was charged prosecuted, convicted of havign violated Canadian Law by having spoken in Canada...

THE EFFECT OF SUCH A POTENTIAL CANADIAN USURPATION OF MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO SPEAK,* WOULD IN NO WAY AFFECT MY RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY.*

Now kids, Ravi is simply not smart enough to understand this simple and wholly immutable principle; and it cannot go unstated that Ravi's ignorance or failure to recognize, respect and bear the responsibility of such principles, does not discredit or otherwise undermine the validity of that immutable principle of nature.

It's not a particularly complex issue... it's just an issue wherein the scope of such is beyond the starkley limited means of what stands for the intellectual means of the ideological Leftist.


----------



## Kalam

PoliticalChic said:


> "I haven't forgotten about the lackluster quality of your posts regarding my religion ..."
> 
> Ah, now I see.
> 
> Actually I don't recall my said arguments, but I certainly can understand you recalling such, and taking it personally.
> 
> (But if they were of  'lackluster quality' you wouldn't take them so personally, eh? They must have been pretty good.)


So good, in fact, that you eventually decided to cut your losses and duck out of the thread without responding to my refutations. I believe it was Freud who taught us about our tendency to repress unpleasant memories. 

My ability to recall these kinds of things has served me well, PC, here as well as in the parts of my life that matter. 



PoliticalChic said:


> Try to remember, each of us is no more than a collection and assembly of electrons here on the USMB.


Oh, but we're all so much more! Do you not consider yourself a believer?



PoliticalChic said:


> But, I avoid the vulgar.


That seems to be true in most cases, yes, but you _are_ a fan of Ann Coulter.


----------



## del

Foxfyre said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion including your objective observation that it is 'various groups of mouth breathers' that think she represents conservative thought.  Thank you for including me in that characterization.  Very kind of you.
> 
> I personally dislike Ann's style of presentation from time to time.  I don't always agree with her but thoroughly enjoy her columns as the imagery she uses at times is brilliant and often really funny.  And it is there that it is darn near impossible to catch her in an error of fact.  At times she does wander into the realm of poor taste and I wish she wouldn't do that, but she has sort of built a 'what can I do to stir up the liberals today' image with that.  I think if she weren't a smart, strong, beautiful woman she wouldn't catch so much hell for that.
> 
> Look past the abrasive exterior to the content of what she is saying and writing, however, and you don't find either dishonesty or hate speech.
> 
> Not liking her or her style of presentation or communication is honest.  Accusing her of dishonesty or hatefulness because you dislike her is not honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i only dislike her because she's hateful and dishonest.
> 
> i'm sorry if you feel offended by my characterization of her followers, but i call them as i see them. the choice to be included in her legion of admirers is yours, not mine, after all.
> 
> honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's okay.  It is my opinion, those who judge one person based on no more foundation than prejudice are likely to judge others based on no more foundation than prejudice.  I figure it is everybody's choice to draw whatever conclusions they do.
> 
> So you are perfectly within your right to judge me because I can find things about Ann Coulter to apprecaite.
> 
> I am perfectly within my right to judge unjustified prejudice when I think I see it.  So far those who hold her in such low esteem haven't been able to come up with much to justify their opinion.  You might be the exception but I doubt it.
> 
> Doesn't make me a bad person.  Doesn't make you a bad person.  We are who we are.
> 
> (And sighing.  No rep from Del for this post.   )
Click to expand...


i'm not judging you based on one opinion, in fact, i'm not judging you at all.
 any generalization, such as the one i've made re: coulter, is by definition inaccurate when considering specifics. 

reading your posts, i have no reason to think that you're a bad person, just someone with whom i disagree. i really am sorry if i unintentionally hurt your feelings. i do try to disagree in an agreeable manner most times.

sorry to take so long to reply, but unlike rust, i do sleep on occasion.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

del said:


> ... any generalization, such as the one i've made re: coulter, is by definition inaccurate when considering specifics. ...


 
Ya know what's fascinatin' about this, is that such assertions, while commonly advanced; are NEVER advanced with any argument wherein the Coulter opposition demonstrates her position as being inaccurate.

Would you like to be the exception Del?  Or just keep the damage down to this little refutation...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

ROFL...

Well consistency is important to every principle... and thank you for your support.


----------



## Foxfyre

del said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i only dislike her because she's hateful and dishonest.
> 
> i'm sorry if you feel offended by my characterization of her followers, but i call them as i see them. the choice to be included in her legion of admirers is yours, not mine, after all.
> 
> honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's okay.  It is my opinion, those who judge one person based on no more foundation than prejudice are likely to judge others based on no more foundation than prejudice.  I figure it is everybody's choice to draw whatever conclusions they do.
> 
> So you are perfectly within your right to judge me because I can find things about Ann Coulter to apprecaite.
> 
> I am perfectly within my right to judge unjustified prejudice when I think I see it.  So far those who hold her in such low esteem haven't been able to come up with much to justify their opinion.  You might be the exception but I doubt it.
> 
> Doesn't make me a bad person.  Doesn't make you a bad person.  We are who we are.
> 
> (And sighing.  No rep from Del for this post.   )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not judging you based on one opinion, in fact, i'm not judging you at all.
> any generalization, such as the one i've made re: coulter, is by definition inaccurate when considering specifics.
> 
> reading your posts, i have no reason to think that you're a bad person, just someone with whom i disagree. i really am sorry if i unintentionally hurt your feelings. i do try to disagree in an agreeable manner most times.
> 
> sorry to take so long to reply, but unlike rust, i do sleep on occasion.
Click to expand...


Hmmm.  Well when you say this. . .:


> i'm sorry if you feel offended by my characterization of her followers, but i call them as i see them. the choice to be included in her legion of admirers is yours, not mine, after all.


. . .I suppose that is not the same thing as judging me.  I certainly would consider it as a judgment  or, in formal debate lingo, ad hominem, but I accept that you don't look at it that way.

Trust me, you have not hurt my feelings.  And you weren't really disagreeable.  Just wrong.  That's not the same thing.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kalam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I haven't forgotten about the lackluster quality of your posts regarding my religion ..."
> 
> Ah, now I see.
> 
> Actually I don't recall my said arguments, but I certainly can understand you recalling such, and taking it personally.
> 
> (But if they were of  'lackluster quality' you wouldn't take them so personally, eh? They must have been pretty good.)
> 
> 
> 
> So good, in fact, that you eventually decided to cut your losses and duck out of the thread without responding to my refutations. I believe it was Freud who taught us about our tendency to repress unpleasant memories.
> 
> My ability to recall these kinds of things has served me well, PC, here as well as in the parts of my life that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to remember, each of us is no more than a collection and assembly of electrons here on the USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but we're all so much more! Do you not consider yourself a believer?
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, I avoid the vulgar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That seems to be true in most cases, yes, but you _are_ a fan of Ann Coulter.
Click to expand...


"So good, in fact, that you eventually decided to cut your losses and duck out of the thread without responding to my refutations. I believe it was Freud who taught us about our tendency to repress unpleasant memories. "
I believe it was Freud who said 'sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.' 
By that token, I'm guessing that if I didn't answer what you call a 'refutation,' it probably was so laughable that it required none.

"My ability to recall these kinds of things has served me well..."
Perhaps you mistake 'recall' for hallucinations.
There are medications you can take for that. 
Speak to your doctor to see if they are right for you.


"... the parts of my life that matter."
Because they have weight and take up space?
May be solid,liquid or gas?

"Oh, but we're all so much more!"
 Remember, youre unique like everybody else.
And that includes your delusions of adequacy.

"Do you not consider yourself a believer?"
Well, I don't join dangerous cults: I practice safe sects!

Now you can stop sulking, and try to remember what President Truman
advised: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Looking forward to our next meeting: I just can't get enough of portentious 
jargon, and senseless prattle.
See ya'


----------



## Kalam

PoliticalChic said:


> I believe it was Freud who said 'sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.' By that token, I'm guessing that if I didn't answer what you call a 'refutation,' it probably was so laughable that it required none.


If that's what you need to believe to justify your failure to yourself, I don't suppose I see any harm in that. On the other hand, if you'd like to join the rest of us in reality, there's no shame in admitting that you know less about Islam than a Muslim.



PoliticalChic said:


> "My ability to recall these kinds of things has served me well..." Perhaps you mistake 'recall' for hallucinations.


No, or at least not in this case. I'm sure that you'd be able to find this discussion on your own if you cared enough to do so; it was from 2009.



PoliticalChic said:


> "... the parts of my life that matter."
> Because they have weight and take up space?
> May be solid,liquid or gas?


Was English your first language? 



PoliticalChic said:


> And that includes your delusions of adequacy.


What? 



PoliticalChic said:


> Well, I don't join dangerous cults: I practice safe sects!


Feel free to elaborate.



PoliticalChic said:


> Looking forward to our next meeting:


Are you trying to tell me something?



PoliticalChic said:


> I just can't get enough of portentious
> jargon, and senseless prattle.
> See ya'


"Portentious"? I'll confess to not knowing why you'd call my posts portentous. If you meant to call me pretentious, I suppose that makes two of us who fit that description.


----------



## sitarro

Zona said:


> Coulter is a funny *guy*.  It would have been funny if she went there and got arrested for her hatefull crap.
> 
> Funny *dude*.



What's really pathetic is that you can't keep up your silly farce for a full three sentences.


----------



## sitarro

Zona said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The apology should be to the five teachers who the grades of schooling that you completed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did only go to 11 years of regular public school.
> I was double promoted and did not have to attend one grade.
> How about you?
> 
> Can't you tell how smart I am from my avatar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing happened to me.  They didnt call it double promoting, it was called getting skipped a grade when they bounced me from the 6th to the 8th grade.  I would not allow them to do anything like that to my daughter though.  I never really fit in to any class I was in all during high school.  In my mind.
Click to expand...


That's sad and it explains a lot.


----------



## del

PubliusInfinitum said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... any generalization, such as the one i've made re: coulter, is by definition inaccurate when considering specifics. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know what's fascinatin' about this, is that such assertions, while commonly advanced; are NEVER advanced with any argument wherein the Coulter opposition demonstrates her position as being inaccurate.
> 
> Would you like to be the exception Del?  Or just keep the damage down to this little refutation...
Click to expand...


clearly you're laboring under the misconception that your opinion counts for something to someone. 

that may be true, but i'm not the someone.

have a nice day.

preferably somewhere else.


----------



## del

Foxfyre said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's okay.  It is my opinion, those who judge one person based on no more foundation than prejudice are likely to judge others based on no more foundation than prejudice.  I figure it is everybody's choice to draw whatever conclusions they do.
> 
> So you are perfectly within your right to judge me because I can find things about Ann Coulter to apprecaite.
> 
> I am perfectly within my right to judge unjustified prejudice when I think I see it.  So far those who hold her in such low esteem haven't been able to come up with much to justify their opinion.  You might be the exception but I doubt it.
> 
> Doesn't make me a bad person.  Doesn't make you a bad person.  We are who we are.
> 
> (And sighing.  No rep from Del for this post.   )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not judging you based on one opinion, in fact, i'm not judging you at all.
> any generalization, such as the one i've made re: coulter, is by definition inaccurate when considering specifics.
> 
> reading your posts, i have no reason to think that you're a bad person, just someone with whom i disagree. i really am sorry if i unintentionally hurt your feelings. i do try to disagree in an agreeable manner most times.
> 
> sorry to take so long to reply, but unlike rust, i do sleep on occasion.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Well when you say this. . .:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry if you feel offended by my characterization of her followers, but i call them as i see them. the choice to be included in her legion of admirers is yours, not mine, after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . . .I suppose that is not the same thing as judging me.  I certainly would consider it as a judgment  or, in formal debate lingo, ad hominem, but I accept that you don't look at it that way.
> 
> Trust me, you have not hurt my feelings.  And you weren't really disagreeable.  Just wrong.  That's not the same thing.
Click to expand...


there's a reason they make chocolate and vanilla.


----------



## Foxfyre

del said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not judging you based on one opinion, in fact, i'm not judging you at all.
> any generalization, such as the one i've made re: coulter, is by definition inaccurate when considering specifics.
> 
> reading your posts, i have no reason to think that you're a bad person, just someone with whom i disagree. i really am sorry if i unintentionally hurt your feelings. i do try to disagree in an agreeable manner most times.
> 
> sorry to take so long to reply, but unlike rust, i do sleep on occasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Well when you say this. . .:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry if you feel offended by my characterization of her followers, but i call them as i see them. the choice to be included in her legion of admirers is yours, not mine, after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . . .I suppose that is not the same thing as judging me.  I certainly would consider it as a judgment  or, in formal debate lingo, ad hominem, but I accept that you don't look at it that way.
> 
> Trust me, you have not hurt my feelings.  And you weren't really disagreeable.  Just wrong.  That's not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there's a reason they make chocolate and vanilla.
Click to expand...


And there's probably a reason I buy a lot of neopolitan icecream.


----------



## sitarro

Kalam said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was unable to get an official response to this from Miss Coulter...
> 
> But I feel comfortable in advancing the following his as something closely representing of her likely reaction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're able to establish contact with Ms. Coulter, please tell her that although I'm flattered by her advances, I've decided to limit myself to sexual partners who are both human and female.
Click to expand...


Isn't that against your religion...... the religion of "men who stare at and have sex with goats"........ excuse me, I meant to say "whimps that stare at and have sex with goats". Hollywood made a movie about it. They had George Clooney play an Arab ass wipe.


----------



## sitarro

Samson said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Coulter might NOT "be welcome to speak anywhere else in Canada:"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadians are such a humorless bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's the nature of your fascists...  There's nothing less tolerant on earth than the ideological left...  It's the most lethal organism on the planetl; seconded, perhaps... to disease, from time to time.  But I think, the left took the title in the 20th century; with 150 million innocent murdered...  not 100% positive that disease didn't beat' em... but I think the Left took it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think Canadians are leathal to anything but Baby Harp Seals.
Click to expand...


I would pay serious money to be the person that would pull the trigger on a 50 caliber from about a thousand yards on that piece of shit with the club. Turn him into some red mist.


----------



## frazzledgear

eots said:


> clearly a cry for attention it s not like some government official warned her about hate laws one leftist dean from one university did and no one banned her from speaking...but its a way better story to run away because of a body guards unsubstainated claims than to give her boring speech and get little attention beyond a letter and some lefty protest..universties all across America are full of such people and such incidents there is no real story here



This was never about Coulter engaging in hate speech because she did no such thing and had already spoken at other engagements in Canada -and gee whiz, managed to do so without violating any hate speech laws.  Canadian hate speech laws involve encouraging violence against a person or group based on their racial, sexual orientation or ethnic heritage.  She has never done that.  So warning her about Canada's hate speech laws was just a diversion and publicity stunt perhaps -but had no validity.  This never was about any hate speech from Coulter.  

This was entirely about leftist students intending to silence her and preventing others from even hearing what she had to say.  As if that was actually their right.  (The left invariably calls any speech with which they disagree "hate speech" so they will continue to insist Coulter engages in hate speech even when there isn't a single example of her violating Canada's hate speech laws even in THIS country.)  THIS is a truly revolting story but just one more example that undeniably PROVES how the left operates and always will.  The only "free speech" the left ever believes in and wants protected is their own -they believe they have a "right" to silence all others.  The real story here is the belief among liberals that it is appropriate to silence their political opponents entirely, prevent them from speaking -and definitely prevent others from hearing what they might say.  

What those students who shouted her down did was shameful and they had NO RIGHT to do it.  An audience belongs to whoever created the function that resulted in an audience.  The audience belonged to Coulter and did NOT belong to those shouting students who took it over and did this.  They violated the rights of EVERYONE in that audience along with Coulter's rights.  The other people in her audience came to hear Coulter -they did NOT come to hear people who didn't like her start shouting for the purpose of shutting the entire thing down and making it impossible for her to speak and for her audience to hear her.  This one must be really difficult for the left to get but if someone you don't like intends to give a speech and you don't like that person's views -THEN DON'T ATTEND THE SPEECH!.  What a truly novel idea, huh? * But the left really does believe it is THEIR right to attend such functions NOT for the purpose of listening -but for the purpose of making sure others cannot listen.*   Preventing political opponents from speaking at all in this manner is a founding principle of fascism -and fascism is born of leftist ideology in the first place.  Fascists believe only those with whom they agree should be allowed to speak and claim they have the "right" to silence all others even if it requires intimidation or threats of violence to do so.  Coulter was canceled for fear the shouting little fascists would end up starting a riot -NOT because of anything Coulter did or said.  The fascists did exactly what they came to do and are undoubtedly still patting themselves on the back for.  

Maybe fascism is a celebrated Canadian value -but it sure as hell isn't an American one.   If you don't like the political views of a speaker, the proper response is not to try and prevent that person from speaking at all.  It is with MORE speech that attempts to address, counter, argue or debate what she said that you disagree with!  If your ideas are superior then you should be able to win any debate and withstand any challenge from opposing views.  The left has no faith in the ability of their views to withstand a challenge for a very specific reason.  They can't.  History has repeatedly proven their ideas are utter failures  -so they resort to this kind of crap instead.

