Anne Coulter outdoes herself AGAIN!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anderton Prime
Just a follow-up to the anti-Canadians thread posted a week ago with the clip of Anne Coulter saying Canada should thank the US for being allowed to exist on the same continent as them. Watch the clip then discuss...

http://www.muchosucko.com/video-dontexpectacanadiantobackyouupinafight.html

I'm tired of the excuse that she doesn't necessarily speak for all Americans. She needs to be silenced and pronto.

Silenced!
You can't selectively choose the people that have a right to free speech. There are plenty of Canadians that like to be outspoken in their criticism of America, so why can't Americans criticise Canada. It is up to the discerning audience to decide whether they believe it or not.

from the site
Don't Expect A Canadian To Back You Up In A Fight!
Is that Canadian Mantra ...j/k ;)
 
Yeah but when someone is talking out of their ass they should be restricted form doing so on such an international level. Coulter should be relegated to a smaller forum...maybe a public access cable station.

If a Canadian were to be a regular on CNN or Fox News and keep bashing America - including making false claims and discussing subjects they clearly have no expertise in - Americans would be more than a little aggravated. And that's what I am. Aggravated. At her. And I think she SHOULD be taken off the news.
 
Anderton Prime
Yeah but when someone is talking out of their ass they should be restricted form doing so on such an international level. Coulter should be relegated to a smaller forum...maybe a public access cable station.

Fair enough, but to me it's the same as that George Galloway turning up on Sky, BBC, Chan4 etc and spouting nonsense. Sure it winds me up, but I wouldn't call for him to be removed. Some of what he says is laughable, some really offensive but it is his opinion, and who am I to say that it is wrong.

The Canadian involvement in Vietnam is a bit erroneous :lol: so she's doing a good enough job in discrediting herself, just give her enough rope and she'll be done soon ;)
 
danoff
The funny part about all this is that... hang on a second let me get out the bold...




SHE WAS RIGHT!!!



hang on I need to get some more bold..


CANADA DID SEND TROOPS TO VIETNAM!!!!!!

http://progressive.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/28/234351/315

(her context was off but her facts were correct)

Canada did not send troops...as in the Canadian Government did not send troops...but yes there were citizens that volunteered to serve with the US forces, so there are Canadian Vets. At no time did the Government send troops :)

found the bold myself ;)
 
Canada did not send troops...as in the Canadian Government did not send troops...but yes there were citizens that volunteered to serve with the US forces, so there are Canadian Vets. At no time did the Government send troops

.... as part of an international agreement, troops came from Canada.
 
Doesn't that violate the free speach act in some way? I mean, isn't that a subtle threat ofd some sort? Like, "we've got you by the balls and you can't do anything about it" kind of thing? Quite sickening actually. I think I'm going to go look at some dead possum pictures to get my mind off of her.
 
I knew about Canadians serving with the US in Vietnam for a long time, it's something that has been happening for a long time. I believe Canadians serving as American soldiers have even died fighting in the current Iraq war. But Canadians were sent to Vietnam for non-combative roles, meaning that we did not assist America directly in their war.

Although that video does help prove the fact that Ann Coulter is a complete jackass.
 
same here but im going to go look at my dead car. makes me just as happy <8- P people just need to relax. i would rather be with canada and be nice and calm compared to the crazy mindset of some people here (the U.S.) although i like the U.S. anyways canadians can get R32s easily unlike us.
 
But Canadians were sent to Vietnam for non-combative roles, meaning that we did not assist America directly in their war.
So the guy that transports the ammunition didn't "assist " in the war ? Same as the guy who helps set up the fire base ? Or works as a liason between Air force and Army ? Or as an artilery spotter ? Your logic is twisted. If you were there you assisted especially since the whole country was a combat zone with no " behind the lines ". By the way what do you base your statement on ?
Americans look at it this way,
" I despise what you say but I'll die to defend your right to say it " .
 
