Hey, you don’t have to defend it against me, it’s Lib who’s tearing people new ones around here today.
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.
And he does it so well!
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
Well, most of us support that idea. Bunch of dangerous hosers.
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?
By “all”, I don’t mean those who attempted valiantly to keep the discussion focused on the subtance of Coulter’s idiocy, of course…
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.
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.
Thank you, Veb. I apologize.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe he should have called it “insane misdirection” rather than “hairsplitting”. But that’d be hairsplitting.
Uh, that’s already been proven to be false.
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.
Just in case you don’t know what hairsplitting is, that was a good example of it.
Sadly, I don’t think you know that you’re being ironic.
Perhaps you can get someone to assist you in keeping the facts straight. As I said here:
“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.”
And sadly, you don’t seem to know what “pathetic” means. :rolleyes:
Sure I do. Extinct marine animals certainly qualify.
Got any response on the topic at hand? No?
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.
What, like rain on my wedding day?
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.
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?
Of course he does. Liberal’s dishonest, wrong, and crazy. So he sees it as two outa three ain’t bad.