When I was in college, a neonazi group had been invited to campus to speak.  (Nazism is also born of leftist ideology as is any system involving the totalitarian state.  Anarchy, no state control at all, is extreme rightwing ideology.  One totalitarian state is NOT the opposite of another one.)  This was back in the day when it was understood one of the most effective ways to get college students to think about what they really believed was to allow them to hear a wide variety of clashing ideas and views.  A group of college students were so offended about the idea of allowing them to speak they went around trying to gather signatures demanding the neonazis be canceled.  When I was approached for my signature, refusing to sign was one of the most difficult things I did because I would have loved nothing more than for them to be canceled.  But I did refuse -because I had already formed my own principles by then and my principles meant more to me than any particular speech.  Then and now.    I tried to explain to her that the best and most effective response to speech you found offensive and thoroughly disagreed with was NOT to drive it underground.  But to let them speak which would prove to everyone that what they had to say was truly revolting.   The girl who had asked me to sign kept insisting that if I didn't sign it meant I WANTED them to speak which was pure bullshit.  She couldn't come to grips with the fact that believing in free speech meant NOTHING if it only applied to speech you agreed with.  If you applaud what the Canadian students did, it means something really significant.  It means I cannot trust people like you to safeguard MY rights and freedoms -because it is ONLY the speech you DON'T like that tests your belief about that.  And if you find yourself applauding what these people did, it means you flunked the only test that matters and it probably applies to all the other rights as well.   I didn't sign the petition to cancel the neonazi speech.  I also didn't attend the speech because whatever they had to say was never worth a minute of MY precious time in the first place.  The worst response a neonazi wants to see is total INDIFFERENCE.  I am not someone who thinks my own political views are so fragile and delicate that they just cannot tolerate a challenge from those with different views.  There is a reason leftist believe the opposite about their own however -and why they so often respond to different views by using intimidation and the threats of violence to try and silence them.     

In recent years there have been several conservative speakers on college campuses where some students attempted to disrupt the event in this fashion -including when Coulter was speaking.  But in THOSE cases, it was the shouters and disrupters who were removed -not the invited speaker and their audience.  See, in THIS country we understand who really has the rights in such situations which is why the fascist hyenas were not rewarded and were the ones who were dragged out when they pulled that crap here.  So try coming to this country and pulling that stunt you Canadian fascist little shits.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

del said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... any generalization, such as the one i've made re: coulter, is by definition inaccurate when considering specifics. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know what's fascinatin' about this, is that such assertions, while commonly advanced; are NEVER advanced with any argument wherein the Coulter opposition demonstrates her position as being inaccurate.
> 
> Would you like to be the exception Del? Or just keep the damage down to this little refutation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> clearly you're laboring under the misconception that your opinion counts for something to someone.
> 
> that may be true, but i'm not the someone.
> 
> have a nice day.
> 
> preferably somewhere else.
Click to expand...

 

ROFL  

Oh OK... So you're claiming then that the opposition isn't worthy of you actually sustaining your argument; thus you're conceding the point.  

Fair enough...  

And pleasse Sis... don't feel bad... It's not like ya had a shot, now is it?

Again kids...  Del here is a Progressive... a long standing advocate of taking a little from the Right ideology and the wrong and finding a happy medium through compromise.  

She advanced an assertion; was asked to sustain it; and ran to change the subject...  Proving as she always does, that they simply can't compete.  

They WANT TO... _they really do_.

But when the rubber of truth, hits the road of reason... they come up short *every single time*.

*Recognize what's happened here... a Progressive has just demonstrated that when they're encouraged to demonstrate the product of their reasoning; the result is Regression.*

*WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME THING THAT THE CANUKISTANI ACADEMIC RIOTERS DID... Which is exactly what Miss Coulter's position on the issue is; which means that despite her best efforts to prove otherwise; Del here has proven Miss Coulter's position to be TRUE.*

LOL... Now how Cool is that, huh...?

Good job Del... I knew I could count on ya.


----------



## Ravi

Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.

For example.


> More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."


American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks

Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.

And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.

Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.

That is all.


----------



## Samson

Ravi said:


> Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.
> 
> For example.
> 
> 
> 
> More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."
> 
> 
> 
> American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks
> 
> Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.
> 
> And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.
> 
> Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.
> 
> That is all.
Click to expand...


I know I'd be pissed off if she told me to "take a sheep."


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ravi said:


> Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.
> 
> For example.
> 
> 
> 
> More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."
> 
> 
> 
> American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks
> 
> Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.
> 
> And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.
> 
> Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.
> 
> That is all.
Click to expand...

 

"_Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws._"

Indeed... JUST as the existence of Canadian Law is _*construed*_ to be a valid means to usurp Human Rights... just as the existence of the Jews was construed to be a threat to humanity, by your ideological predecessors... And the way the nation of Israel is construed to be a threat to Middle-east peace... by YOU and your Pro-terrorist comrades... and the way that the US GWOT was construed to be US IMPERIALISM... By you and your pro-terrorist, anti-American comrades.

'Construed' is synonymous with 'rationalization'... and that's what the Left is doing here.

And it's the same sort of rationalization which was used to design the recent illicit parlamentary ruse for the Democrats in Congress to 'pass' a bill which they never voted on; in direct contradiction to the US Constitution... 

Humanism... Moral Relativism... deceit... fraud.

Recognize friends that what we're looking at here is a group of people who imparted violence to restrict someone's speech, all under the rationalization that this persons IDEAS may potentially lead to violence... 

They imparted an irrationally strong dislike for Miss Coulter; who they claim advocates an irrationally strong dislike for people...

Seeing the pattern here?

As is ALWAYS the case; the left comes to LAMENT; THAT WHICH THEY HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE...


----------



## Ravi

Samson said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.
> 
> For example.
> 
> 
> 
> More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."
> 
> 
> 
> American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks
> 
> Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.
> 
> And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.
> 
> Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I'd be pissed off if she told me to "take a sheep."
Click to expand...

 It's easy for her to go to Canada and spout off but notice she is too chicken to go to an actual Islamic country and do the same.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ravi taking abuse to a whole new level said:
			
		

> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know what's fascinatin' about this, is that such assertions, while commonly advanced; are NEVER advanced with any argument wherein the Coulter opposition demonstrates her position as being inaccurate.
> 
> Would you like to be the exception Del? Or just keep the damage down to this little refutation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clearly you're laboring under the misconception that your opinion counts for something to someone.
> 
> that may be true, but i'm not the someone.
> 
> have a nice day.
> 
> preferably somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Oh OK... So you're claiming then that the opposition isn't worthy of you actually sustaining your argument; thus you're conceding the point.
> 
> Fair enough...
> 
> And pleasse Sis... don't feel bad... It's not like ya had a shot, now is it?
> 
> Again kids... Del here is a Progressive... a long standing advocate of taking a little from the Right ideology and the wrong and finding a happy medium through compromise.
> 
> She advanced an assertion; was asked to sustain it; and ran to change the subject... Proving as she always does, that they simply can't compete.
> 
> They WANT TO... _they really do_.
> 
> But when the rubber of truth, hits the road of reason... they come up short *every single time*.
> 
> *Recognize what's happened here... a Progressive has just demonstrated that when they're encouraged to demonstrate the product of their reasoning; the result is Regression.*
> 
> *WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME THING THAT THE CANUKISTANI ACADEMIC RIOTERS DID... Which is exactly what Miss Coulter's position on the issue is; which means that despite her best efforts to prove otherwise; Del here has proven Miss Coulter's position to be TRUE.*
> 
> LOL... Now how Cool is that, huh...?
> 
> Good job Del... I knew I could count on ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> neg-rep for hatin' on women
Click to expand...

 
Now THAT is a Sweet Irony... This cow has been in here *HATIN' ON A WOMAN FOR TWO DAYS*... and wants to neg-rep ME for pointing out the feminized quality inherent in Leftist Males.

*Clearly, another CLASSIC example of a Left-think *_*Construing to an invalid conclusion; just as Ravi construed to such directly above.* _


----------



## Ravi

awww...I thought you turned off your rep because it was meaningless to you.

Tissue?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ravi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.
> 
> For example.
> American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks
> 
> Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.
> 
> And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.
> 
> Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I'd be pissed off if she told me to "take a sheep."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's easy for her to go to Canada and spout off but notice she is too chicken to go to an actual Islamic country and do the same.
Click to expand...

 

ROFL... So Coulter is a COWARD? 

Now is Ann Coulter a woman? Why I believe _she is_...

And did Miss Coulter not accept an invitation to debate an entire student body which she readily understands vehemently disagrees with her own ideas?  And is such behavior NOT an indisputable sign of moral fortitude?

So would NOT the conclusion which determines that an indisputable act of sound moral fortitude, is a sign of a _lack of fortitude_... be an IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION?

And is denigrating a person's moral fortitude not indicative of a STRONG DISLIKE OF SOMEONE?  And where one demonstrates a STRONG DISLIKE FOR SOMEONE, based upon an irrational species of reasoning; is not such a response exemplifying an IRRATIONAL DISLIKE that person? And is not Hate defined as an intense, or irrational dislike for someone?   

And where that someone is a WOMAN... Would that NOT BE AN INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE OF "*HATIN' ON WOMEN?*"

*So is Ravi not HATING on WOMEN?* 

.

.

.

.


And has Ravi not repeatedly demanded that her chronic misuse of the Rep-system is justified because of what SHE *CONSTRUES* as my having 'hated on women?'

And did I not JUST say that Leftists; with Ravi being pointed out as a classic example; ARE CHRONICALLY GUILTY OF EXACTLY THAT WHICH THEY CHRONICALLY LAMENT?

ROFL...

Yes, kids... I am THAT GOOD... _It's what I do_. 

Now I would ask that those of you who feel that Ravi deserves a Neg-rep based upon HER BEING PROVEN TO BE IN VIOLATION OF HER OWN PERSONAL POLICY... I'd ask that ya give the cow a pos-rep instead. We want to encourage these people to be who they are. 

The November elections are coming... and we want to tie THEIR behaviorial traits; the deciet, the fraud, the hypocrisy... to their elected representatives... We want as many people as POSSIBLE, within our limited means to see the Progressives on this board, behaving as the Congress, Senate, and Executive Progressives are behaving.

I doubt we'll influence more than 40 or 50 people directly in that time... but they'll influence those in their orb, through the education inherent in the experience and that provides an exponential force multiplier.

We want to encourage Leftists to be LEFTIST! When they are themselves... THEY LOSE. It's ONLY when they try to be US, that the a-political respond in support of them.


----------



## Ravi

Yes, Coulter is a coward. She hides behind Canadian college students and is afraid to stand up for her principles by going to an Islamic country and making the same remarks.

Oh, wait...she has no principles. My bad.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.
> 
> For example.
> American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks
> 
> Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.
> 
> And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.
> 
> Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I'd be pissed off if she told me to "take a sheep."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's easy for her to go to Canada and spout off but notice she is too chicken to go to an actual Islamic country and do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL... So Coulter is a COWARD?
> 
> Now is Ann Coulter a woman? Why I believe _she is_...
> 
> And did Miss Coulter not accept an invitation to debate an entire student body which she readily understands vehemently disagrees with her own ideas? And is such behavior NOT an indisputable sign of moral fortitude?
> 
> So would NOT the conclusion which determines that an indisputable act of sound moral fortitude, is a sign of a _lack of fortitude_... be an IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION?
> 
> And is denigrating a person's moral fortitude not indicative of a STRONG DISLIKE OF SOMEONE? And where one demonstrates a STRONG DISLIKE FOR SOMEONE, based upon an irrational species of reasoning; is not such a response exemplifying an IRRATIONAL DISLIKE that person? And is not Hate defined as an intense, or irrational dislike for someone?
> 
> And where that someone is a WOMAN... Would that NOT BE AN INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE OF "*HATIN' ON WOMEN?*"
> 
> *So is Ravi not HATING on WOMEN?*
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> And has Ravi not repeatedly demanded that her chronic misuse of the Rep-system is justified because of what SHE *CONSTRUES* as my having 'hated on women?'
> 
> And did I not JUST say that Leftists; with Ravi being pointed out as a classic example; ARE CHRONICALLY GUILTY OF EXACTLY THAT WHICH THEY CHRONICALLY LAMENT?
> 
> ROFL...
> 
> Yes, kids... I am THAT GOOD... _It's what I do_.
> 
> Now I would ask that those of you who feel that Ravi deserves a Neg-rep based upon HER BEING PROVEN TO BE IN VIOLATION OF HER OWN PERSONAL POLICY... I'd ask that ya give the cow a pos-rep instead. We want to encourage these people to be who they are.
> 
> The November elections are coming... and we want to tie THEIR behaviorial traits; the deciet, the fraud, the hypocrisy... to their elected representatives... We want as many people as POSSIBLE, within our limited means to see the Progressives on this board, behaving as the Congress, Senate, and Executive Progressives are behaving.
> 
> I doubt we'll influence more than 40 or 50 people directly in that time... but they'll influence those in their orb, through the education inherent in the experience and that provides an exponential force multiplier.
> 
> We want to encourage Leftists to be LEFTIST! When they are themselves... THEY LOSE. It's ONLY when they try to be US, that the a-political respond in support of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Coulter is a coward. She hides behind Canadian college students and is afraid to stand up for her principles by going to an Islamic country and making the same remarks.
> 
> Oh, wait...she has no principles. My bad.
Click to expand...

 
*BRAVO! *

*So Ravi RETURNS to AGAIN HATE ON WOMEN... To denigrate the strong moral fiber of someone who accepted an inviation to debate an entire student body who she know vehemently disagrees with her; and only canceled the debate; when those leftist turned to violence.*

*Ya see kids... Ravi "Construed" from Miss Coulter; a petite blonde woman's acceptance of the invitation to debate... That such was an agreement to participate in a fight to the death... mortal combat...*

*ROFLMNAO...*















*LEFTISTS...*


----------



## Sofus

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL... So Coulter is a COWARD?
> 
> Now is Ann Coulter a woman? Why I believe _she is_...
> 
> And did Miss Coulter not accept an invitation to debate an entire student body which she readily understands vehemently disagrees with her own ideas? And is such behavior NOT an indisputable sign of moral fortitude?
> 
> So would NOT the conclusion which determines that an indisputable act of sound moral fortitude, is a sign of a _lack of fortitude_... be an IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION?
> 
> And is denigrating a person's moral fortitude not indicative of a STRONG DISLIKE OF SOMEONE? And where one demonstrates a STRONG DISLIKE FOR SOMEONE, based upon an irrational species of reasoning; is not such a response exemplifying an IRRATIONAL DISLIKE that person? And is not Hate defined as an intense, or irrational dislike for someone?
> 
> And where that someone is a WOMAN... Would that NOT BE AN INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE OF "*HATIN' ON WOMEN?*"
> 
> *So is Ravi not HATING on WOMEN?*
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> And has Ravi not repeatedly demanded that her chronic misuse of the Rep-system is justified because of what SHE *CONSTRUES* as my having 'hated on women?'
> 
> And did I not JUST say that Leftists; with Ravi being pointed out as a classic example; ARE CHRONICALLY GUILTY OF EXACTLY THAT WHICH THEY CHRONICALLY LAMENT?
> 
> ROFL...
> 
> Yes, kids... I am THAT GOOD... _It's what I do_.
> 
> Now I would ask that those of you who feel that Ravi deserves a Neg-rep based upon HER BEING PROVEN TO BE IN VIOLATION OF HER OWN PERSONAL POLICY... I'd ask that ya give the cow a pos-rep instead. We want to encourage these people to be who they are.
> 
> The November elections are coming... and we want to tie THEIR behaviorial traits; the deciet, the fraud, the hypocrisy... to their elected representatives... We want as many people as POSSIBLE, within our limited means to see the Progressives on this board, behaving as the Congress, Senate, and Executive Progressives are behaving.
> 
> I doubt we'll influence more than 40 or 50 people directly in that time... but they'll influence those in their orb, through the education inherent in the experience and that provides an exponential force multiplier.
> 
> We want to encourage Leftists to be LEFTIST! When they are themselves... THEY LOSE. It's ONLY when they try to be US, that the a-political respond in support of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Coulter is a coward. She hides behind Canadian college students and is afraid to stand up for her principles by going to an Islamic country and making the same remarks.
> 
> Oh, wait...she has no principles. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BRAVO! *
> 
> *So Ravi RETURNS to AGAIN HATE ON WOMEN... To denigrate the strong moral fiber of someone who accepted an inviation to debate an entire student body who she know vehemently disagrees with her; and only canceled the debate; when those leftist turned to violence.*
> 
> *Ya see kids... Ravi "Construed" from Miss Coulter; a petite blonde woman's acceptance of the invitation to debate... That such was an agreement to participate in a fight to the death... mortal combat...*
> 
> *ROFLMNAO...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LEFTISTS...*
Click to expand...


What I call into question is that notion that Ms. Coulter can debate!


----------



## Sofus

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem you share with that guy Coulter PC...Canada is a sovereign nation, it is not an annex of the United States.
> 
> University of Ottawa Academic Vice President and Provost Francois Houle e-mailed Coulter prior to his visit. He wrote:
> 
> "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here."
> 
> He continued, "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
> 
> Houle also reminded Coulter of the strong Canadian* tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration." *
> 
> Sure SOUNDS like what used to be defined as conservative ideals...before incendiary and hate-filled goons like Coulter and Limbaugh started spreading their hate, disrespect and lack of ANY consideration for anyone that doesn't share their hate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your feeling toward Queen Ann clouds your understanding of the fundemental question involved.
> 
> Allow me to redirect you concentration: "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States."
> If one were to research 'oxymoron' in a dictionary, that sentence would be an example of same.
> 
> Either there is free speech, or there is censorship.
> 
> The CYA terminology "Promoting hatred" should appeal to you, since a hallmark of the liberal is 'feeling is as good as knowing.'
> 
> And, of course, you are identifiable as a liberal by you as hominum attack on the Queen with the less-than-witty "that guy Coulter."  I guess that makes you an "incendiary and hate-filled goon..."
> 
> In what frame of reference is restricting free speech considered "as conservative ideals.'?
> 
> And for the purposes of reviewing the OP and this thread, and to show how you have again veered off the path, your phrase "Canada is a sovereign nation..."
> 1. No one has claimed otherwise.
> 2. No one thinks that this is particularly clever.
> 3. No one has insisted that Canada change its speech policy.
> 4. Most thinking folks believe that free speech is a higher value than restricted speech.
> 
> Except Progressives, and you...I don't wish to insult Progressives, by seeming to include you in their group: they don't want any BoringFriendlessGuys.
> 
> And now, I'd like to invite our Canadian friends to join in celebrating the Seattle Metropolitans, who, on this day (March 27) of 1917, defeated the Montreal Canadians to become the first US team to win the Stanley Cup!
> Hip hip hooray!
> 
> And a big cheer for Ann Coulter, as well!
> 
> No, huh? OK, be like that.
Click to expand...


