# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/141 "2005-02-02T23:56:10Z")
> [@Mojo](#): > > Maybe everyone else has it spelled wrong and I’m the one who’s right, hmmm? Who are you going to believe, left-leaning CBC (funded by the draft-dodger-loving, no-troop-sending, used to be our friends but now I’m not so sure anymore neighbor to the north) or loveable old me? Hey, you don’t have to defend it against _me_, it’s **Lib** who’s tearing people new ones around here today. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/142 "2005-02-03T00:42:27Z")
Why are we focusing on this minor point instead of pitting Ms. Coulter for suggesting that we could (or should) invade Canada? Also, the semantic nit-picking engaged by Brutus and Liberal in defense of that harlot is embarrassing. Please stop. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/143 "2005-02-03T00:53:25Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > …it’s **Lib** who’s tearing people new ones around here today. > > 😃 And he does it so well! ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/144 "2005-02-03T00:53:52Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It isn’t board status, Early. It’s the rather strange and suspicious familiarity. Without any prior interaction, he calls me by my nickname, “Lib”. His remarks indicate that he is familiar with some long history of perception — phrases like “yet again” and “as per fucking usual”, and so forth. And now, he directly disobeys a moderator’s direct ruling, which, I’m going to wager, was likely directed to him: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5048163&postcount=21](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5048163&postcount=21) You’ve been around for ages, **Lib** , so it’s suprising that you aren’t aware of the prohibition against making public accusations of sock puppetry. It really is just a subset of trolling. Anyway, don’t do it again. When in doubt, just e-mail us or report the post. We’ll take it from there. TVeblen Pit mod ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/145 "2005-02-03T00:54:36Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Why are we focusing on this minor point instead of pitting Ms. Coulter for suggesting that we could (or should) invade Canada? Well, most of us support that idea. Bunch of dangerous hosers. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/146 "2005-02-03T00:57:42Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Hey, you don’t have to defend it against _me_, it’s **Lib** who’s tearing people new ones around here today. > > 😃 With the most uncontestably outrageous mother-of-all nitpicks, this argument being the potential nadir of the process of dialectical reasoning to be witnessed here at the SDMB? You mean this hideous train-wreck of a rhetorical battle between context and content? What, are you _all_ insane? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/147 "2005-02-03T01:06:07Z")
By “all”, I don’t mean those who attempted valiantly to keep the discussion focused on the subtance of Coulter’s idiocy, of course… ---
**Author:** ![BigDummy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee59a6/32.png) [@BigDummy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigDummy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/148 "2005-02-03T01:14:08Z")
One thing I’ll say about Coulter in that clip; whatever else happened, she really should do Canadian TV more often. The low lighting was very flattering to her. Brighter lights seem to expose her as the skeletal hag she is, but there she probably looked as good as I’ve ever seen her. Lower the lights even more and she might even be do-able. Total darkness, that’s the ticket. Then maybe all you’d need would be the gag. And the disinfectant. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/149 "2005-02-03T02:37:46Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Why are we focusing on this minor point instead of pitting Ms. Coulter for suggesting that we could (or should) invade Canada? It’s been done. And in any case, Ms. Coulter’s a chickenhawk; she wants OTHER people to do the fighting, not herself. So really, it should be Americans pitting her, 'cause they’re the first ones she wants to put in harm’s way. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/150 "2005-02-03T10:08:26Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > You’ve been around for ages, **Lib** , so it’s suprising that you aren’t aware of the prohibition against making public accusations of sock puppetry. It really is just a subset of trolling. Anyway, don’t do it again. When in doubt, just e-mail us or report the post. We’ll take it from there. > > TVeblen > Pit mod Thank you, Veb. I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/151 "2005-02-03T11:03:23Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > > [@Brutus](#): > > > > Canada-the-governemt sent troops to Vietnam under some peacekeeping mission. (Tied to the peace talks). Canada-the-people sent troops to Vietnam via enlistment in our own Army. > > Why are you spamming the thread with irrelevancies? Because that and drive-by quips is all \*\*Brutus \*\* really has to offer. Or maybe, to give him credit, a certain eloquence in his posting (“Woohoo” is so smart and clever, **Brutus**. Well done you. Now go clean the drool off your chin.) Oh, and **Liberal** - someone with as many posts as you I would expect to be less of a crybaby and hairsplitter, simply based on experience. I guess the learning curve for defeating your ignorance is just a bit steeper than for others. