• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Ann Coulter accuses Canadian univ. provost of"hate crimes"against Conservatives

Technoviking said:
So, they lie?  Putting things into context that fits your own point of view is called persuasion.

Yes.  They lie.  Putting things into a context that fit your own point of view is persuasion, perhaps, but not when you omit the remaining facts that totally undermine your argument.  In the case of Rush, well, he just outright lies, profusely.  And about stupid things too.  I wonder when he's moving to Costa Rica, the idiot.

Technoviking said:
Here we go.  G W Bush started 9/11, caused AIDS and all things bad.  There is no move afoot by Ms. Coulter to force a theocracy on us.  Or by the others for that matter.  I suppose that I don't realise that I'm being fed a steady diet of bullshit then.  Well, pardon me whilst I go back to the south bound end of this north bound bull and get another spoon ful{/quote]

There's no move afoot by her, but there is a definite movement afoot!  Are you not familiar with the Texas State Board Of Education and its impact of textbooks in the United States?  That its members seek to put creationism in science curricula?  That it seeks to essentially rewrite US history?  There are people that try to claim that the Founding Fathers of the United States wanted the USA to be a "Christian Nation".  Which is odd, since none of them ever said so, and the Constitution seems to be rather thoroughly against it, several of them outright made statements to the contrary.  They are interested in writing Thomas Jefferson, the most important secularist of the bunch, more or less out of history.  Traditonally, they've been checked by California's massive market and more liberal approach, but these ultraconservative nuts, who aren't historians, economists, scientists are manipulating the curriculum to suit their conservative POV.  It's extremely disturbing indeed.  Have a read.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

As for the other nonsense, I don't even know where you're getting that.  Unless you're suggesting I'm claiming the opinions of nuts on the left is any better.  Which, of course, I'm not.  But if you listen to Rush, yes, I think you're being fed a steady diet of bull.  I expect that you have the critical thinking skills to see that, however, and that you are able to discount the noise.  However, since the signal:noise ratio is so low, I don't get why you'd bother in the first place.

Technoviking said:
Yeah, she's over the top.  So is Borat (or whatever his name is).  Michael Moore is another of Ms. Coulter's vein, but he gets Oscars, and Ms. Coulter is first reminded of freedom of speech laws, and then is muzzled.  Now that is comedy!  But I disagree that suggesting someone from the middle east ride a camel is bigotry.  Have you ever been to the Middle East?  I have.  I've seen them riding camels and donkeys.  But, you're right, it was inflammatory, equally so to the loaded question asked of her.  To be fair, the 17 year old moslem student could have retorted "My camel was stopped at customs, so can I borrow your broom?"

Borat's a comedy act, and makes no pretense about being actual commentary, totally irrelevant.  Moore, well, I'm not really a fan of his... except the movie Sicko to a large degree, mainly because he seems to have avoided the depth of manipulation he used in other films - it has much more to say.  But even at that I took it with a massive grain of salt.

As for muzzling, there was no muzzling.  Coulter and her promoters and security people cancelled the event, not uOttawa.  The massive crowd of protestors that likely contributed to that decision, well, I'll refer you to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Personally, I'd rather people like her keep speaking so that their drivel can be discussed (and mocked) publicly, rather than be passed in the shadows.

I've not been to the Middle East, no.  And yes, I'm quite certain they do ride camels and donkeys.  Making a factual statement "People in the Middle East ride camels or donkeys" is not an offensive, inflammatory, or bigoted statement.  When it's put in the context of what Coulter actually said, however, it becomes so.  The statement was made in response to a question about Coulter's (idiotic) suggestion that Muslims shouldn't be allowed on planes, suggesting they use flying carpets instead.  When a young Muslim women who didn't own a flying carpet asked how Coulter proposed she travel, that's when she said "Ride a camel."  If you don't find that remotely offensive, I'm honestly shocked.  And that's not even among the most inflammatory things she's said.
 