Coulter loves the controversy, it is what sells her books, those nasty liberals denying her her rights!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Sofus said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Coulter is a coward. She hides behind Canadian college students and is afraid to stand up for her principles by going to an Islamic country and making the same remarks.
> 
> Oh, wait...she has no principles. My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BRAVO! *
> 
> *So Ravi RETURNS to AGAIN HATE ON WOMEN... To denigrate the strong moral fiber of someone who accepted an inviation to debate an entire student body who she know vehemently disagrees with her; and only canceled the debate; when those leftist turned to violence.*
> 
> *Ya see kids... Ravi "Construed" from Miss Coulter; a petite blonde woman's acceptance of the invitation to debate... That such was an agreement to participate in a fight to the death... mortal combat...*
> 
> *ROFLMNAO...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LEFTISTS...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I call into question is that notion that Ms. Coulter can debate!
Click to expand...

 

Well Sis... all that position does is to call into question your own cognitive means...  suggesting that you've either no knowledge of Miss Coulter's considerable experience; her remarkable record in debate and the simple fact that the Left's HATRED for Miss Coulter rests upon THEIR resentment for her having kicked their collective asses around the field with their being helpless to do a damn thing about it, for these last 20 odd years; or you're simply an imbecile.

Take your pick... 

Of course ya COULD actually offer a substantive argument...  in support of you failing assertion... but to do THAT, you'd actually have to be something other than an imbecile.

So given the evidence thus far... THAT's not lookin' too good.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Sofus said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem you share with that guy Coulter PC...Canada is a sovereign nation, it is not an annex of the United States.
> 
> University of Ottawa Academic Vice President and Provost Francois Houle e-mailed Coulter prior to his visit. He wrote:
> 
> "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here."
> 
> He continued, "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
> 
> Houle also reminded Coulter of the strong Canadian* tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration." *
> 
> Sure SOUNDS like what used to be defined as conservative ideals...before incendiary and hate-filled goons like Coulter and Limbaugh started spreading their hate, disrespect and lack of ANY consideration for anyone that doesn't share their hate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your feeling toward Queen Ann clouds your understanding of the fundemental question involved.
> 
> Allow me to redirect you concentration: "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States."
> If one were to research 'oxymoron' in a dictionary, that sentence would be an example of same.
> 
> Either there is free speech, or there is censorship.
> 
> The CYA terminology "Promoting hatred" should appeal to you, since a hallmark of the liberal is 'feeling is as good as knowing.'
> 
> And, of course, you are identifiable as a liberal by you as hominum attack on the Queen with the less-than-witty "that guy Coulter." I guess that makes you an "incendiary and hate-filled goon..."
> 
> In what frame of reference is restricting free speech considered "as conservative ideals.'?
> 
> And for the purposes of reviewing the OP and this thread, and to show how you have again veered off the path, your phrase "Canada is a sovereign nation..."
> 1. No one has claimed otherwise.
> 2. No one thinks that this is particularly clever.
> 3. No one has insisted that Canada change its speech policy.
> 4. Most thinking folks believe that free speech is a higher value than restricted speech.
> 
> Except Progressives, and you...I don't wish to insult Progressives, by seeming to include you in their group: they don't want any BoringFriendlessGuys.
> 
> And now, I'd like to invite our Canadian friends to join in celebrating the Seattle Metropolitans, who, on this day (March 27) of 1917, defeated the Montreal Canadians to become the first US team to win the Stanley Cup!
> Hip hip hooray!
> 
> And a big cheer for Ann Coulter, as well!
> 
> No, huh? OK, be like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coulter loves the controversy, it is what sells her books, those nasty liberals denying her her rights!
Click to expand...

 

Hmmm... So we're back to the 'chicken and the egg'...  Which came first, the Left's failure to rebut her argument or the "Controversy"?  

I'm thinkin' the the Left's failure to sustain a defense... IS the controversy... 

So, ya may want to trot out something else.

Not to worry... I'll be here for ya.


----------



## Sofus

Which one do you want me to refute?  the only point the little lady has is at the top of her head...


----------



## Ravi

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL... So Coulter is a COWARD?
> 
> Now is Ann Coulter a woman? Why I believe _she is_...
> 
> And did Miss Coulter not accept an invitation to debate an entire student body which she readily understands vehemently disagrees with her own ideas? And is such behavior NOT an indisputable sign of moral fortitude?
> 
> So would NOT the conclusion which determines that an indisputable act of sound moral fortitude, is a sign of a _lack of fortitude_... be an IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION?
> 
> And is denigrating a person's moral fortitude not indicative of a STRONG DISLIKE OF SOMEONE? And where one demonstrates a STRONG DISLIKE FOR SOMEONE, based upon an irrational species of reasoning; is not such a response exemplifying an IRRATIONAL DISLIKE that person? And is not Hate defined as an intense, or irrational dislike for someone?
> 
> And where that someone is a WOMAN... Would that NOT BE AN INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE OF "*HATIN' ON WOMEN?*"
> 
> *So is Ravi not HATING on WOMEN?*
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> And has Ravi not repeatedly demanded that her chronic misuse of the Rep-system is justified because of what SHE *CONSTRUES* as my having 'hated on women?'
> 
> And did I not JUST say that Leftists; with Ravi being pointed out as a classic example; ARE CHRONICALLY GUILTY OF EXACTLY THAT WHICH THEY CHRONICALLY LAMENT?
> 
> ROFL...
> 
> Yes, kids... I am THAT GOOD... _It's what I do_.
> 
> Now I would ask that those of you who feel that Ravi deserves a Neg-rep based upon HER BEING PROVEN TO BE IN VIOLATION OF HER OWN PERSONAL POLICY... I'd ask that ya give the cow a pos-rep instead. We want to encourage these people to be who they are.
> 
> The November elections are coming... and we want to tie THEIR behaviorial traits; the deciet, the fraud, the hypocrisy... to their elected representatives... We want as many people as POSSIBLE, within our limited means to see the Progressives on this board, behaving as the Congress, Senate, and Executive Progressives are behaving.
> 
> I doubt we'll influence more than 40 or 50 people directly in that time... but they'll influence those in their orb, through the education inherent in the experience and that provides an exponential force multiplier.
> 
> We want to encourage Leftists to be LEFTIST! When they are themselves... THEY LOSE. It's ONLY when they try to be US, that the a-political respond in support of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Coulter is a coward. She hides behind Canadian college students and is afraid to stand up for her principles by going to an Islamic country and making the same remarks.
> 
> Oh, wait...she has no principles. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BRAVO! *
> 
> *So Ravi RETURNS to AGAIN HATE ON WOMEN... To denigrate the strong moral fiber of someone who accepted an inviation to debate an entire student body who she know vehemently disagrees with her; and only canceled the debate; when those leftist turned to violence.*
> 
> *Ya see kids... Ravi "Construed" from Miss Coulter; a petite blonde woman's acceptance of the invitation to debate... That such was an agreement to participate in a fight to the death... mortal combat...*
> 
> *ROFLMNAO...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LEFTISTS...*
Click to expand...

I don't excuse or condemn people because of their gender. Coulter isn't a coward because she's a woman, she's simply a coward.

Kind of like you...when's the last time you went to an Islamic country and told them to ride camels?


----------



## Sofus

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Sofus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your feeling toward Queen Ann clouds your understanding of the fundemental question involved.
> 
> Allow me to redirect you concentration: "Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States."
> If one were to research 'oxymoron' in a dictionary, that sentence would be an example of same.
> 
> Either there is free speech, or there is censorship.
> 
> The CYA terminology "Promoting hatred" should appeal to you, since a hallmark of the liberal is 'feeling is as good as knowing.'
> 
> And, of course, you are identifiable as a liberal by you as hominum attack on the Queen with the less-than-witty "that guy Coulter." I guess that makes you an "incendiary and hate-filled goon..."
> 
> In what frame of reference is restricting free speech considered "as conservative ideals.'?
> 
> And for the purposes of reviewing the OP and this thread, and to show how you have again veered off the path, your phrase "Canada is a sovereign nation..."
> 1. No one has claimed otherwise.
> 2. No one thinks that this is particularly clever.
> 3. No one has insisted that Canada change its speech policy.
> 4. Most thinking folks believe that free speech is a higher value than restricted speech.
> 
> Except Progressives, and you...I don't wish to insult Progressives, by seeming to include you in their group: they don't want any BoringFriendlessGuys.
> 
> And now, I'd like to invite our Canadian friends to join in celebrating the Seattle Metropolitans, who, on this day (March 27) of 1917, defeated the Montreal Canadians to become the first US team to win the Stanley Cup!
> Hip hip hooray!
> 
> And a big cheer for Ann Coulter, as well!
> 
> No, huh? OK, be like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coulter loves the controversy, it is what sells her books, those nasty liberals denying her her rights!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... So we're back to the 'chicken and the egg'...  Which came first, the Left's failure to rebut her argument or the "Controversy"?
> 
> I'm thinkin' the the Left's failure to sustain a defense... IS the controversy...
> 
> So, ya may want to trot out something else.
> 
> Not to worry... I'll be here for ya.
Click to expand...


"They have the right to protest," Rebick said. "She's the one who made the decision not to speak. 

Sounds like a personal call.  There were no arrests made, I think she over reacted, for the sake of her book sales!


----------



## Samson

Ravi said:


> ]I don't excuse or condemn people because of their gender. Coulter isn't a coward because she's a woman, she's simply a coward.
> 
> Kind of like you...when's the last time you went to an Islamic country and told them to ride camels?




I'd think they'd find it funny


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Sofus said:


> Which one do you want me to refute? the only point the little lady has is at the top of her head...


 

ROFL... Isn't it cool how of the ENTIRE HISTORY OF Miss Coulter... where the implication is that '_she's GOT NOTHIN'!_'

When challenged to simply sustain the assertion... THEY'VE GOT NOTHIN'!

Again... not 10 minutes ago I stated, AS FACT that the ideological Left will inevitably lament THAT OF WHICH THEY ARE GUILTY.  They come to criticize WHAT THEY ARE.

This crank wants simply to PRETEND that she's an argument...   It's all they've GOT!  

And the delusion is sufficiently thick, that there is NO AMOUNT of refutation which will convince 'em otherwise.

20 or so pages on Ann Coulter and NOT A SINGLE POST which provides anything approaching a valid contest of a damn thing she's ever said.

And yet here they are, 20 pages later STILL every BIT as convinced that they know something about Coulter which discredits who she is or what she says...

It's *DELUSION ON PARADE!*


----------



## Sofus

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Sofus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one do you want me to refute? the only point the little lady has is at the top of her head...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL... Isn't it cool how of the ENTIRE HISTORY OF Miss Coulter... where the implication is that '_she's GOT NOTHIN'!_'
> 
> When challenged to simply sustain the assertion... THEY'VE GOT NOTHIN'!
> 
> Again... not 10 minutes ago I stated, AS FACT that the ideological Left will inevitably lament THAT OF WHICH THEY ARE GUILTY.  They come to criticize WHAT THEY ARE.
> 
> This crank wants simply to PRETEND that she's an argument...   It's all they've GOT!
> 
> And the delusion is sufficiently thick, that there is NO AMOUNT of refutation which will convince 'em otherwise.
> 
> 20 or so pages on Ann Coulter and NOT A SINGLE POST which provides anything approaching a valid contest of a damn thing she's ever said.
> 
> And yet here they are, 20 pages later STILL every BIT as convinced that they know something about Coulter which discredits who she is or what she says...
> 
> It's *DELUSION ON PARADE!*
Click to expand...


So, you have nothing and won't give me something to show you that she has nothing.  She discredits herself everytime she opens her mouth.  She doesn't need anyone help.  So, how about the camel comment, was she on spot with that one?  just an example of her rapier wit!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Sofus said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sofus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coulter loves the controversy, it is what sells her books, those nasty liberals denying her her rights!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... So we're back to the 'chicken and the egg'... Which came first, the Left's failure to rebut her argument or the "Controversy"?
> 
> I'm thinkin' the the Left's failure to sustain a defense... IS the controversy...
> 
> So, ya may want to trot out something else.
> 
> Not to worry... I'll be here for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They have the right to protest," Rebick said. "She's the one who made the decision not to speak.
> 
> Sounds like a personal call. There were no arrests made, I think she over reacted, for the sake of her book sales!
Click to expand...

 

AGAIN... Humanist, Relativism... DECEIT...  Fraud.

Ya see kids.. Coulter cancelled because the kids were protestin'...   

Not because of RIOTS... Not because of the death threats... No NO!  The Left needs to project a deceit, they need to perpetrate a FRAUD.

Deem and Pass... Vote to pass a senate bill YA NEVER VOTED ON... 

See how it all ties together?  It's all the same species of reasoning... Means/End... fraud, deceit, moral relativism... Humanism...  Left-think.


----------



## del

PubliusInfinitum said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know what's fascinatin' about this, is that such assertions, while commonly advanced; are NEVER advanced with any argument wherein the Coulter opposition demonstrates her position as being inaccurate.
> 
> Would you like to be the exception Del? Or just keep the damage down to this little refutation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clearly you're laboring under the misconception that your opinion counts for something to someone.
> 
> that may be true, but i'm not the someone.
> 
> have a nice day.
> 
> preferably somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Oh OK... So you're claiming then that the opposition isn't worthy of you actually sustaining your argument; thus you're conceding the point.
> 
> Fair enough...
> 
> And pleasse Sis... don't feel bad... It's not like ya had a shot, now is it?
> 
> Again kids...  Del here is a Progressive... a long standing advocate of taking a little from the Right ideology and the wrong and finding a happy medium through compromise.
> 
> She advanced an assertion; was asked to sustain it; and ran to change the subject...  Proving as she always does, that they simply can't compete.
> 
> They WANT TO... _they really do_.
> 
> But when the rubber of truth, hits the road of reason... they come up short *every single time*.
> 
> *Recognize what's happened here... a Progressive has just demonstrated that when they're encouraged to demonstrate the product of their reasoning; the result is Regression.*
> 
> *WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME THING THAT THE CANUKISTANI ACADEMIC RIOTERS DID... Which is exactly what Miss Coulter's position on the issue is; which means that despite her best efforts to prove otherwise; Del here has proven Miss Coulter's position to be TRUE.*
> 
> LOL... Now how Cool is that, huh...?
> 
> Good job Del... I knew I could count on ya.
Click to expand...


let me put this in simple terms that even an intellectual giant such as yourself should be able to pick up after reading it through fifteen or sixteen times.

i don't care what you think. 

it's a very simple concept; perhaps if you write it backwards on your forehead, you'll be able to remember it. 

use multiple colors and large fonts if that aids in what passes for your cognitive processes.

o-tay, spanky?


----------



## Sofus

Chasing of the tail.


----------



## del

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi taking abuse to a whole new level said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Oh OK... So you're claiming then that the opposition isn't worthy of you actually sustaining your argument; thus you're conceding the point.
> 
> Fair enough...
> 
> And pleasse Sis... don't feel bad... It's not like ya had a shot, now is it?
> 
> Again kids... Del here is a Progressive... a long standing advocate of taking a little from the Right ideology and the wrong and finding a happy medium through compromise.
> 
> She advanced an assertion; was asked to sustain it; and ran to change the subject... Proving as she always does, that they simply can't compete.
> 
> They WANT TO... _they really do_.
> 
> But when the rubber of truth, hits the road of reason... they come up short *every single time*.
> 
> *Recognize what's happened here... a Progressive has just demonstrated that when they're encouraged to demonstrate the product of their reasoning; the result is Regression.*
> 
> *WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME THING THAT THE CANUKISTANI ACADEMIC RIOTERS DID... Which is exactly what Miss Coulter's position on the issue is; which means that despite her best efforts to prove otherwise; Del here has proven Miss Coulter's position to be TRUE.*
> 
> LOL... Now how Cool is that, huh...?
> 
> Good job Del... I knew I could count on ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neg-rep for hatin' on women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT is a Sweet Irony... This cow has been in here *HATIN' ON A WOMAN FOR TWO DAYS*... and wants to neg-rep ME for pointing out the feminized quality inherent in Leftist Males.
> 
> *Clearly, another CLASSIC example of a Left-think *_*Construing to an invalid conclusion; just as Ravi construed to such directly above.* _
Click to expand...


do you ever stop whining, nancy boy?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Sofus said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sofus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one do you want me to refute? the only point the little lady has is at the top of her head...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL... Isn't it cool how of the ENTIRE HISTORY OF Miss Coulter... where the implication is that '_she's GOT NOTHIN'!_'
> 
> When challenged to simply sustain the assertion... THEY'VE GOT NOTHIN'!
> 
> Again... not 10 minutes ago I stated, AS FACT that the ideological Left will inevitably lament THAT OF WHICH THEY ARE GUILTY. They come to criticize WHAT THEY ARE.
> 
> This crank wants simply to PRETEND that she's an argument... It's all they've GOT!
> 
> And the delusion is sufficiently thick, that there is NO AMOUNT of refutation which will convince 'em otherwise.
> 
> 20 or so pages on Ann Coulter and NOT A SINGLE POST which provides anything approaching a valid contest of a damn thing she's ever said.
> 
> And yet here they are, 20 pages later STILL every BIT as convinced that they know something about Coulter which discredits who she is or what she says...
> 
> It's *DELUSION ON PARADE!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you have nothing and won't give me something to show you that she has nothing. She discredits herself everytime she opens her mouth. She doesn't need anyone help. So, how about the camel comment, was she on spot with that one? just an example of her rapier wit!
Click to expand...

