Want to see Ann Coulter get fucking OWNED on Canadian TV?

[SentientMeat]

If peacekeepers are counted, the Canada did send troops to Iraq: she’s wrong either way.

[sugaree]

Beautiful!

[kingpengvin]

So I guess we were also supporting the war by freely accepting your draft dodgers up here too?

And anyone who would think Canada would Support the war in Vietnam while under Pearson or Trudeau either is ignorant or willfuly stupid.
Here is a little history

Pearson

While in office, Pearson resisted American pressure to enter the Vietnam war. Pearson spoke at Temple University in Philadelphia on 1965 April 2 while visiting the United States and voiced his support for a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam War. When he visited U.S. President Lyndon Baines Johnson hours later, Johnson berated Pearson.

or more realistically

Pearson gave a speech at Temple University in the United States which called for a reduction in the bombing of North Vietnam. When a furious President Lyndon B. Johnson met with Pearson, he grabbed the much smaller Canadian by the shirt collar, lifted him off the rug, and yelled, “You pissed on my rug!”

Trudeau

And from canada and Vietnam

When the United States introduced conscription a new situation developed for Canada. A large group of draft dodgers, young men under risk of conscription, decided to flee to Canada rather than serve in the armed forces. The government of Pierre Trudeau decided to welcome them to Canada. The draft dodgers, centered in Toronto and Vancouver, created a core of a militant anti-war movement that swept Canadian university campuses, much as was happening in the United States. In Canada draft dodgers published materials advocating desertion and then smuggled the illegal works into the United States.

In addition to the dodgers, a number of deserters from the American forces made their way to Canada. There was pressure from the United States and Canada’s own military to have them arrested, or at least stopped at the border. Trudeau, however, decided to accept them as well.

Not exactly the sounds of Canada supporting the War…

Now if you want to count the Canadians that went to the States to sign up as a sign of Canada’s support for the war can we count the draft dodgers streaming teh other way to say The United States did not support the war?

[Liberal]

@This Year's Model

Et tu, Liberal? You’re smarter than that. Look at the context of the exchange.

I think that defending Ann Coulter (whom I myself have pitted) is about one rung below defending Michael Moore. Whatever she might have got wrong, the Canadian fellow is mistaken. There’s plenty about Coulter worth pitting without resorting to this. I think people should find something else to woohoo about. You know, a little bit of wind will blow the bangs away.

[tdn]

@Desmostylus

What a load of crap.So what’s the story here? Some powerless observers sent in after the war ended = Canada sent troops to support the US during the Vietnam war.

Um… Indochina?

At any rate, I can’t wait to see how Coulter is going to spin this interview. I look forward to it. I also look forward to having my testicles shrink to the size of raisins.

[Liberal]

@kingpengvin

Not exactly the sounds of Canada supporting the War…

I’m not sure that I would depend on Wikipedia for this sort of information unless I could determine who wrote the article. After all, you or I could go in there right now and change any or all of it. Perhaps you missed some of the articles from the CBC itself, including evidence of Pearson’s secret meetings with Johnson:

One of the events revealed by the Pentagon Papers is a secret meeting in May 1964 between President Lyndon Johnson and Prime Minister Lester Pearson in which they discussed the possibility of bombing North Vietnam. The telegram exposed by the Pentagon Papers referred to their cryptic discussion of “carrots and sticks,” and the “nature of sticks.”

CBC Archives

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

No, McKeown was NOT mistaken. Canada, in fact, did NOT send troops to Vietnam. Period. End of fucking story. After the war doesn’t count. Mercenaries don’t count. The Canadian government did not EVER participate in the Vietnam War. Coulter was full of shit as usual and she got nailed for it. She’s used to the American news media where television interviewers are all a bunch of empty suits and mini-skirts who nod like idiots and never challenge anything.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Liberal

I think that defending Ann Coulter (whom I myself have pitted) is about one rung below defending Michael Moore. Whatever she might have got wrong, the Canadian fellow is mistaken. There’s plenty about Coulter worth pitting without resorting to this. I think people should find something else to woohoo about. You know, a little bit of wind will blow the bangs away.

This refrain is getting worn out. Nearly all criticism of the right, in your opinion, seems to fall in the category of “lesser things to pit (or complain, or comment on).” What are you trying to avoid? Why do you bother to respond to all the lesser things? At what point does a large volume of lesser things become a sum total greater than its parts?

If there is so much that is more worthy of pitting about Coutler, Bush, Cheney etc., why don’t you lead by example?