I've not been to the Middle East, no.  And yes, I'm quite certain they do ride camels and donkeys.  Making a factual statement "People in the Middle East ride camels or donkeys" is not an offensive, inflammatory, or bigoted statement.  When it's put in the context of what Coulter actually said, however, it becomes so.  The statement was made in response to a question about Coulter's (idiotic) suggestion that Muslims shouldn't be allowed on planes, suggesting they use flying carpets instead.  When a young Muslim women who didn't own a flying carpet asked how Coulter proposed she travel, that's when she said "Ride a camel."  If you don't find that remotely offensive, I'm honestly shocked.  And that's not even among the most inflammatory things she's said.
Then be shocked, because I didn't find it offensive in the least.
Putting things into a context that fit your own point of view is persuasion
I'm glad we agree.
but not when you omit the remaining facts that totally undermine your argument
Now we disagree.
There's no move afoot by her, but there is a definite movement afoot!
And Al Qaeda wants an Islamic Caliphate.  Should I start burning mosques now? ::)
(for those who don't know my point of view, I'm being sarcastic.  That entire paragraph is non-sequitor)
I mean, come on.  Al Gore wants me to believe all sorts of shit.  That has bugger all to do with Barack Obama, who also happens to be a Democrat.
I expect that you have the critical thinking skills to see that, however, and that you are able to discount the noise.  However, since the signal:noise ratio is so low, I don't get why you'd bother in the first place.
I have a very effective RF gain, thank you very much.


My point is this: Ann Coultar was censored, be it through turning off her mic or through pressure, intimidation, or whatever.  To my view, those who successfully silenced her in Ottawa, and those who "warned" her are no different than the Taliban (except that those in Ottawa are too self-righteous to blow themselves up)
 
Coulture censored herself, deliberately and pre-planned. A venue suitable for only 400?! Give me a friggin break. I despise the vacuous one, but even I know she draws a bigger crowd of supporters then that, and always draws out many more. This was a deliberately staged side show. She said she would be shut down, and then forced exactly the kinds of conditions where she could claim she had to shut down... BS on the whole fiasco.

She cancelled herself, and the only threat to her was that other voices would be heard.
 
Teeps74 said:
I stand by both of my statements. Maligning an entire religion because of the actions of a few, at the very least is idiocy (and I am being extremely generous in that assessment).

"because of the actions of a few." Sorry, what sand dune have you stuck your head into. In a earlier post you listed the number of Muslims at 1.6 billion. Now even if only one per cent of them are hardline jihadists that still works out to 1.6 million. And that's just the hardline crazies. Factor in the possible millions of Muslims who are supporters and you have a pretty significant number of troublemakers; again hardly a few.

Having served alongside of Muslims in the Canadian Forces, and worked with ANP and ANA, I find her (and their) treatment of our Islamic allies in the Coalition in Afghanistan and our brethren in uniform HIGHLY offensive, and idiotic.

Please provide examples of where Coulter, Levant, Steyn, Limbaugh, et al have maligned our Afghan allies.

The ideas she (and others) present must be debated, so that we as a species grow and educate ourselves beyond our xenophobic tendencies. We can not debate them if we silence them.

Unfortunately some of your fellow travelers in Ottawa decided otherwise.
 
Redeye said:
I'll side firmly with Teeps here.  The folks mentioned make a living on scaremongering, spreading what is essentially falsehoods, either by distorting truth or putting things into a context chosen to essentially rewrite history.

Please provide examples.

Glenn Beck makes his living shilling the revisionist historical ideas of man whose views were so far out that his fellow Mormons rejected him - W. Cleon Skousen.

Prior to your post I never heard of Skousen and I've never heard of Beck mention him. Now I've haven't listened to all his shows so its quite possible I missed the relevant discussion. I know that Beck has wrote the forward to one of Skousen's books and a search of his website turns seven articles pertaining to Skousen, but that hardly makes Beck a "shill" for Skousen.  But, then maybe you listen to Glenn beck more than I do.

Coulter - well Ezra Levant tried to call her a satirist.  I hope that she is because what she claims to believe is nonsensical, but if she's trying to do satire she sucks at it.

My copy of the "Compact Oxford English Dictionary" describes a satire as: " the use of humour, irony exaggeration or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices." I don't know about you but that's a pretty damn good description of Ann Coulter in my books.

The idea that these people decry losses of liberty when they support politicians who have plunged nations into debt, into wars, into recessions, who are in the process of rewriting history to suit their theocratic Weltanschauung - is ridiculous.  It's disturbing because the people who listen to them don't seem to have any clue that they're being fed a steady diet of idiotic bullshit.

I believe this is what is called an ad hominem attack. In other words when you can't find anything else - attack the person.

As for bigotry, Coulter suggesting someone from the Middle East ride a camel, in the context which she said it, was inflammatory (of course, that's her schtick) and smacked of bigotry.  Hardly a decent response to the question, though it was pointed.  And hardly the first time she's spewed a raftload of stupid shyte about various groups.