 


ROFLMNAO...

SWEET MOTHER!  Someone tackle this poor woman.

Understand what she just did here...  

She's IMPLIED, and rather emphatically that she has first hand and direct knowledge of Ann Coulter...  She's a substantial command of the facts regarding Miss Coulter; and in particular, Miss Coulter's failure in debate.

So I simply challenge the moron to support the implication...

She returns, unable to do so...  So I point out the failure... and what's she do?  Does she admit that she's full of crap?  Does she advance an intellectually virtuous admission that she's prone to dislike Miss Coulter, but this is a result of an emotional response spurred mostly by what she perceives as a popular concensus?

Nope...

She's a humanist... a Progressive... A liar; a deluded fool... 

So SHE DOUBLES DOWN!

"_So, you have nothing and won't give me something to show you that she has nothing._"

What I have is your implication that Coulter can't debate and a direct and unambiguous challenge for you to support that implication.

"_She discredits herself everytime she opens her mouth._"

Yeah see... that's your problem... Miss Coulter opens her mouth A LOT!

You've stated that you have first hand knowledge of her discrediting herself everytime she does so... and yet here ya are needing ME to provide ya with an example...

Like I mentioned earlier... It's lookin' like you're an imbecile.  So ya might want to cut your losses here; and go find something discuss in the craft threads.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

del said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi taking abuse to a whole new level said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neg-rep for hatin' on women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT is a Sweet Irony... This cow has been in here *HATIN' ON A WOMAN FOR TWO DAYS*... and wants to neg-rep ME for pointing out the feminized quality inherent in Leftist Males.
> 
> *Clearly, another CLASSIC example of a Left-think *_*Construing to an invalid conclusion; just as Ravi construed to such directly above.* _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you ever stop whining, nancy boy?
Click to expand...

 
What's that Mrs. Malaprop?  

FYI; ya might want to look up the words you're not sure about... and here's another clue...  be a lot less sure about the words ya use.

It'll spare ya all this humiliation.


----------



## del

PubliusInfinitum said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT is a Sweet Irony... This cow has been in here *HATIN' ON A WOMAN FOR TWO DAYS*... and wants to neg-rep ME for pointing out the feminized quality inherent in Leftist Males.
> 
> *Clearly, another CLASSIC example of a Left-think *_*Construing to an invalid conclusion; just as Ravi construed to such directly above.* _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you ever stop whining, nancy boy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that Mrs. Malaprop?
> 
> FYI; ya might want to look up the words you're not sure about... and here's another clue...  be a lot less sure about the words ya use.
> 
> It'll spare ya all this humiliation.
Click to expand...


when did humiliation become a synonym for tedium, brainiac?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

del said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> clearly you're laboring under the misconception that your opinion counts for something to someone.
> 
> that may be true, but i'm not the someone.
> 
> have a nice day.
> 
> preferably somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Oh OK... So you're claiming then that the opposition isn't worthy of you actually sustaining your argument; thus you're conceding the point.
> 
> Fair enough...
> 
> And pleasse Sis... don't feel bad... It's not like ya had a shot, now is it?
> 
> Again kids... Del here is a Progressive... a long standing advocate of taking a little from the Right ideology and the wrong and finding a happy medium through compromise.
> 
> She advanced an assertion; was asked to sustain it; and ran to change the subject... Proving as she always does, that they simply can't compete.
> 
> They WANT TO... _they really do_.
> 
> But when the rubber of truth, hits the road of reason... they come up short *every single time*.
> 
> *Recognize what's happened here... a Progressive has just demonstrated that when they're encouraged to demonstrate the product of their reasoning; the result is Regression.*
> 
> *WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME THING THAT THE CANUKISTANI ACADEMIC RIOTERS DID... Which is exactly what Miss Coulter's position on the issue is; which means that despite her best efforts to prove otherwise; Del here has proven Miss Coulter's position to be TRUE.*
> 
> LOL... Now how Cool is that, huh...?
> 
> Good job Del... I knew I could count on ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me put this in simple terms that even an intellectual giant such as yourself should be able to pick up after reading it through fifteen or sixteen times.
> 
> i don't care what you think.
> 
> it's a very simple concept; perhaps if you write it backwards on your forehead, you'll be able to remember it.
> 
> use multiple colors and large fonts if that aids in what passes for your cognitive processes.
> 
> o-tay, spanky?
Click to expand...

 

Got it... you can't support your position and you want to avoid being held accountable for that personal failure, by changing the subject...

Again...  it's not a complex issue Sis.  And don't feel like ya need to trot out another of these chronic failures to prove it.  

It's a certainty to anyone that reads the thread... 

*Your ass is OWNED.*​ 
Love,

The Owner.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Publius seems to have an unhealthy fascination with del's ass.


----------



## del

RadiomanATL said:


> Publius seems to have an unhealthy fascination with del's ass.



at least he doesn't pretend he was a marine anymore.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

del said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you ever stop whining, nancy boy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's that Mrs. Malaprop?
> 
> FYI; ya might want to look up the words you're not sure about... and here's another clue... be a lot less sure about the words ya use.
> 
> It'll spare ya all this humiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when did humiliation become a synonym for tedium, brainiac?
Click to expand...

 

It's not... 

Again... if you'll look these words up BEFORE ya use 'em... you'll spare yourself the personal disgrace in demonstrating the shallow nature of your intellectual depth...


----------



## RadiomanATL

del said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Publius seems to have an unhealthy fascination with del's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at least he doesn't pretend he was a marine anymore.
Click to expand...



He'd never get by under DADT.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

del said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Publius seems to have an unhealthy fascination with del's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at least he doesn't pretend he was a marine anymore.
Click to expand...

 

Sorry for the delay sis... I had to report someone for trying to enflame the discussion... 

Now again... you're problem here is that you're unable to sustain your well discredited assertion...

And I pointed out that your impotent attempts to change the subject were evidence of your failure.

Now let me ask ya this...  is it you GOAL to demonstrate your inability to sustain your argument, through flaccid attempts to change the subject?

'Cause that's what it's lookin' like...


----------



## del

PubliusInfinitum said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Publius seems to have an unhealthy fascination with del's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at least he doesn't pretend he was a marine anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delay sis... I had to report someone for trying to enflame the discussion...
> 
> Now again... you're problem here is that you're unable to sustain your well discredited assertion...
> 
> And I pointed out that your impotent attempts to change the subject were evidence of your failure.
> 
> Now let me ask ya this...  is it you GOAL to demonstrate your inability to sustain your argument, through flaccid attempts to change the subject?
> 
> 'Cause that's what it's lookin' like...
Click to expand...


tissue?


----------



## RadiomanATL

del said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> at least he doesn't pretend he was a marine anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delay sis... I had to report someone for trying to enflame the discussion...
> 
> Now again... you're problem here is that you're unable to sustain your well discredited assertion...
> 
> And I pointed out that your impotent attempts to change the subject were evidence of your failure.
> 
> Now let me ask ya this...  is it you GOAL to demonstrate your inability to sustain your argument, through flaccid attempts to change the subject?
> 
> 'Cause that's what it's lookin' like...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> tissue?
Click to expand...


enflame? flaccid? impotent?

I'm seeing a theme develop.


----------



## L.K.Eder

RadiomanATL said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delay sis... I had to report someone for trying to enflame the discussion...
> 
> Now again... you're problem here is that you're unable to sustain your well discredited assertion...
> 
> And I pointed out that your impotent attempts to change the subject were evidence of your failure.
> 
> Now let me ask ya this...  is it you GOAL to demonstrate your inability to sustain your argument, through flaccid attempts to change the subject?
> 
> 'Cause that's what it's lookin' like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> enflame? flaccid? impotent?
> 
> I'm seeing a theme develop.
Click to expand...


a meltdown?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

RadiomanATL said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delay sis... I had to report someone for trying to enflame the discussion...
> 
> Now again... you're problem here is that you're unable to sustain your well discredited assertion...
> 
> And I pointed out that your impotent attempts to change the subject were evidence of your failure.
> 
> Now let me ask ya this... is it you GOAL to demonstrate your inability to sustain your argument, through flaccid attempts to change the subject?
> 
> 'Cause that's what it's lookin' like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> enflame? flaccid? impotent?
> 
> I'm seeing a theme develop.
Click to expand...

 


WELL ALLLRIGHTY THEN....

Looks like another ROUTE...  The gals have set aside any attempt to remain on subject and the effort is now wholly relegated to distraction... which by any objective ruling is a CONCESSION OF THE ARGUMENT.

And THAT kids is how THAT'S done.

In closing... I'll only point out that the more recent posts demonstrates the moral relativism that has been at issue... where rules are to be enforced only where the rules suit the ends of the ruler.

Again... tying Progressives to Progressive leadership.  What can one expect when one places Progressives in positions of Responsibility?  

The evidence is ever-present...  Vote accordingly.


----------



## del

L.K.Eder said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> enflame? flaccid? impotent?
> 
> I'm seeing a theme develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a meltdown?
Click to expand...


if he offers me a thousand bucks to tell him where i live, i'm going for it.


----------



## RadiomanATL

PubliusInfinitum said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> enflame? flaccid? impotent?
> 
> I'm seeing a theme develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WELL ALLLRIGHTY THEN....
> 
> Looks like another ROUTE...  The gals have set aside any attempt to remain on subject and the effort is now wholly relegated to distraction...
Click to expand...


Dude, anytime you post it's a distraction. Either that or a meltdown or a whine.


----------



## L.K.Eder

del said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> enflame? flaccid? impotent?
> 
> I'm seeing a theme develop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a meltdown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if he offers me a thousand bucks to tell him where i live, i'm going for it.
Click to expand...


you should neg-rep him thrice first


----------



## Kalam

sitarro said:


> Isn't that against your religion...... the religion of "men who stare at and have sex with goats"........ excuse me, I meant to say "whimps that stare at and have sex with goats".


Sex with women? No, I'm afraid it isn't. As for having sex with goats, I hate to put a damper on your fantasies, but you may be interested in this: 

_Narrated 'Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet said, "If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him."_ - Sunan Abu Dawud, Prescribed Punishments, no. 4449​


sitarro said:


> Hollywood made a movie about it. They had George Clooney play an Arab ass wipe.


Ironically, that movie was about the utter stupidity at the heart of US military intelligence.


----------



## beowolfe

PoliticalChic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
Click to expand...


You're absolutely correct.  What I see here is two different exercises in free speech.  Unfortunately the authorities in Canada were unprepared to keep a distance between the two sides.  That is not an uncommon occurrence here in America.  Normally, the party that retreats at the initial confrontation usually returns with the authorities in place to ensure their right to speak is not abridged.


----------



## frazzledgear

Ravi said:


> Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.
> 
> For example.
> 
> 
> 
> More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."
> 
> 
> 
> American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks
> 
> Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.
> 
> And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.
> 
> Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.
> 
> That is all.
Click to expand...


The event was not canceled because of anything Coulter said or did.  It was ONLY canceled because security officials were afraid the little shouting fascists were going to try and cause a riot.  That is what fascists do -use intimidation and the threat of violence to silence political opponents.  ENOUGH of this crap trying to pretend Coulter committed a hate crime.  She did no such thing or she would have been arrested.  Instead she was booked for more speaking engagements.   It was shut down ONLY because of the fascist actions of leftist students.   Leave it to the fascist-loving left to try and re-write this history as well.   Let's review both Canadian law and what Coulter actually said.  Canadian law regarding HATE SPEECH involves encouraging violence against a person or group based on their ethnic, racial or religious heritage or sexual orientation.  Get this one?  If its just an opinion but doesn't encourage violence against someone or some group based on their sexual orientation, religious, racial heritage etc. then it isn't "hate speech".  It is just an opinion YOU may not like and while we all realize that liberals insist that any political opinion they don't like amounts to a "crime", it really isn't. 

At a PREVIOUS speaking engagement Coulter expressed her opinion that all Muslims should be put on a no-fly list until mainstream Muslims publicly and unequivocally denounced the violence committed in the name of their religion by extremists and that until that happened no one should assume the religion had been hijacked by extremists at all.   

I don't care how much you pro-fascist liberals want to twist in the wind on this one -this is NOT hate speech and it isn't racist either.  (And maybe you fascists really don't know this, but in order for something to be "racist" it must involve a negative comment applied to a group or individual about their RACE.  Religious comments don't count as "racist" or nearly all liberals could properly be called "racist" for all their near nonstop filthy Christian bashing, huh?) It was Coulter's OPINION about how to deal with the ongoing reality that Muslims still try to use our airlines and planes as the means of killing Americans.  The cold-blooded murder of unarmed civilians trapped on an airplane with mass murdering Muslims is something I happen to find far more offensive than Coulter's OPINION.  But that's me -maybe fascists have no problem with that one.

After Coulter expressed this opinion and explained why she held that opinion, this Muslim woman made the comment about not being able to take a magic carpet so how was she supposed to travel.  Her comment showed her concern was NOT with Coulter's contention that most Muslims actually had no objections to the violence carried out in the name of their religion or in any way tried to counter her reasoning behind her opinion.  It was all about her CONVENIENCE instead -as if that was at least as important as taking measures that would save the most lives and as if violence committed in the name of her religion was no big deal when that was the very premise of Coulter's opinion.  In other words Coulter responded with the same level of seriousness as the woman's question.  In the real world this is called TOUGH SHIT -you want a serious answer, then ask a serious question. 

If this woman had really disagreed with Coulter's entire premise, there is sound reasoning to argue against her opinion.  I don't agree with Coulter that all Muslims should be on a no-fly list.  If it had been me -and assuming I really DID object to the violence carried out in the name of my religion - I would have said that as a Muslim woman who has never given approval for the violence committed in the name of my religion, how does that obligate me PERSONALLY to first publicly denounce it before I am allowed to fly?  Was Coulter obligated to first denounce the IRA or the British government's anti-IRA actions (depending on her own religion here) before she could fly?  I would have asked her a question along these lines and I guarantee you that if this Muslim had as well, Coulter would have given her a serious answer.  Wow, the very NOTION of using REASON to argue against Coulter's views is really unusual, huh?  It really is for the left because when confined to using reason instead of intimidation and threats of violence -they can't win and they know it.  It is why they skip that entirely and go right to threats of violence instead.

This phony "outrage" that because Coulter's response matched this woman's lack of seriousness somehow amounts to a hate crime would be laughable except for the fact this is actually being used by fascists to justify THEIR behavior -using intimidation and the threat of violence to shut down opposing political opinions entirely.  Something I find far more objectionable and a damn sight more scary than anything Coulter has ever or could ever say.  

No matter how much the fascists insist this is all about Coulter and her political views and insist those political views amount to "hate crimes", it is all pure bullshit and an attempt to distract people from what REALLY happened here.   The REAL story here is and has been all along that fascism is alive and well on Canadian campuses and fascists were given free rein to use intimidation and threat of violence in order to silence those with opposing political views.  That their victim expressed an opinion with which they disagree is ALWAYS the excuse fascists give for what they do.   And they will ALWAYS insist it justifies the use of intimidation and the threat of violence to silence them.


----------



## Kalam

frazzledgear said:


> At a PREVIOUS speaking engagement Coulter expressed her opinion that all Muslims should be put on a no-fly list until mainstream Muslims publicly and unequivocally denounced the violence committed in the name of their religion by extremists and that until that happened no one should assume the religion had been hijacked by extremists at all.
> 
> I don't care how much you pro-fascist liberals want to twist in the wind on this one -this is NOT hate speech and it isn't racist either.



_"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."_ - Ann Coulter (12 Sept. 2001)

_"Bring it on, bitch."_ - Islam


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Publius seems to have an unhealthy fascination with del's ass.


 Maybe that's why he refers to men as women. If he can convince himself that men are really women, then his fantasies about them aren't gay.


----------



## Ravi

Frass:

Coulter is not entitled to be a guest of Canada and break their laws.

The students of Canada are entitled to protest against someone they see as breaking their laws. There was no violence. 

Your wall of words and labels of facism do not make it so.


----------



## sitarro

Kalam said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> 
> At a PREVIOUS speaking engagement Coulter expressed her opinion that all Muslims should be put on a no-fly list until mainstream Muslims publicly and unequivocally denounced the violence committed in the name of their religion by extremists and that until that happened no one should assume the religion had been hijacked by extremists at all.
> 
> I don't care how much you pro-fascist liberals want to twist in the wind on this one -this is NOT hate speech and it isn't racist either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."_ - Ann Coulter (12 Sept. 2001)
> 
> _"Bring it on, bitch."_ - Islam
Click to expand...


islam is a joke without a sense of humor. Coulter is completely and totally correct........ fuck muslim asswipes and the camels they rode in on.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]I don't excuse or condemn people because of their gender. Coulter isn't a coward because she's a woman, she's simply a coward.
> 
> Kind of like you...when's the last time you went to an Islamic country and told them to ride camels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd think they'd find it funny
Click to expand...


Actually, I've been in a Muslim country and rode a camel.  

All concerned thought it was pretty funny!


