Ann Coulter's Answer to Canada!

[Foxfyre]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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?

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]

"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

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.......

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]

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.......

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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...

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]

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.

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?

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]

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...

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.

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]

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.