Inflammatory - yes, bigotry - no.  Again, referring to my COED which describes a bigot as; " a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others." Which describes you and Teeps74 just as well as Ann Coulter. 
 
CBC correspondent Neil Macdonald, who is regularly excoriated for anti-American and anti-Israeli bias, gets it exactly right in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC web site:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/24/f-rfa-macdonald.html
Neil Macdonald
The poop on Ann Coulter

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

By Neil Macdonald CBC News


Ezra Levant, clever bugger that he is, has just proved once again that you can count on Canada's university crowd to behave like suckers.

This time, his tool was Ann Coulter, the right-wing comedienne and thrower of stink bombs who used to be quite a sensation here in the United States.

Levant, a conservative gadfly and former Reform Party official, made a good choice in deciding to use Coulter. She grabs attention, partly, as she herself has acknowledged, because of her looks.

coulter-392-8171394.jpg

Conservative author Ann Coulter addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Saturday Feb. 20,2010. (Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press)

It's unusual to hear a slender, elegant blonde talk trash the way she does.

At the peak of her fame in 2005, she stared back from the cover of Time magazine, sitting with those endless legs crossed, taking up half the photo.

Since then, though, the novelty has worn off, at least down here.

She still commands a loyal following among the Tea Party crowd and Fox News viewers. But most other outlets have lost interest and moved on.

Like the young neo-con Tucker Carlson in his bowtie, the act got boring.

Don't be a poopy pants

I actually interviewed Coulter once, six years ago, for the better part of an hour.

She had been writing extensively about liberal media bias and was promoting a new book. Therefore, she was available for a sit-down.

Like an earnest dope, I did my due diligence, gathering serious research on the subject and reading non-anecdotal evidence like polling data on journalistic attitudes.

Much of that suggested the media is a pretty bourgeois, fiscally conservative bunch with a deep tendency to genuflect to power and protect the status quo.

After some initial fencing, I started laying out my data and the citations, asking Coulter how it squared with her thesis that we're all socialist stooges.

She swatted it all aside, declaring herself uninterested in such facts and went on the attack. She might as well have called me a big stupid poopy pants. That's pretty much how the rest of the interview went.

After the cameras stopped, and before she hopped into her limo, she told me in a very endearing way that, really, I had to lighten up.

Basically, she was telling me, this is just theatre. Have some fun. Toodles.

Free speech for me

These days, Coulter is reportedly available for $10,000 a speech, going from one venue to another, calling people all sorts of names even more insulting than stupid poopy pants.

Ten grand is a pretty modest sum in the industry of public speaking, and evidently affordable enough for the International Free Press Institute, a group of right-wing activists for whom Levant serves as an adviser.

levant-306-8366765.jpg

Ezra Levant tells a partially filled auditorium of Ann Coulter supporters that her appearance has been canceled at the University of Ottawa because of security concerns. (Pawel Dwulit/Canadian Press)

Now, I know Ezra Levant and I admire him.

He's a free-speech absolutist (so am I, essentially), and a proven adept at raising hell in the humourless, astringent world of academia and the industry that has grown up around speech regulation.

He generally targets those who loudly assert their own right to speak their minds, but who would blithely fine, sanction or even imprison those who, in speaking their minds, cross the lines of political correctness.

Nat Hentoff, the brilliant American First Amendment activist, distilled their philosophy nicely in the title of one of his books: Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee.

These folks are an easy target for Levant, rising as they do whenever he waves a little bait over the water.

In fact, in promoting three Coulter speeches in Canada this week, Levant blogged that "I can hardly wait to hear her comments — and to see if any of our events are crashed by human rights commission stormtroopers!"

Baiting lefties

That kind of left-wing baiting is more or less what he was doing when I first met him in 1993. Then, he was a law student at the University of Alberta and he had just pranked everyone by tacking up notices claiming the school was discriminating against Jews.

When outraged students showed up at a protest he organized, they were treated to an attack on the university's quota system, which reserved spots at the law school specifically for native students. Levant, a Jew, would not qualify for one of these reserved seats.

Predictably, native students claimed this was hate speech and, just as predictably, the dean of student affairs wrote Levant threatening to expel him.

When I interviewed him for the CBC, he was happily relishing the uproar.

Fast forward 17 years to this week and Levant had provoked another university official, this time University of Ottawa provost Francois Houle, into writing another letter.