----------



## Ravi

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]I don't excuse or condemn people because of their gender. Coulter isn't a coward because she's a woman, she's simply a coward.
> 
> Kind of like you...when's the last time you went to an Islamic country and told them to ride camels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd think they'd find it funny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I've been in a Muslim country and rode a camel.
> 
> All concerned thought it was pretty funny!
Click to expand...

Please...spare us your sexual escapades.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Ravi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd think they'd find it funny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've been in a Muslim country and rode a camel.
> 
> All concerned thought it was pretty funny!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please...spare us your sexual escapades.
Click to expand...


Ya' know, Kalam went down the same path when I said I 
'don't join dangerous cults: I practice safe sects.'

You two have to get out more.


----------



## Samson

Ravi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd think they'd find it funny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've been in a Muslim country and rode a camel.
> 
> All concerned thought it was pretty funny!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please...spare us your sexual escapades.
Click to expand...




The story behind this pic is interesting enough for me to relate.

First, it is a real pic. The guy driving is a Bedouin driving the camels into the Palestinian East Bank hinderlands where they'll be slaughtered and sold in the local Safeway.


----------



## Darkwind

eots said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, as see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing
Click to expand...

For those who are as handicapped as this individual in matters of critical thought.....Note the red highlighted text.  

Does this mean that there were no threats against Coulter?  Does it mean that the bodyguard caught wind of these threats and advised Coulter without first consulting the Canadian and University Press?  

I do have to wonder though at reports that there were piles of stones and lumber all around the building in which she was to speak.  Perhaps they were doing some remodeling?  

Last.  Answer this question progressives.  If Howard Dean had been met with the kind of crowd that Coulter was met with, and he decided that it would be safer to withdraw, would you then be comparing him in similar light as you are Coulter?  Or is only progressives that are permitted to behave badly?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Darkwind said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.
> 
> Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
> to do with the OP.
> 
> 1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.
> 
> 2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.
> 
> 3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.
> 
> Still with me?
> 
> 4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.
> 
> 5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, as see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.
> 
> 5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Have someone explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For those who are as handicapped as this individual in matters of critical thought.....Note the red highlighted text.
> 
> Does this mean that there were no threats against Coulter?  Does it mean that the bodyguard caught wind of these threats and advised Coulter without first consulting the Canadian and University Press?
> 
> I do have to wonder though at reports that there were piles of stones and lumber all around the building in which she was to speak.  Perhaps they were doing some remodeling?
> 
> Last.  Answer this question progressives.  If Howard Dean had been met with the kind of crowd that Coulter was met with, and he decided that it would be safer to withdraw, would you then be comparing him in similar light as you are Coulter?  Or is only progressives that are permitted to behave badly?
Click to expand...


Nice analysis and a comparison to the way it would be viewed by our friends on the left if the 'shoe was on the other foot.'

I didn't hear similar disclaimers from our friends on the left when sundry Democrats claimed all sorts of bad behavior by Tea Party members last week.

Related to that, did anyone see that Breitbart offered $10,000 for proof of the (euphemistically called ) n-word? No takers.

"Its time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.."http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/26/breitbart-offers-10k-reward-for-proof-that-n-word-was-hurled-at-john-lewis/

And even better, he offered another $10,000 if Representative Lewis would take a lie detector test!!!

"Rep. Lewis, if you cant do that, Ill give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund."  Ibid.

Which will come first, Representative Lewis taking the lie detector test, of colleague Eots ranting that there is no proof of said behavior by the Tea Party'ers?


----------



## Darkwind

PoliticalChic said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *she chose not to speak* on the advice of her *bodygaurd..*it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing
> 
> 
> 
> For those who are as handicapped as this individual in matters of critical thought.....Note the red highlighted text.
> 
> Does this mean that there were no threats against Coulter?  Does it mean that the bodyguard caught wind of these threats and advised Coulter without first consulting the Canadian and University Press?
> 
> I do have to wonder though at reports that there were piles of stones and lumber all around the building in which she was to speak.  Perhaps they were doing some remodeling?
> 
> Last.  Answer this question progressives.  If Howard Dean had been met with the kind of crowd that Coulter was met with, and he decided that it would be safer to withdraw, would you then be comparing him in similar light as you are Coulter?  Or is only progressives that are permitted to behave badly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice analysis and a comparison to the way it would be viewed by our friends on the left if the 'shoe was on the other foot.'
> 
> I didn't hear similar disclaimers from our friends on the left when sundry Democrats claimed all sorts of bad behavior by Tea Party members last week.
> 
> Related to that, did anyone see that Breitbart offered $10,000 for proof of the (euphemistically called ) n-word? No takers.
> 
> "Its time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.."http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/26/breitbart-offers-10k-reward-for-proof-that-n-word-was-hurled-at-john-lewis/
> 
> And even better, he offered another $10,000 if Representative Lewis would take a lie detector test!!!
> 
> "Rep. Lewis, if you cant do that, Ill give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund."  Ibid.
> 
> Which will come first, Representative Lewis taking the lie detector test, of colleague Eots ranting that there is no proof of said behavior by the Tea Party'ers?
Click to expand...

It will, of course, be promptly ignored.  It will become part of the election talking points and I have little doubt that it will appear in a campaign ad or four.  After all, proof is not a requirement when one hurls racist charges at opponents for political gain.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Darkwind said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who are as handicapped as this individual in matters of critical thought.....Note the red highlighted text.
> 
> Does this mean that there were no threats against Coulter?  Does it mean that the bodyguard caught wind of these threats and advised Coulter without first consulting the Canadian and University Press?
> 
> I do have to wonder though at reports that there were piles of stones and lumber all around the building in which she was to speak.  Perhaps they were doing some remodeling?
> 
> Last.  Answer this question progressives.  If Howard Dean had been met with the kind of crowd that Coulter was met with, and he decided that it would be safer to withdraw, would you then be comparing him in similar light as you are Coulter?  Or is only progressives that are permitted to behave badly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice analysis and a comparison to the way it would be viewed by our friends on the left if the 'shoe was on the other foot.'
> 
> I didn't hear similar disclaimers from our friends on the left when sundry Democrats claimed all sorts of bad behavior by Tea Party members last week.
> 
> Related to that, did anyone see that Breitbart offered $10,000 for proof of the (euphemistically called ) n-word? No takers.
> 
> "Its time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.."http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/26/breitbart-offers-10k-reward-for-proof-that-n-word-was-hurled-at-john-lewis/
> 
> And even better, he offered another $10,000 if Representative Lewis would take a lie detector test!!!
> 
> "Rep. Lewis, if you cant do that, Ill give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund."  Ibid.
> 
> Which will come first, Representative Lewis taking the lie detector test, of colleague Eots ranting that there is no proof of said behavior by the Tea Party'ers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will, of course, be promptly ignored.  It will become part of the election talking points and I have little doubt that it will appear in a campaign ad or four.  After all, proof is not a requirement when one hurls racist charges at opponents for political gain.
Click to expand...


Ya' know, this sounds like one of the rules in the "Libral Libretto"...

"5. If you find yourself in a debating box, where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a.	Claim that the question is above my pay grade.
b.	Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c.	Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as its time to move on, or lets put this behind us.
e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say Im only interested in discourse.
g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset."


But, would that be considered as part of rule #5d or rule #5g?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've been in a Muslim country and rode a camel.
> 
> All concerned thought it was pretty funny!
> 
> 
> 
> Please...spare us your sexual escapades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The story behind this pic is interesting enough for me to relate.
> 
> First, it is a real pic. The guy driving is a Bedouin driving the camels into the Palestinian East Bank hinderlands where they'll be slaughtered and sold in the local Safeway.
Click to expand...


I thought that pic showed the latest in Middle East side-crash protection???

Who knew?


----------



## Darkwind

PoliticalChic said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice analysis and a comparison to the way it would be viewed by our friends on the left if the 'shoe was on the other foot.'
> 
> I didn't hear similar disclaimers from our friends on the left when sundry Democrats claimed all sorts of bad behavior by Tea Party members last week.
> 
> Related to that, did anyone see that Breitbart offered $10,000 for proof of the (euphemistically called ) n-word? No takers.
> 
> "Its time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.."http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/26/breitbart-offers-10k-reward-for-proof-that-n-word-was-hurled-at-john-lewis/
> 
> And even better, he offered another $10,000 if Representative Lewis would take a lie detector test!!!
> 
> "Rep. Lewis, if you cant do that, Ill give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund."  Ibid.
> 
> Which will come first, Representative Lewis taking the lie detector test, of colleague Eots ranting that there is no proof of said behavior by the Tea Party'ers?
> 
> 
> 
> It will, of course, be promptly ignored.  It will become part of the election talking points and I have little doubt that it will appear in a campaign ad or four.  After all, proof is not a requirement when one hurls racist charges at opponents for political gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya' know, this sounds like one of the rules in the "Libral Libretto"...
> 
> "5. If you find yourself in a debating box, where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
> a.    Claim that the question is above my pay grade.
> b.    Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
> c.    Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
> d. Learn phrases such as its time to move on, or lets put this behind us.
> e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
> f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say Im only interested in discourse.
> g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset."
> 
> 
> But, would that be considered as part of rule #5d or rule #5g?
Click to expand...

Given the mulit-faceted propensity of the progressives to lie and obfuscate, I would have to say.........yes.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Darkwind said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will, of course, be promptly ignored.  It will become part of the election talking points and I have little doubt that it will appear in a campaign ad or four.  After all, proof is not a requirement when one hurls racist charges at opponents for political gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' know, this sounds like one of the rules in the "Libral Libretto"...
> 
> "5. If you find yourself in a debating box, where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
> a.    Claim that the question is above my pay grade.
> b.    Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
> c.    Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
> d. Learn phrases such as its time to move on, or lets put this behind us.
> e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
> f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say Im only interested in discourse.
> g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset."
> 
> 
> But, would that be considered as part of rule #5d or rule #5g?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given the mulit-faceted propensity of the progressives to lie and obfuscate, I would have to say.........yes.
Click to expand...


Just a friendly warning, you're fine with 'obfuscate,' but the left has 'lie' and 'liar' trademarked.


----------



## MaggieMae

Ravi said:


> Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.
> 
> For example.
> 
> 
> 
> More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."
> 
> 
> 
> American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks
> 
> Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.
> 
> And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.
> 
> Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.
> 
> That is all.
Click to expand...


The problem with Ann Coulter is simply that she started out being just a smart-mouth, having written a couple of anti-liberalism books and feeling like she could get away with anything (during that time). Well she soon found out that her reputation was getting the best of her. Even civil _conservative_ gatherings began to bar her from speaking because she was viewed as a troublemaker. At one time she probably DID have a lot of persuasive power, just like other writers who have written about liberalism: Bernie Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg. Those guys don't get banned from speaking engagements.


----------



## MaggieMae

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.
> 
> For example.
> 
> 
> 
> More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."
> 
> 
> 
> American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks
> 
> Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.
> 
> And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.
> 
> Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws._"
> 
> Indeed... JUST as the existence of Canadian Law is _*construed*_ to be a valid means to usurp Human Rights... just as the existence of the Jews was construed to be a threat to humanity, by your ideological predecessors... And the way the nation of Israel is construed to be a threat to Middle-east peace... by YOU and your Pro-terrorist comrades... and the way that the US GWOT was construed to be US IMPERIALISM... By you and your pro-terrorist, anti-American comrades.
> 
> 'Construed' is synonymous with 'rationalization'... and that's what the Left is doing here.
> 
> And it's the same sort of rationalization which was used to design the recent illicit parlamentary ruse for the Democrats in Congress to 'pass' a bill which they never voted on; in direct contradiction to the US Constitution...
> 
> Humanism... Moral Relativism... deceit... fraud.
> 
> Recognize friends that what we're looking at here is a group of people who imparted violence to restrict someone's speech, all under the rationalization that this persons IDEAS may potentially lead to violence...
> 
> They imparted an irrationally strong dislike for Miss Coulter; who they claim advocates an irrationally strong dislike for people...
> 
> Seeing the pattern here?
> 
> As is ALWAYS the case; the left comes to LAMENT; THAT WHICH THEY HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE...
Click to expand...


Of course those on the far right "construe" Obama to be a Socialist.


----------



## Kalam

sitarro said:


> islam is a joke without a sense of humor. Coulter is completely and totally correct........ fuck muslim asswipes and the camels they rode in on.


Do you have the balls to act on your words or are you an armchair warrior?


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.
> 
> For example.
> 
> 
> 
> More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."
> 
> 
> 
> American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks
> 
> Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.
> 
> And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.
> 
> Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with Ann Coulter is simply that she started out being just a smart-mouth, having written a couple of anti-liberalism books and feeling like she could get away with anything (during that time). Well she soon found out that her reputation was getting the best of her. Even civil _conservative_ gatherings began to bar her from speaking because she was viewed as a troublemaker. At one time she probably DID have a lot of persuasive power, just like other writers who have written about liberalism: Bernie Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg. Those guys don't get banned from speaking engagements.
Click to expand...


Maggie, I know you are far too reputable to mention that Ms. Coulter has "written a couple of anti-liberalism books" without reading them...

here they are, all NYTimes best sellers

* High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery 1998)
* Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, 2002)
* Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003)
* How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Crown Forum, 2004)
* Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, 2006)
* If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (Crown Forum, 2007)
* Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Crown Forum, 2009)


which ones did you read?  Any critiques you would offer?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kalam said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> islam is a joke without a sense of humor. Coulter is completely and totally correct........ fuck muslim asswipes and the camels they rode in on.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have the balls to act on your words or are you an armchair warrior?
Click to expand...


Now calm down boys, dueling is outlawed in all 57 states.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.
> 
> For example.
> American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks
> 
> Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.
> 
> And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.
> 
> Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with Ann Coulter is simply that she started out being just a smart-mouth, having written a couple of anti-liberalism books and feeling like she could get away with anything (during that time). Well she soon found out that her reputation was getting the best of her. Even civil _conservative_ gatherings began to bar her from speaking because she was viewed as a troublemaker. At one time she probably DID have a lot of persuasive power, just like other writers who have written about liberalism: Bernie Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg. Those guys don't get banned from speaking engagements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maggie, I know you are far too reputable to mention that Ms. Coulter has "written a couple of anti-liberalism books" without reading them...
> 
> here they are, all NYTimes best sellers
> 
> * High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery 1998)
> * Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, 2002)
> * Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003)
> * How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Crown Forum, 2004)
> * Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, 2006)
> * If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (Crown Forum, 2007)
> * Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Crown Forum, 2009)
> 
> 
> which ones did you read?  Any critiques you would offer?
Click to expand...


I did read "Slander" and "Treason," but then decided any further reads of hers would be a form of self-flagellation and dangerous to my physical wellbeing.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with Ann Coulter is simply that she started out being just a smart-mouth, having written a couple of anti-liberalism books and feeling like she could get away with anything (during that time). Well she soon found out that her reputation was getting the best of her. Even civil _conservative_ gatherings began to bar her from speaking because she was viewed as a troublemaker. At one time she probably DID have a lot of persuasive power, just like other writers who have written about liberalism: Bernie Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg. Those guys don't get banned from speaking engagements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maggie, I know you are far too reputable to mention that Ms. Coulter has "written a couple of anti-liberalism books" without reading them...
> 
> here they are, all NYTimes best sellers
> 
> * High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery 1998)
> * Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, 2002)
> * Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003)
> * How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Crown Forum, 2004)
> * Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, 2006)
> * If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (Crown Forum, 2007)
> * Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Crown Forum, 2009)
> 
> 
> which ones did you read?  Any critiques you would offer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did read "Slander" and "Treason," but then decided any further reads of hers would be a form of self-flagellation and dangerous to my physical wellbeing.
Click to expand...


Touche.


----------



## sitarro

Kalam said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> islam is a joke without a sense of humor. Coulter is completely and totally correct........ fuck muslim asswipes and the camels they rode in on.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have the balls to act on your words or are you an armchair warrior?
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that I should fuck a muslim asswipe? I wouldn't do that with your diseased dick. We'll see what I do if one stands up to try to take over a plane I'm on........ he'll get a Nikon camera across his hooked nosed face.


----------



## Kalam

PoliticalChic said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> islam is a joke without a sense of humor. Coulter is completely and totally correct........ fuck muslim asswipes and the camels they rode in on.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have the balls to act on your words or are you an armchair warrior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now calm down boys, dueling is outlawed in all 57 states.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for sitarro, bestiality is forbidden in most states as well.


----------



## Kalam

sitarro said:


> Are you suggesting that I should fuck a muslim asswipe?


No, which makes me wonder why you'd bring that up... 



sitarro said:


> I wouldn't do that with your diseased dick.


...but you'd do things to other people's dicks? 



sitarro said:


> We'll see what I do if one stands up to try to take over a plane I'm on........ he'll get a Nikon camera across his hooked nosed face.


Are you going to try and have your way with him after that? You seem to have a very strange obsession with Muslims and homosexual intercourse. And fucking goats.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with Ann Coulter is simply that she started out being just a smart-mouth, having written a couple of anti-liberalism books and feeling like she could get away with anything (during that time). Well she soon found out that her reputation was getting the best of her. Even civil _conservative_ gatherings began to bar her from speaking because she was viewed as a troublemaker. At one time she probably DID have a lot of persuasive power, just like other writers who have written about liberalism: Bernie Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg. Those guys don't get banned from speaking engagements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maggie, I know you are far too reputable to mention that Ms. Coulter has "written a couple of anti-liberalism books" without reading them...
> 
> here they are, all NYTimes best sellers
> 
> * High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery 1998)
> * Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, 2002)
> * Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003)
> * How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Crown Forum, 2004)
> * Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, 2006)
> * If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (Crown Forum, 2007)
> * Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Crown Forum, 2009)
> 
> 
> which ones did you read? Any critiques you would offer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did read "Slander" and "Treason," but then decided any further reads of hers would be a form of self-flagellation and dangerous to my physical wellbeing.
Click to expand...