[kingpengvin]

@Liberal

I’m not sure that I would depend on Wikipedia for this sort of information unless I could determine who wrote the article. After all, you or I could go in there right now and change any or all of it. Perhaps you missed some of the articles from the CBC itself, including evidence of Pearson’s secret meetings with Johnson:

Well considering the Wilkipedia quotes I used were about specific events that did happen (The Temple University speech and subsequant dressing down by LBJ/ Trudeaus acceptance of Didgers and deserters) I’m not too worried about contradiction there.

As for the Secret meetings, there is nothing that directly points to Pearson actually agreeing or planning this operation. He was present during a discussion of bombing N. vietnam but there is nothing pointing to his complience with the plan, and certainly nothing showing the Canadian Forces had any part in that strategy.

Now as for Coulter’s statements there is nothing in her history of speaking of Canadian history or culture that shows she had any nuanced argument aside from You were with us in Vietnam.

Her lack of a response to the rebuttal shows that she meant nothing more than she had the idea that Candian Troops under the Candian flag were on the ground fighting in Vietnam along side the US.

[Polycarp]

@Brutus

Heh, you guys are really showing your commitment to the facts here. (Not that mere ‘facts’ ever stopped you before.)

Hey, Brutus, where dear Annie is concerned, “facts” are irrelevant to her issues.

Hint – you have never called me a traitor to my country simply for having a different view on the proper conduct of foreign affairs and domestic social responsibilities than you do. Hence I can respect you. Notice the difference?

[Spooky_Action]

Pathetic. Really pathetic. Lib being a weirdo yet again. As per fucking usual. Does anyone else think that US Republicans and ahem “Libertarians” are just compensating? Some of you lot defending that utter beast Coulter…

Stupid superstitionist freaks.

[Liberal]

@Hentor the Barbarian

This refrain is getting worn out. Nearly all criticism of the right, in your opinion, seems to fall in the category of “lesser things to pit (or complain, or comment on).” What are you trying to avoid? Why do you bother to respond to all the lesser things? At what point does a large volume of lesser things become a sum total greater than its parts?

If there is so much that is more worthy of pitting about Coutler, Bush, Cheney etc., why don’t you lead by example?

I don’t recall your participating in my Coulter thread. Did you? Look, you people keep saying that if things are looked at a certain way, or if equivalences are drawn, or if we interpret broadly (or narrowly, whichever serves your purpose), or, as Kingpingven is now saying, “nothing directly” — this sort of stretching the mask to fit the face ought to be a clue that you’re not on firm ground here.

[Liberal]

@Spooky Action

Pathetic. Really pathetic. Lib being a weirdo yet again. As per fucking usual. Does anyone else think that US Republicans and ahem “Libertarians” are just compensating? Some of you lot defending that utter beast Coulter…

Stupid superstitionist freaks.

You are who again?

[Polycarp]

@Rune

Anyway I’d do her.

Hmmm…I guess I’d better pay more attention to Sen. Santorum. It seems that acceptance of gay rights does lead to desires for interspecies sex! :rolleyes:

[Loopydude]

@elucidator

Wow, Spooky hates Brutus’ guts in one month! That’s the record, isn’t it?

No, I thought he was a fucking cunt after about ten minutes. Coulter, ten seconds. It’d be interesting to create porno with the two of them. Cunt fucks cunt. Of course, my eyes would melt during the production. Perhaps robots could film it.

[Early_Out]

@Liberal

You are who again?

Very weak. Board “status” should never be relevant.

[tdn]

@Loopydude

No, I thought he was a fucking cunt after about ten minutes. Coulter, ten seconds. It’d be interesting to create porno with the two of them. Cunt fucks cunt. Of course, my eyes would melt during the production. Perhaps robots could film it.

Thanks for the mental image. My dick officially fell off.

[elucidator]

@FinnAgain

…Might wanna reconsider that, I’ve heard that her vagina is stuffed with brillo…

Cloaca.

[Spooky_Action]

Lordy! Which one of your personas are you today Libertarian?

[John_Mace]

This is pretty lame. I’ve seen uber-wimp Colmes pick apart Coulter better than that. I’ve never seen Coulter so conciliatory towards someone she was disagreeing with, and it was pretty obvious that she was mentally checking her “facts” as she was arguing. The interviewer got it exactly right-- she was thinking of Australia, not Canada. At any rate, no one scores points by catching Coulter in a misuse of facts during an interview. Does she EVER get the facts right?