Houle wrote Coulter even before she had entered the country to advise her of Canadians' great respect for the fundamental right of free expression.

In the same breath, Houle then warned her that Canada has certain laws governing speech that America doesn't have.

"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."

Take a camel

Bingo.

Houle's letter was promptly forwarded to reliably conservative media outlets, and U of O students began to work themselves into a conniption fit about the mere presence of this American she-devil.

Coulter, one protest organizer said, practises "hate speech. She's targeted the Jews, she's targeted the Muslims, she's targeted Canadians, homosexuals, women, almost everybody you could imagine."

By the time she arrived, police were on standby. A crowd of angry students swarmed the front door.

Finally, Levant, with an air of great regret, took the microphone to announce that "it would be physically dangerous for Ann Coulter to proceed with this event" and that "this is an embarrassing day for the University of Ottawa and its student body."

Coulter, after denouncing the school as "bush league," pocketed her fee and moved on. So long, chumps.

And Ezra Levant had once again made his point.

That point being that Canada's academy, including many of its students and professors, are a censorious, hypocritical bunch.

They will shout down and bully people they don't like, but stand by nodding thoughtfully as speakers they favour — let's say, anti-Israel activists — screech invectives that even Coulter probably wouldn't resort to.

Coulter, after all, should probably be seen as a professional entertainer and, as such, knows inchoate fury isn't terribly entertaining.

This isn't to say she isn't offensive. Telling a hijab-wearing Muslim student at the University of Western Ontario to "take a camel" if she can't get on an American airplane is pretty crude.

So are many of the other things Coulter has said about gays, Arabs and feminists. You can look them up.

But to repeat a hackneyed truth: Free speech is a worthless concept unless it applies to speech you don't like.

And you have to ask yourself: What exactly did the young Muslim woman at UWO expect, attending a speech by a self-described "bigoted, mean-spirited conservative" and then taking to the microphone to challenge her?

Instead of getting all twisted out of shape, it might have been better to simply ignore what Coulter had to say. If everyone did that, it would cut off her oxygen.

Or maybe the young Muslim woman could have just called Coulter a big stupid poopy-pants.

But, then, that would have ruined all Ezra's fun.

Bingo!

This was, and always is when Coulter is involved, ALL about political theatre. Coulter is an entertainer, and at only $10,000.—a pop, a pretty low rent entertainer at that. Levant is a gadfly with a very, very good cause who, as Macdonald suggests, has a wicked sense of humour – something which is almost entirely lacking in left-wing intellectuals … wait a second, isn’t that (left wing – intellectuals) a contradiction in terms?

It speaks volumes about the very sad state of what passes for intellectualism in Canada. People like Prof. François Houle appeared to have earned their degrees at universities where fascism, not liberalism was the preferred political philosophy.  Sadly, and with apologies to e.g. Journeyman and e.g Gilles Paquet and some others, the state of the intellects of the professorial staffs at many of our major universities is suspect. They, the professors, often appear, to me, to have been stamped out by some giant, politically correct and historically and philosophically illiterate cookie cutter. Anyway, Levant set out to provoke someone like Houle because he (Levant) knew that our universities are full of big mouthed, empty headed numpties like Houle and one of them was quaranteed to rise to the bait and make a fool of himself, his institution and Canadian academe.

And it was fun to see that self righteous fool held up to ridicule.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
"because of the actions of a few." Sorry, what sand dune have you stuck your head into. In a earlier post you listed the number of Muslims at 1.6 billion. Now even if only one per cent of them are hardline jihadists that still works out to 1.6 million. And that's just the hardline crazies. Factor in the possible millions of Muslims who are supporters and you have a pretty significant number of troublemakers; again hardly a few.

Please provide examples of where Coulter, Levant, Steyn, Limbaugh, et al have maligned our Afghan allies.

Unfortunately some of your fellow travelers in Ottawa decided otherwise.

Dear god, I am the infantry guy here... I am supposed to be the neanderthal. The 1950s called, they want their idiocy back.
 
Teeps74 said:
The 1950s called, they want their idiocy back.

Do you think people are happier now than they were back then?:
http://berndeau.startlogic.com/1955.htm
 
Margaret Wente of the G&M pretty well sums it up:

"Ann Coulter sucker-punched us!
That's what a lot of people think. A loud-mouthed, trash-talking aging babe rides into town, taunts the rubes, engineers the cancellation of her own speaking engagement in a smallish room at a second-tier university, declares herself a victim and makes prime-time news for an entire week. Not bad for a fading star from the Conservative Entertainment Network."