 

LOL... No you didn't... 

that is absolute NONESENSE...

Now how do I know that?

I know that because HAD you read them; where you were asked for a critique of the books; instead of somply declaring that you'd read them... you'd have had something SPECIFIC TO SAY WITH REGARD TO THE AUTHORS VARIOUS AND NUMEROUS POSITIONS ADVANCED IN THE BOOKS...

The truth is, that you've most likely read NOTHING advaned by Coulter that hasn't been snipped as a pull quote in some article by some Leftist pundit; the odds are that the full scope of what you know of Coulter's work is limited to what you've read on line, or heard from Olberman, Maddow and/or Comedy Central.

The incomtrovertible FACT is; that in 22 pages, NOT ONE of you people who've come to cry about Ann Coulter's existence, has HAD A SINGLE SPECIFIC POINT MADE BY COULTER; FRAMED IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH SHE OFFERED IT...  Let alone a valid argument which might possible contest her point.


Now it's not reasonable to go on for 22 pages of debate and fail to offer A SINGLE VALID POINT and expect to be taken seriously...

PERIOD.

All you people have managed to do is to advance baseless assertions and when you were challenged to support those assertions; turn to some form of distraction...  Ya even had a SUPER-Mod 'user' come into the forum to spam and flame the ongoing disucssion order to change the subject.

Ya lost... there's nothing left to discuss.  Coulter's body of work is readily available to every person on this board; from her Best selling books; to her thousands of interviews, to the endless columns and articles whic she has written... and from ALL of that; NOT ONE SUBSTANTIVE POINT WHICH CAN SHOW WHERE COULTER WAS WRONG.  

The closest ya've mangage to come is that Canadian interview and that's been shut down from six different perspectives.

Face it kids...  As an Ideology, THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT CANNOT COMPETE!  Wherever you're found going toe to toe with Americans...  YA LOSE.

Ya always HAVE and ya ALWAYS WILL!


----------



## sitarro

Kalam said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that I should fuck a muslim asswipe?
> 
> 
> 
> No, which makes me wonder why you'd bring that up...
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't do that with your diseased dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...but you'd do things to other people's dicks?
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see what I do if one stands up to try to take over a plane I'm on........ he'll get a Nikon camera across his hooked nosed face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you going to try and have your way with him after that? You seem to have a very strange obsession with Muslims and homosexual intercourse. And fucking goats.
Click to expand...


That's a cute attempt to turn my insults around on me......FAIL like everything else you muslim scum do every time you try anything. You live in the gutter with that silly joke of a religion, why am I not surprised you would have a sword and an AK-47 in your avatar, where are the women and children that you fags hide behind when you aren't abusing them?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Kalam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have the balls to act on your words or are you an armchair warrior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now calm down boys, dueling is outlawed in all 57 states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for sitarro, bestiality is forbidden in most states as well.
Click to expand...

 

ROFL... oh my, now is this your way of trying to insist that Islam on some level tends towards sexual purity?

I've got a question on that one...

What do ya think is going on within the recent attempt to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" as a policy of the US Military; as a means to undermine US military readiness... specifically where the most predominate argument is that 'the US military is losing THOUSANDS of otherwise qualified and necessary people, PARTICULARLY the TRANSLATORS who speaks ARABIC or other Middle Eastern Languages...

Or do you feel that there's some notable distinction in the the deviency which provides for what stands as a male, to engage in sex with something else which is akin to a male, and those who do the same thing with other species?

I don't see any distinction what so ever...  Would ya care to explain what the distinction might be, in an attempt to justify the large percentage of Muslims who are pathetic sexual devients who are unable to control their base sexual instincts?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

del said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> enflame? flaccid? impotent?
> 
> I'm seeing a theme develop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a meltdown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if he offers me a thousand bucks to tell him where i live, i'm going for it.
Click to expand...

 

ROFL...


So let's put this all in context kids...

This thread is about the abusive nature of the Progressive... Specifically Miss Coulter being invited to speak at what stands as a University in Canada; and the organized effort by those who ideologically oppose her at that University, to use the law or the C_olor of Law_ to harass one of the more effective members of their ideological opposition...; through the aforementioned threats which _construed that the opposition to Progressvism is itself, a violation of the law. Which is in and of itself, a threat of violence_... and this combined with the violent riots which were encouraged through the speech of the Univerisity's opposition to Miss Coulter... if the actual law was CONSTRUED as THEY HAVE STATED THEY INTERPRET SUCH; THEN THE PROGRESSIVES THEMSELVES VIOLATED THAT LAW THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS... in contrast to the mere potential that Miss Coulter MAY HAVE violated those laws, had she not cancelled her engagement.

Now throughout the debate, the in-house Left, has been subjected to effective refutation of their numerous assertions. Not the least of which is Del and her gal-pal Ravi-the-Abuser... along with the other usual suspects.

So in the process, they were all simply challenged to support those assertions and they all repeatedly failed to do so... again with Del being amongst the least of those capable of doing so.

Now comes the above exchange where a Site Super-Moderator... who comes to change the subject, to distract from her personal failure and to otherwise enflame the discussion; in hopes of using the response to that abusive, violent behavior as a means to _CONSTRUE_ a violation of site rules; so that she can once again BAN that member for a Violation of the would-be _Local Law;_ and in so doing, protect the public interests by culling from the discussion, one of the more effective members of the opposition...

See the pattern? 

Progressives, abusing whatever power which they have managed to secure, to accomplish what they are otherwise incapable of accomplishing, due to their stark intellectual limitations. 

Humanism, Moral Relativism... The means justifies the ends... Deceit, theft and fraudulence.

The coolest little irony here is how they desperately wanted to project that their opposition was _*melting down, as a result of that opposition having held them accountable for their failure to support their own assertions.*_

When in truth; the behavior exhibited above, was, as is so often the case; and as has been repeatedly noted in this thread, by yours truly, a case where the charges being advanced by the Left are precisely that of which; they, themselves are guilty.

And kids... this is the behavior that we see on this board, by those Progressives in power; and it is EXACTLY the same behavior which is being advanced by the Progressives in US Governance... *and it is PRECISELY how we came to witness the US Congress voting to pass a CULTURAL CHANGING BILL WHICH WAS NOT ONLY NOT EVEN FINISHED; BUT WAS ONE WHICH, AS A RESULT, IT WAS A BILL ON WHICH THE CONGRESS HAD NEVER VOTED. *

Illicit, deceitful, underhanded tricks... which THE *PROGRESSIVES* *CONSTRUED *was perfectly legal... because IT WAS A MEANS WHICH SERVED THEIR DESIRED ENDS. Without rgeard for it being ILLEGAL; without regard for it being IMMORAL and without regard to the REGRESSIVE results that it was certain to produce.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Kalam said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> 
> At a PREVIOUS speaking engagement Coulter expressed her opinion that all Muslims should be put on a no-fly list until mainstream Muslims publicly and unequivocally denounced the violence committed in the name of their religion by extremists and that until that happened no one should assume the religion had been hijacked by extremists at all.
> 
> I don't care how much you pro-fascist liberals want to twist in the wind on this one -this is NOT hate speech and it isn't racist either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."_ - Ann Coulter (12 Sept. 2001)
> 
> _"Bring it on, bitch."_ - Islam
Click to expand...

 
Ahh, we ARE bringing it on...   Or are you not aware of the two Muslim countries which we've invaded, conquered and are now providing them with the opportunity to shut the fuck up, sit down and behave?

Granted we've allowed them to maintain their religious convictions... but let me assure you Sis, that if you people screw up again... Islam will become bump in the historical road.

The Progressives presently in power are working the last of their political Days, Haji...  And I expect that the 'kinder, gentler' position which they're advancing towards Islam, by virtue of the Muslim CinC presently at the helm, will result in Islam taking another crack at striking the US... and rest assured that when that happens... YOU and yours Muslim brothers will look back to the Japanese internment with sincere envy, in comparison.

So yuck it up... 

Now of course, it's entirely possible, that Islam will learn their place; and cease from their desire to violently insert their goat herding, socialist mentality onto Americans... and that's fine with me.  

I've no problem with what peaceful people want to believe, as long as they respect the responsibilities which comes with rights endowed to them, by the God of Abraham...


----------



## Political Junky

I just saw O'Reilly giving Coulterguiste a hard time for her loaded "take a camel" comment.


----------



## Foxfyre

Political Junky said:


> I just saw O'Reilly giving Coulterguiste a hard time for her loaded "take a camel" comment.



If you did, then you also saw her put that comment into context which was quite different than the way the media has reported it or the Coulter-haters on the message boards are posting it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZY6ZUoTRB4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZY6ZUoTRB4[/ame]


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ravi said:


> Frass:
> 
> Coulter is not entitled to be a guest of Canada and break their laws.


 
Coulter was INVITED BY CANDIANS TO BE THEIR GUEST; and to this point, DESPITE YOUR NUMEROUS IMPLICATIONS THAT COULTER HAS BROKEN; OR THAT SHE INTENDED TO BREAK CANADIAN LAW; AND THE NUMEROUS CHALLENGES SET TO YOU AND THE COMRADE GAL-PALS... NOT ONE OF YOU HAS MANAGED TO PROVIDE A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS ANY OF IT...

What's more; and as noted in a previous post; your CONSTRUING that Miss Coulter's SPEECH IS A VIOLATION OF CANADIAN LAW; IS a function of violence, in and of itself. A threat of force against a person who is rightfully entitled to speak; and who you've repeatedly accussed of being hateful and repeatedly failed to show has uttered anything even potentially hateful.



> The students of Canada are entitled to protest against someone they see as breaking their laws. There was no violence.


 
Yet another attempt to *CONSTRUE* that there was no violence on the part of an angry mob... which by its very existence, unambiguously THREATENED VIOLENCE... and which the Canadian authorities determined as such; when they cancelled the event... But this assertions comes from this same cow that _CONSTRUED_ A THREAT OF VIOLENCE when someone simply offered to pay for information regarding her identity, after her longstanding abuses which she felt perfectly entitled to do...  purely as a result of the other person's inability to contest the abuse.

A total disregard for any sense of responsibility which are essential to and inherent in the right; thus the rejection of the responsibility, forfeits the right...

See the pattern kids? Notice the subjective hypocrisy? See the relativist means/end reasoning advanced by the humanist, progressive mindset?

They're entitled to do whatever the power they may enjoy at any given time, provides them the means to do. Not at all distinct from the mindset of history's most notorius tyrants.

Their delusion is that the power will never ebb and that they will never be held be accountable for the abuses they perpetrated while enjoying that power; and this without regard to the history being repleat with the unenviable examples of such:







or this:







> Your wall of words and labels of facism do not make it so.


 
And we find that the ADD inflicted Left comes to refute their own assertion... wherein the inverse must also be true: '_empty denials do not make it false._'


----------



## Kalam

sitarro said:


> That's a cute attempt to turn my insults around on me......FAIL like everything else you muslim scum do every time you try anything. You live in the gutter with that silly joke of a religion, why am I not surprised you would have a sword and an AK-47 in your avatar, where are the women and children that you fags hide behind when you aren't abusing them?


I don't know. Did you add them to your harem along with the goats?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Well it looks like the Left has fled the debate AGAIN... with the Americans routing the Left... AGAIN!

Good work kids...


----------



## Kalam

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ahh, we ARE bringing it on...


I haven't seen Coulter over there fighting the "good fight." Forgive me if I'm not intimidated by her, you, or the rest of the chickenhawk squadron. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Or are you not aware of the two Muslim countries which we've invaded, conquered and are now providing them with the opportunity to shut the fuck up, sit down and behave?


Iraq's government was unabashedly secular and the Taliban insisted on clinging to tribal affiliations and other customs of yore. When America leaves, which it will, we will introduce Islamic governance in both areas. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Granted we've allowed them to maintain their religious convictions... but let me assure you Sis, that if you people screw up again... Islam will become bump in the historical road.


Tough talk won't make anyone convert, Pubeless. What are you going to do? You should start with me. If it helps, you can pretend that I'm Ravi when you search for my address. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> The Progressives presently in power are working the last of their political Days, Haji...  And I expect that the 'kinder, gentler' position which they're advancing towards Islam, by virtue of the Muslim CinC presently at the helm, will result in Islam taking another crack at striking the US... and rest assured that when that happens... YOU and yours Muslim brothers will look back to the Japanese internment with sincere envy, in comparison.


Oh, I'd love for someone to try to put me in a concentration camp. It almost goes without saying that the population would experience a net decrease that day. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> So yuck it up...


Stay crazy and that won't be a problem. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Now of course, it's entirely possible, that Islam will learn their place; and cease from their desire to violently insert their goat herding, socialist mentality onto Americans... and that's fine with me.
> 
> I've no problem with what peaceful people want to believe, as long as they respect the responsibilities which comes with rights endowed to them, by the God of Abraham...


I have a problem when people believe in forcibly converting Muslims, sending us to concentration camps, etc. You do not want to create another "War on Terror" within the US.


----------



## Darkwind

PoliticalChic said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' know, this sounds like one of the rules in the "Libral Libretto"...
> 
> "5. If you find yourself in a debating box, where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
> a.    Claim that the question is above my pay grade.
> b.    Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
> c.    Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
> d. Learn phrases such as its time to move on, or lets put this behind us.
> e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
> f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say Im only interested in discourse.
> g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset."
> 
> 
> But, would that be considered as part of rule #5d or rule #5g?
> 
> 
> 
> Given the mulit-faceted propensity of the progressives to lie and obfuscate, I would have to say.........yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a friendly warning, you're fine with 'obfuscate,' but the left has 'lie' and 'liar' trademarked.
Click to expand...

I have been in contact with My lawyer and we are ready for them!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kalam said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a cute attempt to turn my insults around on me......FAIL like everything else you muslim scum do every time you try anything. You live in the gutter with that silly joke of a religion, why am I not surprised you would have a sword and an AK-47 in your avatar, where are the women and children that you fags hide behind when you aren't abusing them?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Did you add them to your harem along with the goats?
Click to expand...


Hey, let's see if I can calm you down.

Are you celebrating this date?

On this day, March 28, of 1930, Constatntinople became Istanbul!

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mv-KcF3Rkv8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mv-KcF3Rkv8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]


----------



## PoliticalChic

Darkwind said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the mulit-faceted propensity of the progressives to lie and obfuscate, I would have to say.........yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a friendly warning, you're fine with 'obfuscate,' but the left has 'lie' and 'liar' trademarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been in contact with My lawyer and we are ready for them!
Click to expand...


DON'T TRUST HIM: all lawyers are lefties!

You know what you call a lawyer who's gone bad?  Senator.


----------



## Kalam

PoliticalChic said:


> Hey, let's see if I can calm you down.






PoliticalChic said:


> Are you celebrating this date?
> 
> On this day, March 28, of 1930, Constatntinople became Istanbul!



True, but I can't say that I'm a fan of secular governance in the Islamic world. I'd think that you and Pubes would be a bit upset today -- it's also the anniversary of the establishment of the Paris Commune!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnL1EWSNetU]YouTube - Interationale in different languages- 5 (French)[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kalam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, let's see if I can calm you down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you celebrating this date?
> 
> On this day, March 28, of 1930, Constatntinople became Istanbul!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but I can't say that I'm a fan of secular governance in the Islamic world. I'd think that you and Pubes would be a bit upset today -- it's also the anniversary of the establishment of the Paris Commune!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnL1EWSNetU]YouTube - Interationale in different languages- 5 (French)[/ame]
Click to expand...


Oh, see- you're still sulking.

I tried to make you feel better, and you bring up the first Fascist revolution, and, in fact the revolutionary model for the left.

I'm sure that liberals and Progressives would celebrate the Jacobins as their philosophical ancestors.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ladies and Gentlement... I present the Islamic Hoper for Change!

Note the nature of the Religion of Peace...  Feel the Tolerance of the Porfessed Muslim Voter of President Barak Hussein Obama...



Kalam said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, we ARE bringing it on...
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Coulter over there fighting the "good fight." Forgive me if I'm not intimidated by her, you, or the rest of the chickenhawk squadron.
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you not aware of the two Muslim countries which we've invaded, conquered and are now providing them with the opportunity to shut the fuck up, sit down and behave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq's government was unabashedly secular and the Taliban insisted on clinging to tribal affiliations and other customs of yore. When America leaves, which it will, we will introduce Islamic governance in both areas.
> 
> 
> Tough talk won't make anyone convert, Pubeless. What are you going to do? You should start with me. If it helps, you can pretend that I'm Ravi when you search for my address.
> 
> 
> Oh, I'd love for someone to try to put me in a concentration camp. It almost goes without saying that the population would experience a net decrease that day.
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> So yuck it up...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stay crazy and that won't be a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now of course, it's entirely possible, that Islam will learn their place; and cease from their desire to violently insert their goat herding, socialist mentality onto Americans... and that's fine with me.
> 
> I've no problem with what peaceful people want to believe, as long as they respect the responsibilities which comes with rights endowed to them, by the God of Abraham...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a problem when people believe in forcibly converting Muslims, sending us to concentration camps, etc. You do not want to create another "War on Terror" within the US.
Click to expand...

 
Now Marjah was FULL of such Muslims and is today, sadly... a population which has recently experienced a stark net deficit of it's population; and this despite their Islamic ferocity... 

Grab a clue Haji... you're one US terrorist attack away from wishing you could enjoy the fruits that were heaped upon the interned Japanese.

And we can rest assured that somewhere out there are some of your Muslim Brothers, doing their level best to make that happen for ya.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

OH!  I guess it again needs to be noted that the Left's opposition to Miss Coulter has been mopped up; with only a few stragglers left to do their best to change the subject.