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/152 "2005-02-03T11:08:52Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > Oh, and **Liberal** - someone with as many posts as you I would expect to be less of a crybaby and hairsplitter, simply based on experience. I guess the learning curve for defeating your ignorance is just a bit steeper than for others. I believe your bias is showing. It is conspicuous that you do not call attempts to morph “Canada did not send troops to Vietnam” into “Canada sent uniformed military personnel, but not troops, to Vietnam” hairsplitting. If I am ignorant, you can defeat it with sound argument. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/153 "2005-02-03T11:32:09Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I believe your bias is showing. You ain’t some kind of protected species. People who disagree with you, and people who think you’re insane, aren’t necessarily exhibiting bias. You should at least consider the possibilty that you are wrong, crazy, or both. > [@Liberal](#): > > It is conspicuous that you do not call attempts to morph “Canada did not send troops to Vietnam” into “Canada sent uniformed military personnel, but not troops, to Vietnam” hairsplitting. Maybe he should have called it “insane misdirection” rather than “hairsplitting”. But that’d be hairsplitting. > [@Liberal](#): > > If I am ignorant, you can defeat it with sound argument. Uh, that’s already been proven to be false. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/154 "2005-02-03T11:37:08Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I believe your bias is showing. It is conspicuous that you do not call attempts to morph “Canada did not send troops to Vietnam” into “Canada sent uniformed military personnel, but not troops, to Vietnam” hairsplitting. If I am ignorant, you can defeat it with sound argument. Peacekeepers sent to a region for 90 days to oversee a ceasefire and / or a withdrawal, who are withdrawn the moment the ceasefire is broken, do not equate to combat troops sent to support combat operations. You’re splitting hairs and you know it. I can’t belive you’re sacrificing whatever small credibility you have to defend the torturous logic of inflammatory blow-hards like Anne Coulter and **Brutus**. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/155 "2005-02-03T11:45:47Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > Peacekeepers sent to a region for 90 days to oversee a ceasefire and / or a withdrawal, who are withdrawn the moment the ceasefire is broken, do not equate to combat troops sent to support combat operations. Just in case you don’t know what hairsplitting is, that was a good example of it. > [@](#): > > You’re splitting hairs and you know it. Sadly, I don’t think you know that you’re being ironic. > [@](#): > > I can’t belive you’re sacrificing whatever small credibility you have to defend the torturous logic of inflammatory blow-hards like Anne Coulter and **Brutus**. Perhaps you can get someone to assist you in keeping the facts straight. As I said [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5792361&postcount=91): “Oh, I agree she was wrong. As I said early on, I’m certainly not defending her. All I’m saying is that he was wrong too.” ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/156 "2005-02-03T11:59:02Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Sadly, I don’t think you know that you’re being ironic. And sadly, you don’t seem to know what “pathetic” means. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/157 "2005-02-03T12:01:57Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > And sadly, you don’t seem to know what “pathetic” means. :rolleyes: Sure I do. Extinct marine animals certainly qualify. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/158 "2005-02-03T12:04:44Z")
Got any response on the topic at hand? No? ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/159 "2005-02-03T12:05:41Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Just in case you don’t know what hairsplitting is, that was a good example of it. Thanks for the friendly guidance. Tell me again how to debate? I really need to learn, especially from someone like you. 90-day campers are not combat troops. Sending peacekeepers to oversee a ceasefire does not equal sending combat troops. It’s a simple statement, I am surprised you’re having such problems comprehending it. > [@Liberal](#): > > Sadly, I don’t think you know that you’re being ironic. What, like rain on my wedding day? > [@Liberal](#): > > Perhaps you can get someone to assist you in keeping the facts straight. As I said [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5792361&postcount=91): At least keep your insults on track, mate. I seem to be not having any difficulties keeping track of the hairsplitting in this thread - most of it is yours, after all. > [@Liberal](#): > > “Oh, I agree she was wrong. As I said early on, I’m certainly not defending her. All I’m saying is that he was wrong too.” Tu coque anyone? You’re proving Coulter’s point and using as your lame justification that you believe the interviewer was wrong. Sounds like a voice of support to me. Also a classic Conservative debate tactic - both dishonest and false. You sure you want to be associated with these people? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/160 "2005-02-03T12:12:40Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > Also a classic Conservative debate tactic - both dishonest and false. You sure you want to be associated with these people? Of course he does. **Liberal** ’s dishonest, wrong, and crazy. So he sees it as two outa three ain’t bad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956.md?page=9)