Keep in mind I was talking about the Canadians sent as part of the ICC, not the ones who chose under their own freewill to join the US military. ICC members were observers, and were never directed by the Canadian government to enter combat (although the US military did take advantage of some of these 'neutral' observers to obtain intelligence).

Also, likeit or not, keep in mind with the massive amounts of raw materials we ship south, some of it was bound to end up being used for weapons that would be used in Vietnam.
 
blargonator
same here but im going to go look at my dead car. makes me just as happy <8- P people just need to relax. i would rather be with canada and be nice and calm compared to the crazy mindset of some people here (the U.S.) although i like the U.S. anyways canadians can get R32s easily unlike us.

since when? i've never in my life seen an R32 here in Canada.
 
Here ya go ;
During the years 1954 to 1975 Canada served on 2 international truce commissions and provided medical supplies and technical assistance. Canadian diplomats were involved in negotiations between Washington and Hanoi and successive Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, maintained that Ottawa was an impartial and objective peacekeeper, an innocent and helpful bystander negotiating for peace and administering aid to victims of the war. However, Cabinet papers, confidential stenographic minutes of the truce commissions as well as top-secret American government cables revealed Canada to be a willing ally of US counterinsurgency efforts.

Canada's record on the truce commissions was a partisan one, rooted in the presumption of Hanoi's guilt and Saigon's innocence and designed to discredit North Vietnam while exonerating South Vietnam from its obligations to uphold the Geneva Agreements. Canadian delegates engaged in espionage for the US Central Intelligence Agency and aided the covert introduction of American arms and personnel into South Vietnam while they spotted for US bombers over North Vietnam. Canadian commissioners shielded the US chemical defoliant program from public inquiry, parlayed American threats of expanded war to Hanoi, and penned the reports legitimating both the rupture of the Geneva Agreements and the US air war over North Vietnam. Ottawa would later assert that these actions were necessary to counter-balance the activities of the Eastern bloc countries with whom they shared membership on the truce commissions.
Links = http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1588/
http://dede.essortment.com/canadasvietnam_rgwv.htm
 
:lol:

I love it...

Selective use of our rights to free speech.

How can you beat that?!

Silence those who speak out in a fashion I do not like!
Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:

Too bad consistancy isn't one of the traits going along with this sort of tolerance. :)
Maybe, just maybe, with a little consistancy michael moore and mike tyson could be shut up just like anne. :rolleyes:

:lol:
Like I said...
The first amendment only applies to those who I agree with, no one else. :D
(especially for conservatives... they don't deserve any of the rights monopolized by the liberal intellectual community)

:lol: :rolleyes:

:disappointed:

And to think that I honestly believed all that free speech crap I've had shoved down my throat by "the left." :disappointed&notsuprised:
 
:funnymocksmiley:
:rolleyes:

...
Speak your truth quietly and clearly and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Amazing, truely, utterly, amazing (scary too!).
:rolleyes:

Better watch what I say though... If someone doesn't agree I might end up with a 🤬 :lol:

Edit:
btw, just thought of another great mock smiley... It's the :PracticeWhatYouPreach: smiley. ;)
 
ledhed
Here ya go ;
During the years 1954 to 1975 Canada served on 2 international truce commissions and provided medical supplies and technical assistance. Canadian diplomats were involved in negotiations between Washington and Hanoi and successive Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, maintained that Ottawa was an impartial and objective peacekeeper, an innocent and helpful bystander negotiating for peace and administering aid to victims of the war. However, Cabinet papers, confidential stenographic minutes of the truce commissions as well as top-secret American government cables revealed Canada to be a willing ally of US counterinsurgency efforts.