LINK
 
Regardless of what one thinks of Ann Coulter, she has the right to speak without fear of her and her audience being intimidated. Last time I checked, this was Canada, not North Korea.

This pattern of left-wing university students shutting down debate through thug tactics is becoming a common (and disturbing) pattern, and needs to be dealt with NOW. Our freedom of speech is steadily eroding, and most don't seem to notice, or care.

Our universities have become Brownshirt indoctrination centres - soiled by intolerance, anti-Semitism, worship of statism, and a disdain for free thought.

Mao, Stalin, and Che would be proud...

 
Jimmy67 said:
Regardless of what one thinks of Ann Coulter, she has the right to speak without fear of her and her audience being intimidated. Last time I checked, this was Canada, not North Korea.

This pattern of left-wing university students shutting down debate through thug tactics is becoming a common (and disturbing) pattern, and needs to be dealt with NOW. Our freedom of speech is steadily eroding, and most don't seem to notice, or care.

Our universities have become Brownshirt indoctrination centres - soiled by intolerance, anti-Semitism, worship of statism, and a disdain for free thought.

Mao, Stalin, and Che would be proud...



I think we also have to recognize that in Canada we do have these laws however that to an extent limit "free speech" and that the organizations of students opposing her speech represents students showing support for either the Canadian system or the University System. If they choose to protest a speaker on their campus because they feel it will not be condusive to the atmosphere they want to create, more the power to them.    2000 students is approximately 4/5ths of the residence students on campus.  If we tell them that it is wrong to protest or have social movements, political society where they live will stagnate. I don't think anyone would want that.     

Maybe they just didn't want her to speak. From the sounds of it there were 400 seats to hear here speak, only 100 chose to push their way in, and 2000 protested. As it appears to me, most people didn't want her there.

IMO
 
Teeps74 said:
Dear god, I am the infantry guy here... I am supposed to be the neanderthal. The 1950s called, they want their idiocy back.

I broke my promise >:D

Infantry are not "neanderthal" (you're discriminating against your brothers/sisters ;D) but alluding to a retired member by quoting his post in the same breath that you make the statement I yellow-ed above could easily be construed as ageism, another grounds for a Human Rights violation and therefore undercuts your argument about Miss. Coulters allegedly offensive words. Besides, the continuous "chiming" on variations of the word "idiot" is going nowhere.

((((Hugs & Kisses))))  Some of us older folk from the fifties still like a good argument. Hail democracy!!!!

 
Aye, a good argument is enjoyable. I am afraid the Coulture brings out all the very worst in me, as I do well and truly view her as enabling terrorists such as al'Qaeda. Idiots like Coulture try to drive us towards the all out religious war, West vs Islam that morons like al'Qaeda so desperately want.

The vast majority of Islam is not our enemy, and in point of fact, many are our friends. There are Muslim brothers and sisters in the CF today, and I do take severe offence at the bigotry heaped on them by the very vocal and ignorant.

Being of Irish Catholic decent, I suppose I can relate to the suggestion of all of my kind being a terrorist... But once people got around the idea that the IRA were not representative of Catholics, or even Irish Catholics, one starts to understand the pure evil that bigotry is.

If all else fails, and one, because of their xenophobic tendencies, can not accept Islam as just another religion like Christianity... They should remember economy of force. Narrow down the enemy to those that are the enemy, like al'Qaeda, the Taliban, HiG and the various enemy OAG in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Economy of force will allow us all to remain clear headed  and focused on where we have to go, and will not provided recruiting fodder for the enemy groups I have named above.

Asymmetric warfare is more then just killing the bad guys, it is also gutting the recruiting mechanism and minimizing the enemy information operations campaign.
 
Teeps74 said:
If all else fails, and one, because of their xenophobic tendencies, can not accept Islam as just another religion like Christianity...

I don't know how things are fairing in dear sweet Canada these days but here its different (?)

When a minority wants to change our laws and way of life to suit them, thats where I draw the line, and I am not the only one how feels that ther should be one law for all Australians.  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/08/2839749.htm

...and here, , http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslim-leader-wants-elements-of-sharia-in-australia-20100307-pqlo.html and this is the tip of the iceberg down here.

