Ann Coulter's Answer to Canada!

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[csbarry]

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.

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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...

Of course Newby is correct...

But your response!

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

And the hours of preparation! I am in awe.

 

[Zona]

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

Maybe she wanted to speak French?

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

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

Funny dude.

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

Say it again, see if it gets funny .

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

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

Oh Canada!

 

[eots]

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...

Of course Newby is correct...

But your response!

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

And the hours of preparation! I am in awe.

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

 

[American Horse]

nonsense...

Of course Newby is correct...

But your response!

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

And the hours of preparation! I am in awe.

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

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

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

 

[blindnessprevai]

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

 

[Mr. Peepers]

She don't have to live like a refugee.

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

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

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Did those crazy kids blast this at her?

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

 

[Modbert]

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

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

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

Are you whacked out of your mind? Serious question.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

Are you whacked out of your mind? Serious question.

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

 

[Kalam]

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

I know, right?

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

Ouch KaBlam!

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

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

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

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

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

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Chic with that pic is a he? Who knew?

 

[MaggieMae]

. . . ."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.

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

 

[Kalam]

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

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

Understandable.

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

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

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

I'll let you decide that for yourself.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

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

 

[Samson]

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

Bill Meher.
George Carlin......

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

Understandable.

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

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

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

I'll let you decide that for yourself.

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

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

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

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