Canada's record on the truce commissions was a partisan one, rooted in the presumption of Hanoi's guilt and Saigon's innocence and designed to discredit North Vietnam while exonerating South Vietnam from its obligations to uphold the Geneva Agreements. Canadian delegates engaged in espionage for the US Central Intelligence Agency and aided the covert introduction of American arms and personnel into South Vietnam while they spotted for US bombers over North Vietnam. Canadian commissioners shielded the US chemical defoliant program from public inquiry, parlayed American threats of expanded war to Hanoi, and penned the reports legitimating both the rupture of the Geneva Agreements and the US air war over North Vietnam. Ottawa would later assert that these actions were necessary to counter-balance the activities of the Eastern bloc countries with whom they shared membership on the truce commissions.
Links = http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1588/
http://dede.essortment.com/canadasvietnam_rgwv.htm
Well I'll be damned. Gotta love what they leave out of the history textbooks...
 
Kent
:funnymocksmiley:
:rolleyes:



Amazing, truely, utterly, amazing (scary too!).
:rolleyes:

Better watch what I say though... If someone doesn't agree I might end up with a 🤬 :lol:

Edit:
btw, just thought of another great mock smiley... It's the :PracticeWhatYouPreach: smiley. ;)

My signature does not mean I have restricted myself from voicing my opinion from time to time. Enclosing your thoughts and / or opinions within colons is arrogant and not really that clever or amusing. That's my opinion, which I spoke quietly. And when did I not listen to others' opinions? If you're going to try to use my signature against me, at least do it correctly.
 
I was making the point that you put forth an idea of being fair about listening to people and allowing them to have opinions, yet the first thing you do for anne is say she shouldn't be allowed to speak on the news.

I find it odd that you quote something suggesting we all listen to other people since they have their stories as well, then demand that anne be taken off the air simply because you don't like what she has to say.

I also find it incredibley rude to suggest I am arrogant simply because I use humor in a post where free speech is being discussed as if only certain people have the right to speak their mind.

Go ahead and consider me arrogant if you wish but I am not the one saying "she needs to be silenced pronto."

Plain and simple, you are not showing me any of the virtues I believe to be promoted by your sig.

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Then your first response to my first post...

the entire post none the less!
:tired of people finding supposedly innovative ways to create their own mock-smileys using colons:

Now do those honestly look like the words of a person who wanted to listen or be on good terms with another man?
Or for that matter, do those look like the words of a person who understands the peace that may exist through silence?


In my opinion your response is evidence that you were just upset by what I had to say and rather than listen you decided to lash out with insult.

At that point I felt it would be fitting to point out the inconsistancies between your behavior and your sigs message.

BTW, doing exactly what you are insulting others for doing is hypocritical!
:example:
also, there is no such thing as "quiet" when we are exchanging words through a forum like this.
 
I DID listen to Coulter. She IS ignorant. But nowhere in The Desiderata does it say I should continue listening to someone who has their proverbial head up their proverbial ass.

I still think including "mock smileys" and rolling-eye smileys in your posts is rude and obnoxious.

"Remember what peace there may be in silence." To me this means listening and thinking before speaking. I listened to Coulter in both newsclips, this one and the one from the other thread, and made my decision. I still think she does not belong on television.

And I will never remain silent. I am well-aware of the peace that exists in silence, but this DOES NOT mean I wish to remain silent, nor does it imply that I SHOULD remain silent. You're misreading and misinterpreting my signature, which is unfortunate.

Bottom line is that I do not argue against free speech simply because I think Anne Coulter should shut her ignorant mouth. She has abused her right to free speech, and I believe it is high time she be stripped of it.

Yes, you can use humour, but it's slightly condescending and therefore open to criticism. Namely mine. All I did was use equally cynical humour to FREELY EXPRESS my views about what you said and how you said it. And here you come, trying to use my signature against me because you somehow think that buried within Ehrmann's words is a command for me to be quiet and never speak my mind. WRONG.
 
I had put in about 25 minutes of typing a response before I realized what must be done.

Unfortunately, I do not see this thread calming down and I certainly do not see a possibility of a reply from myself without an even more hostile reply in return.

This same sort of thing happend in the "cars in general" forum and I learned a valuable lesson in the process.

And so...

The peace that comes with silence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back