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ladies and Gentlement... I present the Islamic Hoper for Change!
> 
> Note the nature of the Religion of Peace...  Feel the Tolerance of the Porfessed Muslim Voter of President Barak Hussein Obama...



That's pretty funny coming from the guy who said he was going to exterminate Leftists with extreme prejudice.


----------



## Kalam

PoliticalChic said:


> Oh, see- you're still sulking.
> 
> I tried to make you feel better, and you bring up the first Fascist revolution, and, in fact the revolutionary model for the left.
> 
> I'm sure that liberals and Progressives would celebrate the Jacobins as their philosophical ancestors.


Their mention certainly seems to incur the ire of "conservatives." 

Apart from that, I could care less about revolutionary France. The real revolution is still in progress.


----------



## Political Junky

PoliticalChic said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a friendly warning, you're fine with 'obfuscate,' but the left has 'lie' and 'liar' trademarked.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been in contact with My lawyer and we are ready for them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DON'T TRUST HIM: all lawyers are lefties!
> 
> You know what you call a lawyer who's gone bad?  Senator.
Click to expand...

LOL, Coulter is a lawyer, turned right wing agitator.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kalam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, see- you're still sulking.
> 
> I tried to make you feel better, and you bring up the first Fascist revolution, and, in fact the revolutionary model for the left.
> 
> I'm sure that liberals and Progressives would celebrate the Jacobins as their philosophical ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> Their mention certainly seems to incur the ire of "conservatives."
> 
> Apart from that, I could care less about revolutionary France. The real revolution is still in progress.
Click to expand...


Since one can only judge others by oneself, I could care a great deal about the cruel deaths of so many.

"Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and cruel than the king they replaced. Some 50,000 died in the Terror (1793-1794)
[Robespierre] is the prototype of a particularly odious kind of evildoer: the ideologue who believes that reason and morality are on the side of his butcheries. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are of the same mold. They are the characteristic scourges of humanity in modern times, but Robespierre has a good claim to being the first.  Why Robespierre Chose Terror by John Kekes, City Journal Spring 2006


The first fascist revolution, about which you " could care less " is a telling and seminal moment in human history...it represent the first major attempt to replace Christianity with a secular religion. 

The irony?  That was exactly your critique of Turkey.

Now, allow me a pedantic moment: " could care less " is incorect. Your meaning is more consistent with "I couldn't care less."

Now, see, I've tried to correct your grammar and your attitude.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Political Junky said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been in contact with My lawyer and we are ready for them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DON'T TRUST HIM: all lawyers are lefties!
> 
> You know what you call a lawyer who's gone bad?  Senator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, Coulter is a lawyer, turned right wing agitator.
Click to expand...


In the words of Emerson, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

If the shoe fits...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and Gentlement... I present the Islamic Hoper for Change!
> 
> Note the nature of the Religion of Peace... Feel the Tolerance of the Porfessed Muslim Voter of President Barak Hussein Obama...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty funny coming from the guy who said he was going to exterminate Leftists with extreme prejudice.
Click to expand...

 

"Was going to?"  Whuh?

Did something happen today that tends to indicate that the Left will not turn to violent uprising which will require all Americans to defend themselves from the murdering hordes of Leftists?

If so, then let me just say "whatta relief"... if not; then my position hasn't changed.

My human rights come with the sacred responsibility to defend my means to exercise my rights; as well as those of my labor... so such a collectivist revolution would necessarily require unbridled mayhem in the bearing of those responsibilies.

Which is a fact that I'm fairly sure I've covered with you, in detail, many times... yet here ya are; a Progressive, intentionally misrepresenting my position...  in an overt deception; an unambiguous fraud.

And in a thread which has exposed half a dozen of your comrades of precisely the same unAmerican, immoral, decadent offense...

ROFL... Now ain't that somethin'?  It's sems that we've a trend developin' here.


----------



## Kalam

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ladies and Gentlement... I present the Islamic Hoper for Change!
> 
> Note the nature of the Religion of Peace...  Feel the Tolerance of the Porfessed Muslim Voter of President Barak Hussein Obama...




Screw you and Barry, too, my friend. I didn't vote for that tool or his equally inadequate rivals in the Republican party. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Now Marjah was FULL of such Muslims and is today, sadly... a population which has recently experienced a stark net deficit of it's population; and this despite their Islamic ferocity...


About 60 Taliban were killed in Marjah. I've mentioned that I don't care about the Taliban; their government was too tribally-oriented to be properly Islamic. Again, feel free to waste resources on combat in places where America doesn't belong; justice and Islam will take over as the occupiers leave.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Grab a clue Haji... you're one US terrorist attack away from wishing you could enjoy the fruits that were heaped upon the interned Japanese.


As I said, that won't happen. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> And we can rest assured that somewhere out there are some of your Muslim Brothers, doing their level best to make that happen for ya.


These?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgb3Ah8kR9w]YouTube - mujahideen with nice speech[/ame]


----------



## SpidermanTuba

politicalchic said:


> "the provost of the university of ottawa, average student iq: 0, wrote to mewidely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached mein advance of my visit in order to recommend that i familiarize myself with canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
> 
> What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did francois a. Houle send a similarly worded letter to israel-hater omar barghouti before he spoke last year at u of ottawa? ("ottawa": Indian for "land of the bed-wetters.")
> 
> how about angela davis, communist party member and former black panther who spoke at the university of zero just last month?
> 
> Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Ormy suspicionis it only conservative women who fuel francois' rage?
> 
> I'm sure canada's human rights commission will get to the bottom of francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as i will be filing a complaint with that august body, so i expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.
> 
> Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward muslimsnor was there the remotest possibility that they would.
> 
> By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill kristol, pat buchanan, david horowitz and i have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.
> 
> At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to canada? How did the country that gave us jim carrey, mike myers, martin short, dan aykroyd and catherine o'hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies? "
> conservative news: Coulter - university of ottawa, parliament condemn speech as "hate speech" - human events




*
bbbbbwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


stop your whining you crazy bitch with an adam's apple*


----------



## Kalam

PoliticalChic said:


> The first fascist revolution, about which you " could care less " is a telling and seminal moment in human history...it represent the first major attempt to replace Christianity with a secular religion.
> 
> The irony?  That was exactly your critique of Turkey.


Not really. The Ottomans were hardly closer to true Islamic governance than today's Kemalists are. Hereditary autocracy is un-Islamic. 



PoliticalChic said:


> Now, allow me a pedantic moment: " could care less " is *incorect*.


I'll just stop you there.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Kalam said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and Gentlement... I present the Islamic Hoper for Change!
> 
> Note the nature of the Religion of Peace... Feel the Tolerance of the Porfessed Muslim Voter of President Barak Hussein Obama...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screw you and Barry, too, my friend. I didn't vote for that tool or his equally inadequate rivals in the Republican party.
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Marjah was FULL of such Muslims and is today, sadly... a population which has recently experienced a stark net deficit of it's population; and this despite their Islamic ferocity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About 60 Taliban were killed in Marjah. I've mentioned that I don't care about the Taliban; their government was too tribally-oriented to be properly Islamic. Again, feel free to waste resources on combat in places where America doesn't belong; justice and Islam will take over as the occupiers leave.
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grab a clue Haji... you're one US terrorist attack away from wishing you could enjoy the fruits that were heaped upon the interned Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, that won't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we can rest assured that somewhere out there are some of your Muslim Brothers, doing their level best to make that happen for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These?
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgb3Ah8kR9w"]YouTube - mujahideen with nice speech[/ame]
Click to expand...

 

Let's see... in one breath, you assure us that your Muslim Bothers aren't plotting an Attack on America; and in the next you proudly produce Islamic propaganda which promises to attack the enemies of Islam... of which America is decidely one; if not THE most notorious of Islam's enemies.

Well I suppose ya get points for consistency.


----------



## Kalam

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Let's see... in one breath, you assure us that your Muslim Bothers aren't plotting an Attack on America;


Actually, I assured you that I wouldn't be put in a concentration camp on account of my religious beliefs. I don't know of any "plots" against America and wouldn't want anything to happen that resulted in innocent deaths, but I'll live free or die regardless of what others do to the United States. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> and in the next you proudly produce Islamic propaganda which promises to attack the enemies of Islam... of which America is decidely one; if not THE most notorious of Islam's enemies.


The unambiguous enemies of Islam are Russia and Israel. China is becoming a major contender, Switzerland seems eager to be attacked, and Sudan will earn a place if it continues oppressing black Muslims. America doesn't oppress its own Muslim population and will be out of the region within a few years. Plus, in spite of their disgusting carte blanche support for Zionist aggression, the United States has expressed concern over Russian oppression in the Caucasus. Delegitimizing the Caucasian jihad in the eyes of the West by attacking America would serve nobody but the Russian kuffar.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SpidermanTuba said:


> politicalchic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the provost of the university of ottawa, average student iq: 0, wrote to mewidely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached mein advance of my visit in order to recommend that i familiarize myself with canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
> 
> What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did francois a. Houle send a similarly worded letter to israel-hater omar barghouti before he spoke last year at u of ottawa? ("ottawa": Indian for "land of the bed-wetters.")
> 
> how about angela davis, communist party member and former black panther who spoke at the university of zero just last month?
> 
> Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Ormy suspicionis it only conservative women who fuel francois' rage?
> 
> I'm sure canada's human rights commission will get to the bottom of francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as i will be filing a complaint with that august body, so i expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.
> 
> Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward muslimsnor was there the remotest possibility that they would.
> 
> By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill kristol, pat buchanan, david horowitz and i have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.
> 
> At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to canada? How did the country that gave us jim carrey, mike myers, martin short, dan aykroyd and catherine o'hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies? "
> conservative news: Coulter - university of ottawa, parliament condemn speech as "hate speech" - human events
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> bbbbbwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> 
> stop your whining you crazy bitch with an adam's apple*
Click to expand...


What an intelligent repost.

Glad to see you achieving up to your abilities.

Let's see if we can translate from our compendium of "Idiot to English."

1. You were showing how very facile you are on the keyboard: "bbbbbwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
No doubt your progressive kindergarten was thrilled at your successful preformance! Bravo!

2. You misunderstood the adult attempt to support a thesis with examples, as some sort of whining. I understand your error, as this is a new phenomenon to you.

3. Unable to articulate a clear and cogent rebuttal, you rely on vulgar references that must have been considered clever at family gatherings. So clever, so original.

4. An ad hominem attack in place of the rational counter-argument which you are unable to mount. 

Let me guess: you must be of the liberal persusion.  True?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Kalam said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see... in one breath, you assure us that your Muslim Bothers aren't plotting an Attack on America;
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I assured you that I wouldn't be put in a concentration camp on account of my religious beliefs. I don't know of any "plots" against America and wouldn't want anything to happen that resulted in innocent deaths, but I'll live free or die regardless of what others do to the United States.
Click to expand...

 
ROFL... OH! Ok... So you aren't gonna be taken alive? Well that works for me...



			
				Haji-Kalam said:
			
		

> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> and in the next you proudly produce Islamic propaganda which promises to attack the enemies of Islam... of which America is decidely one; if not THE most notorious of Islam's enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> The unambiguous enemies of Islam are Russia and Israel. China is becoming a major contender, Switzerland seems eager to be attacked, and Sudan will earn a place if it continues oppressing black Muslims. America doesn't oppress its own Muslim population and will be out of the region within a few years. Plus, in spite of their disgusting carte blanche support for Zionist aggression, the United States has expressed concern over Russian oppression in the Caucasus. Delegitimizing the Caucasian jihad in the eyes of the West by attacking America would serve nobody but the Russian kuffar.
Click to expand...

 
Well America is an unambiguous and unapologetic Ally of Israel...  With our Muslim King and his fleeting Presidency aside.  So, where Islam sees Israel as it's enemy; it has to go through America before it can get to Israel...  

LOL... so you're a Black Muslim... Color me SHOCKED!

Now did ya pick this up in prison? 

I ask because it's long been my contention that the Black Muslim population is the greatest threat to the US, in terms of Islamic Terrorism... given that most come by their faith through incarceration; thus already nurture their sense of disinfranchisement and were in large measure, where they were exposed to church as a child, such was generally limited to Black Liberation Theology... which has precious few degrees of separation from Islamic Jihad.

Now are you now or have you ever been exposed to any Jihadi recruiting in your mosque? If so, what is the focus of such advocacies? Ya seem to be indicating that your sect isn't at war with America; but I'm curious to learn what your sect feels is their responsibility in fighting Islam's enemy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kalam said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first fascist revolution, about which you " could care less " is a telling and seminal moment in human history...it represent the first major attempt to replace Christianity with a secular religion.
> 
> The irony?  That was exactly your critique of Turkey.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. The Ottomans were hardly closer to true Islamic governance than today's Kemalists are. Hereditary autocracy is un-Islamic.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, allow me a pedantic moment: " could care less " is *incorect*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll just stop you there.
Click to expand...


I understand, every single person you meet must try to educate you, help you to grow as a human being- and we don't see: you would if you could...

Darn, it must be so very daunting to have the same event over and over, kind of like living through 'Groundhog Day."


----------



## Kalam

PubliusInfinitum said:


> ROFL... OH!  Ok... So you aren't gonna be taken alive?  Well that works for me...


No, and I wouldn't be the only one dying. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> LOL... so you're a Black Muslim...


No... I'm white.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Color me SHOCKED!
> 
> Now did ya pick this up in prison?


No, I've never been to prison. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> I ask because it's long been my contention that the Black Muslim population is the greatest threat to the US, in terms of Islamic Terrorism... given that most come by their faith through incarceration; thus already nurture their sense of disinfranchisement and were in large measure, where they were exposed to church as a child, such was generally limited to Black Liberation Theology... which has precious few degrees of separation from Islamic Jihad.


As a white person, I wouldn't know. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Now are you now or have you ever been exposed to any Jihadi recruiting in your mosque?


I can't say that I have been, no.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> If so, what is the focus of such advocacies?  Ya seem to be indicating that your sect isn't at war with America; but I'm curious to learn what your sect feels is their responsibility in fighting Islam's enemy.


_Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers._ - 60:8-9​
Jihad against those who oppress Muslims is a duty incumbent on every Muslim of sound body and mind. This is not limited to physical warfare.


----------



## Kalam

PoliticalChic said:


> I understand, every single person you meet must try to educate you, help you to grow as a human being- and we don't see: you would if you could...
> 
> Darn, it must be so very daunting to have the same event over and over, kind of like living through 'Groundhog Day."



Are you still here? 

I'd find it hard to be patronizing immediately after I made an elementary spelling mistake while attempting to criticize my opponent's grammar. Clearly, this isn't the case with you. Way to persevere!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Kalam said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL... OH! Ok... So you aren't gonna be taken alive? Well that works for me...
> 
> 
> 
> No, and I wouldn't be the only one dying.
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... so you're a Black Muslim...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No... I'm white.
> 
> 
> No, I've never been to prison.
> 
> 
> As a white person, I wouldn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now are you now or have you ever been exposed to any Jihadi recruiting in your mosque?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't say that I have been, no.
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so, what is the focus of such advocacies? Ya seem to be indicating that your sect isn't at war with America; but I'm curious to learn what your sect feels is their responsibility in fighting Islam's enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers._ - 60:8-9​Jihad against those who oppress Muslims is a duty incumbent on every Muslim of sound body and mind. This is not limited to physical warfare.
Click to expand...

 

Huh, so you're a white muslim, living in the US... who is very concerned about the Sudanese persecution of Black Muslims in the Sudan; where the Black Muslims happen to be the majority of the population... which it seems to me, is a rather odd sensitivity for a white Muslim living in the US... 

But it does show the irrational nature of Muslims, seeing oppression as a function of the defense from Islamic oppression; and given that you're prone to such unsound reasoning; it follows that you're subject to see the US defense of Israel as oppression of Islam... and as such a prime candidate for an english speaking Jihadist who can readily operate inside the US; one which seems readily predisposed to activity of a non-physical warfare variety; perhaps as a propagandist or other such supporting role.  One who's already admitted that they can't openly discuss what activity they've witnessed within their local mosque...  

Yessir... You're right down the middle, perfectly suited for such.


----------



## Ravi

Again, a guest, invited or not, is obligated to abide by the rules of the host.

It's really that simple.

Coulter couldn't abide by that simple fact and when college students protested, as is their right, she cowardly ran from her speaking engagement forcing the college to cancel.

Now Pubic will post another nonsensical post declaring that Coulter is not in the wrong and that leftists suck and that he wins because he's fooled by his own delusions. But he's still wrong.

Have the last word, Pubic. It won't change the facts.


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> "Was going to?"  Whuh?



Did I use the wrong tense?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Jihad against those who oppress Muslims is a duty incumbent on every Muslim of sound body and mind. This is not limited to physical warfare.


*What the Quran say about Mohammad *

33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much. 

*What Mohammad says about  what Mohammad does*


'Abdullah bin 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, reported: 
Allah's Messenger said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, perform the Prayer, and pay Zakah. If they do that, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. 
Display

*Only muslims pay zakah*


----------



## Kalam

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Huh, so you're a white muslim, living in the US... who is very concerned about the Sudanese persecution of Black Muslims in the Sudan; where the Black Muslims happen to be the majority of the population...  which is a rather odd sensitivity for a white Muslim...


You seem to be very confused. Dark-skinned Arabs are the dominant ethnic group in Sudan.

President Umar al-Bashir:






If you've heard of Darfur, the victims of the genocide there are black African Muslims who come from non-Arabic speaking tribes. 