Here is the Aussie government's take, a quote from the Rt Hon Peter Costello (from the past 'conservative' government http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/If-you-want-sharia-law-move-Costello/2006/02/23/1140670199148.html

EDITs to add what Australian muslims want/support  http://www.centraltelegraph.com.au/story/2010/03/08/aussie-muslims-support-sharia-law-trad/

Regards,

OWDU
 
Overwatch Downunder said:
I don't know how things are fairing in dear sweet Canada these days but here its different (?)

When a minority wants to change our laws and way of life to suit them, thats where I draw the line, and I am not the only one how feels that ther should be one law for all Australians.  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/08/2839749.htm

...and here, , http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslim-leader-wants-elements-of-sharia-in-australia-20100307-pqlo.html and this is the tip of the iceberg down here.

Here is the Aussie government's take, a quote from the Rt Hon Peter Costello (from the past 'conservative' governemnt)  http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/08/get-out-if-you-want-sharia-law-australia-tells-muslims.html

You do know the parts of Sharia that were being discussed were the family law parts right? The two articles you linked, the proponents actually say that they would not displace civil or criminal, and showed precedents already set in Aus where other groups are allowed this.

Remember that Sharia is a blanket term and does include the Whabbis and Deobans (sic... the stoning we are familiar with) but there are so many other Islamic groups that favour more moderate and modern forms of laws that are remarkably similar to our own.

In Canada we allow for religious family courts (notably the Catholics and Jewish faiths enjoy these). So long as it is regulated, and an open system, I really can not see the argument against. The keys to this being, Canadian law will supersede in a question of conflict where human rights or criminal code are at issue.

[Devil's advocate hat off]

You should also note, that it is the Islamic community that stood against Sharia in Canada, and I suspect the same could be said of Aus, though I admit, I am not familiar at all with the situation there. From my own expereince and observation, Muslims tend to not be as vocal as we "Christians" are (I loosely associate with my religion now, ergo the quotation marks). Because of this lack of voice from the silent majority, we tend to hear the idiots so much more loudly.

In Canada, the Muslims are getting organized and are voicing opposition to extremism, violence and terrorism.

http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/

Too little too late? I do not know... I hope not. This is just one example of Muslims trying to reach out to their own. We are seeing them more and more in the press now, responding to terrorist attacks and condemning those same attacks. They are doing something the Catholic Church never did, and that is apologizing for the actions of the few. The Catholic Church never apologized for the actions of the IRA (nor should it have... Nor should Muslims have to apologize for a few extremists).
 
Down here on cable/satellite we get a vast array of world news. CNNI, Sky, BBC, and Fox. I tend to watch CNNI and Fox most, and I do enjoy their programming. I get a kick out of Riley, Hanity, Greta and the rest, and just as much as out of Anmanpour etc. Its entertainment and news, discussing somwe rather hot political items, etc.

Your opinions of some which I do not agree are respected, so don't forget that.

Here is yet another bizarre incident which rocked the country (and still does) that happened in 2006..... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/muslim-leader-blames-women-for-sex-attacks/story-e6frg6nf-1111112419114

Cheers,

OWDU
 
And as always you are a gentleman, scholar, and all round nice guy Downunder. You are a good man, just in the wrong army  ;)

Ya, that article is just plain... Well, takes all types in this world. That did make world headlines.
 
Teeps74 said:
Aye, a good argument is enjoyable. I am afraid the Coulture brings out all the very worst in me, as I do well and truly view her as enabling terrorists such as al'Qaeda. Idiots like Coulture try to drive us towards the all out religious war, West vs Islam that morons like al'Qaeda so desperately want.

The vast majority of Islam is not our enemy, and in point of fact, many are our friends. There are Muslim brothers and sisters in the CF today, and I do take severe offence at the bigotry heaped on them by the very vocal and ignorant.

Being of Irish Catholic decent, I suppose I can relate to the suggestion of all of my kind being a terrorist... But once people got around the idea that the IRA were not representative of Catholics, or even Irish Catholics, one starts to understand the pure evil that bigotry is.

If all else fails, and one, because of their xenophobic tendencies, can not accept Islam as just another religion like Christianity... They should remember economy of force. Narrow down the enemy to those that are the enemy, like al'Qaeda, the Taliban, HiG and the various enemy OAG in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Economy of force will allow us all to remain clear headed  and focused on where we have to go, and will not provided recruiting fodder for the enemy groups I have named above.

