Ann Coulter's Answer to Canada!

[MaggieMae]

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:

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]

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]

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."

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

my favorite coulter quote is "good-bye."

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

with great power comes great responsibility.

children should not run with scissors.

 

[American Horse]

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.

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?

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

 

[Foxfyre]

. . . ."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]

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.

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

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.

 

[American Horse]

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]

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.

nonsense...