# Want to see Ann Coulter get fucking OWNED on Canadian TV? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 2, 2005, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956 "2005-02-02T06:25:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/201 "2005-02-04T10:16:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > So, because it is, um, MISSING, it must be what they were discussing? Could you be more daft? I think the torrent of abuse on you supporting my common sense analysis of the interview at the heart of this debate prove that you are being obtuse and difficult rather than I am being daft. > [@Liberal](#): > > Tu quoque, actually. Yeah, [that’s a good description of what you’re doing](http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000661.php) > [@Adamsmith.org](#): > > The fallacy of the tu quoque occurs because it makes no attempt to deal with the subject under discussion. A new subject is introduced, namely the record of someone involved. The truth or falsehood of an assertion has nothing to do with the background of the person who makes it. Evidence for or against that assertion is not altered by details of the previous actions of the one who is putting it forward. Seing as how you’re doing exactly the above both to me and in reference to Coulter’s remarks, seems pretty apt to use the phrase in association with your remarks. > [@Liberal](#): > > Inasmuch as you’re the one who associated me with conservatives, I’ll consider that to be a retraction. Fine, I’ll grant you this one - you’re not a conservative. You talk like them, debate like them, hate like them, defend their talking heads and blowhards, and are ridiculously short-sighted just like them, but you’re not a conservative. > [@Liberal](#): > > You’re lying about the disbelief, and you’re ignorant about the motivations. I don’t mind being called a liar or ignorant by you of all people. It kinda takes the sting away, to be honest, seeing as how you’re nutty as a fruit bat. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/202 "2005-02-04T10:20:00Z")
> [@Talon Karrde](#): > > The CBC guy was correct because he meant that Canada didn’t send troops in the way that Anne Coulter said they did. Unfortunately, he kept what he meant in his head, leaving people to interpret his multiple categorical denials in any way they please. As I said early on, he should have said something like this: “Canada did not send troops in the sense that you seem to be implying, Ms. Coulter. There were two small peacekeeping missions, one in 1954 long before the US got involved, and the other during the cease-fire in 1973. The Canadians who actually fought in Vietnam were mercenaries.” Instead, he went for the cheap dramatic effect of condescension. Holding back a part of the truth, when it is pertinent, is tantamount to lying. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/203 "2005-02-04T10:27:27Z")
Hey **Lib** I told you it was a shot in the dark! I tried though 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/204 "2005-02-04T10:28:21Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > I think the torrent of abuse on you supporting my common sense analysis of the interview at the heart of this debate prove that you are being obtuse and difficult rather than I am being daft. Nah. It just proves that leftists like to fight in packs like jackals. [quote] Yeah, [that’s a good description of what you’re doing](http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000661.php)I see that I’m going to have to spell this out for you. We both are engaging in tu quoque. It’s the kind of thing you can’t pin on the second person without pinning it on the first person as well. It is intended to be a third person accusation. > [@](#): > > Seing as how you’re doing exactly the above both to me and in reference to Coulter’s remarks, seems pretty apt to use the phrase in association with your remarks. Tu quoque, actually. > [@](#): > > Fine, I’ll grant you this one - you’re not a conservative. You talk like them, debate like them, hate like them, defend their talking heads and blowhards, and are ridiculously short-sighted just like them, but you’re not a conservative. You are factually incorrect. I hate no one, not even Desmostylus. Nor am I defending Ann Coulter. She was wrong in the interview — which is what I’ve said several times now. > [@](#): > > I don’t mind being called a liar or ignorant by you of all people. It kinda takes the sting away, to be honest, seeing as how you’re nutty as a fruit bat. I suppose that since you cannot construct a coherent argument, what you are doing is the best you can do. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/205 "2005-02-04T10:35:04Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Unfortunately, he kept what he meant in his head, leaving people to interpret his multiple categorical denials in any way they please. As I said early on, he should have said something like this: “Canada did not send troops in the sense that you seem to be implying, Ms. Coulter. There were two small peacekeeping missions, one in 1954 long before the US got involved, and the other during the cease-fire in 1973. The Canadians who actually fought in Vietnam were mercenaries.” Instead, he went for the cheap dramatic effect of condescension. Holding back a part of the truth, when it is pertinent, is tantamount to lying. One imagines that his expected audience was Canadian. One imagines they knew what he meant. One is sorry for speaking as one. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/206 "2005-02-04T10:37:01Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > One imagines that his expected audience was Canadian. One imagines they knew what he meant. That’s possibly true. Rodd Hill is Canadian. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/207 "2005-02-04T10:37:51Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Unfortunately, he kept what he meant in his head, leaving people to interpret his multiple categorical denials in any way they please. As I said early on, he should have said something like this: “Canada did not send troops in the sense that you seem to be implying, Ms. Coulter. There were two small peacekeeping missions, one in 1954 long before the US got involved, and the other during the cease-fire in 1973. The Canadians who actually fought in Vietnam were mercenaries.” Instead, he went for the cheap dramatic effect of condescension. Holding back a part of the truth, when it is pertinent, is tantamount to lying. “As I said early on”? Where? See, this isn’t keeping what you meant in your head, and it’s not tantamount to lying, because what you’re doing is actually _lying_. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/208 "2005-02-04T10:48:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > That’s possibly true. Rodd Hill is Canadian. Exactly. He wasn’t misrepresenting the truth, just telling the truth with his audience in mind. Old Anne-whats-her-face could say on NZ tv that NZ participated in the current Iraq debacle. We would be outraged. We were not part of the “coalition of the willing” but sent some army engineers after the “war” “ended” (since withdrawn). Anne would be right. A few people with NZ uniforms were sent AFTER the “war” had finished. NZers would also be right in saying we did not participate in the war. And while I bow to the fact that you know way more about everything then I do, being a peacekeeper is not the same as representing your country in a miltary way. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/209 "2005-02-04T10:51:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Nah. It just proves that leftists like to fight in packs like jackals. Or maybe that you’re wrong and too bloody-minded and petty to admit it. Of course, as I am not really a leftist but more left-of-centre, you might want to rethink your broad brush strokes. Those who disagree with you are not automatically leftist, and simply being more right-wing than the current crop of conservatives doesn’t make you conservative. > [@](#): > > I see that I’m going to have to spell this out for you. We both are engaging in tu quoque. It’s the kind of thing you can’t pin on the second person without pinning it on the first person as well. It is intended to be a third person accusation. > > Tu quoque, actually. Fine, we know you can spell it now. And you can admit you’re doing it. But what I am saying is that you’ve been doing it since the beginning of your derailment of this thread, and I DID make the accusation as a third party. You were using Tu quoque in your arguments against Desmostylus by saying the CBC interviewer was factually incorrect while contextually correct, thus taking effect away from Coulter’s remarks being totally incorrect contextually whilst marginally correct factually. Any common sense analysis will hold that you’re talking out of your ass and simply being pedantic with your absolutely literal interpretation of the interview. Annie of Green Goebbels was surely speaking of combat troops, and the CBC interviewer, whilst dramatic in his refutation of Coulter’s remarks, was correct in context if incorrect in the absolute literal truth. > [@](#): > > You are factually incorrect. I hate no one, not even Desmostylus. Nor am I defending Ann Coulter. She was wrong in the interview — which is what I’ve said several times now. Can’t tell by your words. You are defending Coulter using Tu Quoque to do so. Your later claims that ‘she was wrong, too’ are window dressing for your refusal to be reasonable. > [@](#): > > I suppose that since you cannot construct a coherent argument, what you are doing is the best you can do. I think the above is pretty coherent. If you can’t refute it, shut up. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/210 "2005-02-04T11:02:28Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > And while I bow to the fact that you know way more about everything then I do, being a peacekeeper is not the same as representing your country in a miltary way. But I agree with you, which is why I keep saying that Coulter was wrong. You know, it is possible that two people can be wrong. As I see it, Coulter attempted to paint Canada’s involvement as sending massive numbers of troops, while the interviewer attempted to paint Canada’s involvement as nonexistent. Both were wrong. Coulter overstated, but Canada’s involvement, aside from the peacekeepers, was significant. See the CBC’s [Supplying the War Machine](http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-1413-9128/conflict_war/vietnam/clip7). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/211 "2005-02-04T11:07:10Z")
> [@Gomiboy](#): > > Or maybe that you’re wrong and too bloody-minded and petty to admit it. That is not the case. The instances of my admitting error are numerous, and always follow a compelling argument contrary to my position. > [@](#): > > But what I am saying is that you’ve been doing it since the beginning of your derailment of this thread, and I DID make the accusation as a third party. Not “as”, “to”. Tu quoque is the “oh, yeah, well you’re one too” defense. And everytime one of us accuses the other of it, we are engaging in it ourselves. > [@](#): > > You are defending Coulter using Tu Quoque to do so. 😃 That’s quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. > [@](#): > > I think the above is pretty coherent. If you can’t refute it, shut up. Why don’t you just slap me upside the head? It will be an improvement on your argument. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/212 "2005-02-04T11:32:56Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > That is not the case. The instances of my admitting error are numerous, and always follow a compelling argument contrary to my position. Prove it. You’ve been wrong at least 3 times in this very thread, and ain’t admitted it once. Let’s start with this one - > [@liberal](#): > > See the CBC’s Supplying the War Machine. Weren’t most of those companies US owned and condemned by the Canadian government? > [@](#): > > Not “as”, “to”. Tu quoque is the “oh, yeah, well you’re one too” defense. And everytime one of us accuses the other of it, we are engaging in it ourselves. Petty and pedantic. Of course maybe that’s all I get from you. It’s certainly all you’ve done in this thread. > [@](#): > > 😃 That’s quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. I guess you don’t read your own posts much. Of course to get to 20k posts, I guess you have to be willing to post any old mental diarrhoea that comes from between your ears. [/QUOTE] Why don’t you just slap me upside the head? It will be an improvement on your argument. [/QUOTE] I, unlike you, have a life outside of this board and don’t do stupid things that will get me arrested. Sorry. I would take your advice on board if you weren’t as nutty as a fruit bat. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/213 "2005-02-04T11:33:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > See the CBC’s [Supplying the War Machine](http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-1413-9128/conflict_war/vietnam/clip7). This is a very interesting interview and in some way questions the unofficial involvment of Canada but can I have a teensy wee moment of agreement that peacekeeping isn’t the same thing as national involvement (Canada or anywhere else)? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/214 "2005-02-04T11:42:55Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > This is a very interesting interview and in some way questions the unofficial involvment of Canada but can I have a teensy wee moment of agreement that peacekeeping isn’t the same thing as national involvement (Canada or anywhere else)? Well, I’ll meet you halfway, and say that it certainly is not the same as what Ann Coulter intended to convey. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/215 "2005-02-04T11:50:39Z")
Oh I feel at peace, cheers **Lib** ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/216 "2005-02-04T13:55:48Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Unfortunately, he kept what he meant in his head, leaving people to interpret his multiple categorical denials in any way they please. As I said early on, he should have said something like this: “Canada did not send troops in the sense that you seem to be implying, Ms. Coulter. There were two small peacekeeping missions, one in 1954 long before the US got involved, and the other during the cease-fire in 1973. The Canadians who actually fought in Vietnam were mercenaries.” Instead, he went for the cheap dramatic effect of condescension. Holding back a part of the truth, when it is pertinent, is tantamount to lying. This is an extremely silly argument. There’s no reason to expect an interviewer to have the details of Canada’s minimal involvement with Vietnam at his fingertips when he’s conducting an interview with someone because she has suggested that the US should maybe invade Canada because we didn’t support the US in Iraq. I doubt one Canadian in a thousand could recite those facts by memory, and there’s no reason to expect McKeown to have reviewed those facts in preparation for this particular interview. As it stands, his denials are clearly merely flat denials of what Coulter’s assertion, which, as you have repeatedly conceded, is false. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/217 "2005-02-04T14:35:39Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > This is an extremely silly argument. There’s no reason to expect an interviewer to have the details of Canada’s minimal involvement with Vietnam at his fingertips when he’s conducting an interview with someone because she has suggested that the US should maybe invade Canada because we didn’t support the US in Iraq. I doubt one Canadian in a thousand could recite those facts by memory, and there’s no reason to expect McKeown to have reviewed those facts in preparation for this particular interview. As it stands, his denials are clearly merely flat denials of what Coulter’s assertion, which, as you have repeatedly conceded, is false. That’s just bizarre, even by the most biased standards. McKeown has spent a lifetime in journalism and likely helped amass the information at the CBC about Canada’s involvement in Vietnam. He won awards for his hands-on coverage of the Persian Gulf War. He has worked in 60 countries, and hosts what CBC calls its “flagship investigative program”. He simply cannot have been ignorant of the facts. Both made assertions. Neither had the information at their fingertips. Both were wrong. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/218 "2005-02-04T17:27:17Z")
Use those startling powers of logic **Liberal**. One said there were troops sent the other said there weren’t. You are saying they are “both wrong”- this is only possible if you change your definition of “troops” during comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/219 "2005-02-04T18:14:22Z")
Just saw on [ifilm.com](http://ifilm.com) the same reporter debunking a Bill O’Reilly on boycotts !! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/220 "2005-02-04T18:14:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Use those startling powers of logic **Liberal**. One said there were troops sent the other said there weren’t. You are saying they are “both wrong”- this is only possible if you change your definition of “troops” during comparison. Well, you can’t have it both ways. Let us set aside that there are quite many logical systems and everyday circumstances in which the Law of Excluded Middle does not apply. If you insist that troops means uniformed military personnel, then Coulter was right and McKeown was wrong. If you insist that troops means oh, say, several battalions intended to do battle, then McKeown was right and Coulter was wrong. However, as many of your cohorts here have pointed out in between insults, it is likely the case that Coulter meant battalions and McKeown meant uniformed military. Thus, both were wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956.md?page=12)