Rebel leader Khalil Ibrahim (JEM):


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Ravi said:


> Again, a guest, invited or not, is obligated to abide by the rules of the host.


 
A position which is dripping with the implication that the invited guest violated the rules of the host...



> It's really that simple.


 
Of course it is; what else could a position be that originates from a simpleton?



> Coulter couldn't abide by that simple fact


 
What violation of the Canadian Law did Coulter commit? This is a question which has been set to you at least a dozen times in the preceding 23 pages... and to this point it is a question which you've shown NO MEANS TO ANSWER...



> and when college students protested, as is their right, she cowardly ran from her speaking engagement forcing the college to cancel.


 
Ahh... So it's Coulter's fault that the College cancelled the engagement, because the Students exercised their right to violently protest a woman's right to speak... Now that IS a fascinating right indeed. No dount you've CONSTRUED this right yourself. 

Tell us Ravi; what right do you have to prevent an invited guest from speaking? From where does such a right come? In what principle does such a right rest?



> Have the last word, Pubic. It won't change the facts.


 
Well even a blind nut finds a squirrel now and then... You're correct, my having the last word will neither change the facts nor will my adherence to, or advocacy for those facts... change them. But it is a certainty that your fabrication and deceitful insertion of your own, would-be facts, will also not set aside the facts which rest in reality. 

You've lost yet another debate Ravi... but try to find solace in the certainty that you had lost this debate before you scrawled your first delusion... As you do not possess the intellectual means to do anything but lose. 

It's what ya do; it is who ya are.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Kalam said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh, so you're a white muslim, living in the US... who is very concerned about the Sudanese persecution of Black Muslims in the Sudan; where the Black Muslims happen to be the majority of the population... which is a rather odd sensitivity for a white Muslim...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be very confused. Dark-skinned Arabs are the dominant ethnic group in Sudan.
> 
> President Umar al-Bashir:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you've heard of Darfur, the victims of the genocide there are black African Muslims who come from non-Arabic speaking tribes.
> 
> Rebel leader Khalil Ibrahim (JEM):
Click to expand...

 
Huh... I suppose being a Canadian Socialist provides that you're also an expert in the Sudan and it's ethnic and religious demographics..



*Sudanese Ethnic groups*

black 52%, Arab 39%, Beja 6%, foreigners 2%, other 1% 
*Religions*

Sunni Muslim 70% (in north), Christian 5% (mostly in south and Khartoum), indigenous beliefs 25%

Now I wonder how a 39% Arab Minority, overcomes the 52% black majority... in a nation where the religion in question represents 70% of the total population?

Break it down for us...


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> 'Abdullah bin 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, reported:
> Allah's Messenger said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, perform the Prayer, and pay Zakah. If they do that, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.



_"It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us and with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant."_ - Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328 CE), Majmu al-Fatawa 19/20​
Yawn.


----------



## Kalam

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Huh... I suppose being a Canadian Socialist


What?



PubliusInfinitum said:


> provides that you're also an expert in the Sudan and it's ethnic and religious demographics
> 
> ....
> 
> Now I wonder how a 39% Arab Minority, overcomes the 52% black majority... in a nation where the religion in question represents 70% of the total population?
> 
> Break it down for us...


Are you asking me how a minority can consolidate political power and oppress a much larger ethnic group? Are you completely unfamiliar with the modern history of Africa...?

Arabs control the government in Khartoum. Blacks do not. In response to ethnic oppression, blacks formed resistance movements (JEM, SLA, etc.) in attempt to secure their rights. Meanwhile, Arab nomads began raiding black villages in Darfur in an attempt to secure land for grazing. The Arab-dominated government began funding and arming these raiders in response to insurgent activity. There's your Darfur conflict in a nutshell.


----------



## L.K.Eder

PoliticalChic said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> politicalchic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the provost of the university of ottawa, average student iq: 0, wrote to mewidely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached mein advance of my visit in order to recommend that i familiarize myself with canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
> 
> What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did francois a. Houle send a similarly worded letter to israel-hater omar barghouti before he spoke last year at u of ottawa? ("ottawa": Indian for "land of the bed-wetters.")
> 
> how about angela davis, communist party member and former black panther who spoke at the university of zero just last month?
> 
> Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Ormy suspicionis it only conservative women who fuel francois' rage?
> 
> I'm sure canada's human rights commission will get to the bottom of francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as i will be filing a complaint with that august body, so i expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.
> 
> Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward muslimsnor was there the remotest possibility that they would.
> 
> By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill kristol, pat buchanan, david horowitz and i have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.
> 
> At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to canada? How did the country that gave us jim carrey, mike myers, martin short, dan aykroyd and catherine o'hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies? "
> conservative news: Coulter - university of ottawa, parliament condemn speech as "hate speech" - human events
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> bbbbbwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> 
> stop your whining you crazy bitch with an adam's apple*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an intelligent repost.
> 
> Glad to see you achieving up to your abilities.
> 
> Let's see if we can translate from our compendium of "Idiot to English."
> 
> 1. You were showing how very facile you are on the keyboard: "bbbbbwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
> No doubt your progressive kindergarten was thrilled at your successful preformance! Bravo!
> 
> 2. You misunderstood the adult attempt to support a thesis with examples, as some sort of whining. I understand your error, as this is a new phenomenon to you.
> 
> 3. Unable to articulate a clear and cogent rebuttal, you rely on vulgar references that must have been considered clever at family gatherings. So clever, so original.
> 
> 4. An ad hominem attack in place of the rational counter-argument which you are unable to mount.
> 
> Let me guess: you must be of the liberal persusion.  True?
Click to expand...


riposte


----------



## PoliticalChic

L.K.Eder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> bbbbbwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> 
> stop your whining you crazy bitch with an adam's apple*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an intelligent repost.
> 
> Glad to see you achieving up to your abilities.
> 
> Let's see if we can translate from our compendium of "Idiot to English."
> 
> 1. You were showing how very facile you are on the keyboard: "bbbbbwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
> No doubt your progressive kindergarten was thrilled at your successful preformance! Bravo!
> 
> 2. You misunderstood the adult attempt to support a thesis with examples, as some sort of whining. I understand your error, as this is a new phenomenon to you.
> 
> 3. Unable to articulate a clear and cogent rebuttal, you rely on vulgar references that must have been considered clever at family gatherings. So clever, so original.
> 
> 4. An ad hominem attack in place of the rational counter-argument which you are unable to mount.
> 
> Let me guess: you must be of the liberal persusion.  True?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> riposte
Click to expand...


Thank you.
While yours is the more often seen form, 

"A thrust given in return after parrying a lunge; A quick and usually witty response to a taunt; An answer or reply, rapidly uttered, in response "
ripost - Wiktionary

           this alternative form is also acceptable.


----------



## L.K.Eder

PoliticalChic said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an intelligent repost.
> 
> Glad to see you achieving up to your abilities.
> 
> Let's see if we can translate from our compendium of "Idiot to English."
> 
> 1. You were showing how very facile you are on the keyboard: "bbbbbwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
> No doubt your progressive kindergarten was thrilled at your successful preformance! Bravo!
> 
> 2. You misunderstood the adult attempt to support a thesis with examples, as some sort of whining. I understand your error, as this is a new phenomenon to you.
> 
> 3. Unable to articulate a clear and cogent rebuttal, you rely on vulgar references that must have been considered clever at family gatherings. So clever, so original.
> 
> 4. An ad hominem attack in place of the rational counter-argument which you are unable to mount.
> 
> Let me guess: you must be of the liberal persusion.  True?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> riposte
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> While yours is the more often seen form,
> 
> "A thrust given in return after parrying a lunge; A quick and usually witty response to a taunt; An answer or reply, rapidly uttered, in response "
> ripost - Wiktionary
> 
> this alternative form is also acceptable.
Click to expand...


yeah, maybe. but not "repost" if you know what i mean.


----------



## PoliticalChic

L.K.Eder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> riposte
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> While yours is the more often seen form,
> 
> "A thrust given in return after parrying a lunge; A quick and usually witty response to a taunt; An answer or reply, rapidly uttered, in response "
> ripost - Wiktionary
> 
> this alternative form is also acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, maybe. but not "repost" if you know what i mean.
Click to expand...


There are so few of us who can quibble over spelling, grammar, etc. that I must tell you that I actually appreciate it.

I hope that it will nudge more of our fellow posters in that direction.

When I checked 'repost,' I intended to give you a rep if it was incorrect.

Thanks just the same.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Abdullah bin 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, reported:
> Allah's Messenger said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, perform the Prayer, and pay Zakah. If they do that, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us and with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant."_ - Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328 CE), Majmu al-Fatawa 19/20​
> Yawn.
Click to expand...


*You mean spin .*
Ibn-Taymiyyah is not the"prophet" of Islam.
Mohammad is 
My full post again



Kalam said:


> Jihad against those who oppress Muslims is a duty incumbent on every Muslim of sound body and mind. This is not limited to physical warfare.


*What the Quran says about Mohammad *

33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much. 

*What Mohammad says about  what Mohammad does*


'Abdullah bin 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, reported: 
Allah's Messenger said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, perform the Prayer, and pay Zakah. If they do that, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. 
Display

*Only muslims pay zakah*

The same sentiment  are in the Quran.
8:39

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do 
2:193.  
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc193

http://www.ummah.com/what-is-islam/quran/noble/

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20140

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=5008

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=5035


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Kalam said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... I suppose being a Canadian Socialist
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> provides that you're also an expert in the Sudan and it's ethnic and religious demographics
> 
> ....
> 
> Now I wonder how a 39% Arab Minority, overcomes the 52% black majority... in a nation where the religion in question represents 70% of the total population?
> 
> Break it down for us...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you asking me how a minority can consolidate political power and oppress a much larger ethnic group? Are you completely unfamiliar with the modern history of Africa...?
> 
> Arabs control the government in Khartoum. Blacks do not. In response to ethnic oppression, blacks formed resistance movements (JEM, SLA, etc.) in attempt to secure their rights. Meanwhile, Arab nomads began raiding black villages in Darfur in an attempt to secure land for grazing. The Arab-dominated government began funding and arming these raiders in response to insurgent activity. There's your Darfur conflict in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

 

First, I wasn't asking you...  the response was to Toro.

But setting that aside...

So you're saying that Muslims are control the Sudanese Governemnt and are oppressing the population?

Again... no surprise there.  That's the trend wherever Muslims control power.  

It is hilarious tho' that you feel that the color of the controlling Muslim's skin, being slightly askew; a few shades lighter than those that they are controlling, somehow represents the problem.

What tickles me the most about you people, is how you seem to be incapable of admitting that most of the planets current conflicts involve Muslims...  

Naturally, you'll discuss the individual war zones; and in each case declare the Muslims on the defensive.  Islarael -v- Islam... Teeny tiny little country about the size of a US county... can't exist; and keep you people happy.  

What ya also do not seem to grasp is that you're fast becoming anathema to civilization...  "The Religion of Peace" thing is playing out fast...

Best grab a clue or prepare yourself for martyrdom, slick...


----------



## Foxfyre

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... I suppose being a Canadian Socialist
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> provides that you're also an expert in the Sudan and it's ethnic and religious demographics
> 
> ....
> 
> Now I wonder how a 39% Arab Minority, overcomes the 52% black majority... in a nation where the religion in question represents 70% of the total population?
> 
> Break it down for us...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you asking me how a minority can consolidate political power and oppress a much larger ethnic group? Are you completely unfamiliar with the modern history of Africa...?
> 
> Arabs control the government in Khartoum. Blacks do not. In response to ethnic oppression, blacks formed resistance movements (JEM, SLA, etc.) in attempt to secure their rights. Meanwhile, Arab nomads began raiding black villages in Darfur in an attempt to secure land for grazing. The Arab-dominated government began funding and arming these raiders in response to insurgent activity. There's your Darfur conflict in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, I wasn't asking you...  the response was to Toro.
> 
> But setting that aside...
> 
> So you're saying that Muslims are control the Sudanese Governemnt and are oppressing the population?
> 
> Again... no surprise there.  That's the trend wherever Muslims control power.
> 
> It is hilarious tho' that you feel that the color of the controlling Muslim's skin, being slightly askew; a few shades lighter than those that they are controlling, somehow represents the problem.
> 
> What tickles me the most about you people, is how you seem to be incapable of admitting that most of the planets current conflicts involve Muslims...
> 
> Naturally, you'll discuss the individual war zones; and in each case declare the Muslims on the defensive.  Islarael -v- Islam... Teeny tiny little country about the size of a US county... can't exist; and keep you people happy.
> 
> What ya also do not seem to grasp is that you're fast becoming anathema to civilization...  "The Religion of Peace" thing is playing out fast...
> 
> Best grab a clue or prepare yourself for martyrdom, slick...
Click to expand...


There seem to be three threads running through the socioeconomic and political fabric of the world's populations these days.

1)  A resurgence of national pride and appreciation of personal liberties and desire for freedom to seek one's own destiny.

2)  A relentless encroachment of Marxist socialism coupled with a vague concept of one world government that is eroding national identities, personal liberties, and freedom.

3)  A persistent and deadly spread of fanatical religious totalitarianism that, in the present space and time, is manifested mostly in militant Islam.

What are the chances that the group in #1 can resist and reject those in Groups #2 and #3?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Foxfyre said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> Are you asking me how a minority can consolidate political power and oppress a much larger ethnic group? Are you completely unfamiliar with the modern history of Africa...?
> 
> Arabs control the government in Khartoum. Blacks do not. In response to ethnic oppression, blacks formed resistance movements (JEM, SLA, etc.) in attempt to secure their rights. Meanwhile, Arab nomads began raiding black villages in Darfur in an attempt to secure land for grazing. The Arab-dominated government began funding and arming these raiders in response to insurgent activity. There's your Darfur conflict in a nutshell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I wasn't asking you... the response was to Toro.
> 
> But setting that aside...
> 
> So you're saying that Muslims are control the Sudanese Governemnt and are oppressing the population?
> 
> Again... no surprise there. That's the trend wherever Muslims control power.
> 
> It is hilarious tho' that you feel that the color of the controlling Muslim's skin, being slightly askew; a few shades lighter than those that they are controlling, somehow represents the problem.
> 
> What tickles me the most about you people, is how you seem to be incapable of admitting that most of the planets current conflicts involve Muslims...
> 
> Naturally, you'll discuss the individual war zones; and in each case declare the Muslims on the defensive. Islarael -v- Islam... Teeny tiny little country about the size of a US county... can't exist; and keep you people happy.
> 
> What ya also do not seem to grasp is that you're fast becoming anathema to civilization... "The Religion of Peace" thing is playing out fast...
> 
> Best grab a clue or prepare yourself for martyrdom, slick...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There seem to be three threads running through the socioeconomic and political fabric of the world's populations these days.
> 
> 1) A resurgence of national pride and appreciation of personal liberties and desire for freedom to seek one's own destiny.
> 
> 2) A relentless encroachment of Marxist socialism coupled with a vague concept of one world government that is eroding national identities, personal liberties, and freedom.
> 
> 3) A persistent and deadly spread of fanatical religious totalitarianism that, in the present space and time, is manifested mostly in militant Islam.
> 
> What are the chances that the group in #1 can resist and reject those in Groups #2 and #3?
Click to expand...

 

Oh I think it's inevitable...


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Kalam said:


> Kalam's response to Monsieur Coulter on behalf of Canada:



and on behalf of Ann Coulter and freedom-loving Americans you can...


----------



## Kalam

ScreamingEagle said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam's response to Monsieur Coulter on behalf of Canada:
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and on behalf of Ann Coulter and freedom-loving Americans you can...
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Wow! That sure would have been funny had it not taken you four days to post a response!


----------



## Kalam

PubliusInfinitum said:


> So you're saying that Muslims are control the Sudanese Governemnt and are oppressing the population?
> 
> Again... no surprise there.  That's the trend wherever Muslims control power.
> 
> It is hilarious tho' that you feel that the color of the controlling Muslim's skin, being slightly askew; a few shades lighter than those that they are controlling, somehow represents the problem.


The problem is tribal. Non-Arabic speaking tribes (which are -- you guessed it -- black) are oppressed by Arabic-speaking tribes.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Kalam said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam's response to Monsieur Coulter on behalf of Canada:
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and on behalf of Ann Coulter and freedom-loving Americans you can...
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! That sure would have been funny had it not taken you four days to post a response!
Click to expand...


Better late than never....but you can post it on your wall as a standing reminder...


----------



## Kalam

ScreamingEagle said:


> Better late than never....


Not always. Posting a comeback to something written four days earlier, for example, makes you look like more of a desperate tool than you would if you had stayed silent. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> but you can post it on your wall as a standing reminder...


Keep dreaming, Cleetus. I hope they sandwich you between two fat,  long-bearded Saudis the next time you fly.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Kalam said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better late than never....
> 
> 
> 
> Not always. Posting a comeback to something written four days earlier, for example, makes you look like more of a desperate tool than you would if you had stayed silent.
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can post it on your wall as a standing reminder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep dreaming, Cleetus. I hope they sandwich you between two fat,  long-bearded Saudis the next time you fly.
Click to expand...


Too bad we don't have a magic carpet to fly creeps like you outta America...

...but as yet they are still being woven....


----------



## Kalam

ScreamingEagle said:


> Too bad we don't have a magic carpet to fly creeps like you outta America..



Yep. You sure don't.


----------



## Toro

I wonder if all the people here defending Coulter would be doing so if Anne responded to a Jewish person by throwing a quarter out the door and told him to run after it?  Or to a black person to "take his watermelon and leave?"


----------



## Vanquish

The rabid defense of Coulter is mind-numbing to me. Common sense has fled. Admit she's a shock jock with some good points (to you) and be done with it.


----------

