Ann Coulter's Answer to Canada!

[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]

I prefer brunets.

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.....

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]

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]

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.....

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'... )

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Modbert]

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]

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]

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

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

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’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

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

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.

 

[mdn2000]

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.

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

 

[mdn2000]

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?

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.

an example of her hate and dishonesty, please

 

[Modbert]

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]

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.

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.

 

[del]

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.

an example of her hate and dishonesty, please

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]

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.

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. )

 

[American Horse]

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.