Asymmetric warfare is more then just killing the bad guys, it is also gutting the recruiting mechanism and minimizing the enemy information operations campaign.

Aye, a very worthy post; I descend from Irish Catholics too. 
I love Canada; as a mouthy female I'd probably be dead by now
had I the bad luck of being born in a different country.

And, I agree with you: the boundary-pushers of the world
test the limits of our patience; they create flashpoints.
But my argument remains, if Canadian universities don't put
limits on university professors, some of whom I believe trash-talk
Canada, then, they can't very well write warning letters to the
Coulter's of the world either.

But for me also, this issued is larger than being a Christian, Jew,
Muslim or any other religious affiliation.

Let the boundary pushers speak; let them "own" their words;
Don't shout them down with threats of mob violence and warning
letters in advance. Let them speak so the good many people can
rise up and respond. If they mis-speak, then we can refute them
on principle. I prefer the Ann Coulters of the world who are right
out there for all to see over "some" professors who hold positions
of authority over students and fly under the radar. To me, what they
say is even more dangerous to Canada.

Canadian universities cannot have it both ways: demonizing Judaism
one week and banning Coulter the next. Which was part of the
reason she was invited to Canada; a punctuated (if perhaps
over the top) response to the end of another "Israel-Apartheid-Bash-
Canada" season.


 
Limbaugh: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/statements/ - Particularly like his "banning fishing" and "mandating circumcision" claims.  Most amusingly, some nutcase I was debating about healthcare claimed the opposite, that Obama wanted to ban circumcision.  Neither are remotely true.

Beck: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/

Politifact doesn't really do as an intensive review of Beck, but I've listened to the guy enough to find that his distortions of history, often quoted by the sheep that follow the guy, are both alarming and disturbing.  Beck's pretty extensively covered by a number of outlets like Media Matters For America, as well.  Factcheck.org's got some early doozies by him here: http://www.factcheck.org/tag/glenn-beck/

Coulter's mainly inflammatory, she makes so few statements of fact from what I've seen that there's not so much fact checking on her, but what there is isn't great.  http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ann-coulter/

Now, of course, there are pundits on the other side of the spectrum who have problems, but I find them to be generally much less inflammatory than these three, or Liddy, or Hannity, etc.  Maddow and Olbermann I both enjoy, and yes, they can be fairly intense too - but even if I don't agree with them I don't see the same kind of undertone.

Going back to the whole thing - I don't like the idea of someone, even Coulter, being censored - but she wasn't, she made a decision, and there's an argument to be presented that it was set up that way, though I won't go as far as to say that's actually true... but the venue chosen seems to suggest it could be possible.

Retired AF Guy said:
Please provide examples.
 
Redeye said:
Limbaugh: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/statements/ - Particularly like his "banning fishing" and "mandating circumcision" claims.  Most amusingly, some nutcase I was debating about healthcare claimed the opposite, that Obama wanted to ban circumcision.  Neither are remotely true.

Beck: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/

Politifact doesn't really do as an intensive review of Beck, but I've listened to the guy enough to find that his distortions of history, often quoted by the sheep that follow the guy, are both alarming and disturbing.  Beck's pretty extensively covered by a number of outlets like Media Matters For America, as well.  Factcheck.org's got some early doozies by him here: http://www.factcheck.org/tag/glenn-beck/

Coulter's mainly inflammatory, she makes so few statements of fact from what I've seen that there's not so much fact checking on her, but what there is isn't great.  http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ann-coulter/

Now, of course, there are pundits on the other side of the spectrum who have problems, but I find them to be generally much less inflammatory than these three, or Liddy, or Hannity, etc.  Maddow and Olbermann I both enjoy, and yes, they can be fairly intense too - but even if I don't agree with them I don't see the same kind of undertone.

Going back to the whole thing - I don't like the idea of someone, even Coulter, being censored - but she wasn't, she made a decision, and there's an argument to be presented that it was set up that way, though I won't go as far as to say that's actually true... but the venue chosen seems to suggest it could be possible.   

Thank you for the examples. Will bookmark the two sites you linked to. Can't really say anything about left-wing commentators, may be because they are so few. However, I caught the interview between Olbermann and Perez Hilton where they did a hatchet job on the young beauty contestant that Hilton had interviewed about her views on the American family. What they said about her I consider beyond the pale, no matter what latter revelations came about her and her family. However, thats a topic for another discussion/thread.
 
Back
Top