What's the deal with Ann Coulter?

[rdy2go]

OK my American friends! One of yours was up here in the great white north causing student uprisings a few days ago. Ann Coulter, noted American journalist, authour and shit disturber was on a University speaking tour for a while. I really didn't know to much about her but I listened to some of her talks, and googled her, whatever that is worth! So after hearing the woman talk, and reading about her, I would like to make this statement: "Will you guys come take her back! I don't think she fits in well with us canucks." And if ya come get her I'll throw in Celine Dion as a bonus!

PS She does look kinda hot though, I saw a pic of her in a tight white midriffbaring top and tight jeans, not bad! :bigrin::tongue:

[open2both]

Ok,
I'll TAKE back Ann...
BUT...
You hafta KEEP Celine!

ps. I'm having a fantasy... Ann in bondage leather doing me with a strap-on and then SNOWBALLING with me!
Gr8, now I need a cigarette!

[rdy2go]

[QUOTE=open2both;161568]Ok,
I'll TAKE back Ann...
BUT...
You hafta KEEP Celine!

Nope, you get them both! :bigrin:

[TwylaTwobits]

at least Celine can sing.......Ann Coulter..........sighs look up the word bitch in the dictionary and it has her picture. You could ship her off to some mideast kingdom where they would admire her blonde hair and remove her tongue........nah that wouldn't even work cause then she could still type the drivel.

[12voltman59]

Boy--I am glad there are people on here who dislike her more than I do!!!!!:bigrin::bigrin:

[TwylaTwobits]

BiCD4u at some point in Ann Coulter's career she has managed to offend EVERYONE.

Some of her more noted remarks..

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

[12voltman59]

Hell, William F. Buckely fired her ass for something she said after 9/11 in a column she had on an online edition of "The National Review."

[12voltman59]

Hey--I love da Shat Man---loved him as Captain James Tiberius Kirk from Trek and most of the other things he has done--Denny Crain on Boston Legal was a cool character and man---he is something at the way he interviews people on that show he does: "Shatner's Raw Nerve"--he is as good an interviewer as just about anyone I have ever seen----at least when it comes to what sort of interviews he does, which is to interview other creative people and get them to tell some deep stuff.

Also with da Shat Man--he is a highly trained Shakesperean actor, he is an accomplished collector of horses, riding them and showing them---he has spent milliions on that, he is an accomplished writer--he has written many Star Trek themed and other Sci-Fi novels---they may not be great literature--but for what they are--- they are as good as the work anyone else is doing.

Don't diss da Shat Man!!!!

There is also an outside chance----that we just might see Capt James T. Kirk PRIME--that is da Shat Man himself in the next Trek film---JJ Abrams was interviewed in one of those specialty mags just centered on Trek--and in that interview--he went over several ways that he is trying to get Shat to play Kirk in it---trying to work out a somewhat plausible story line to bring him back!!!! So for lovers of Kirk Prime----we just might see da Shat Man play Kirk one more time--and time is running out--both he and Nimoy both turned 79 in the same week ---just a few weeks back!!

[fred fencesitter]

It's a schtick to make money.

[shybipinay]

First, I detest her. Let me be clear on that.

Second, we believe in free speech here. Free means we don't reign it in for anyone unless we want to. Don't want to hear it? Change the channel.

Third, consider this to be just rewards for sending us William Shatner.

Pasa

Change the channel? I guess we should have kicked her out before she even got here.

At least William Shatner doesn't diss everyone and everything. Perhaps, as a Canadian, he has a bit more class.

[FalconAngel]

How about this one:

NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINES
Ann Coulter deported to Canada.....claims "But I'm not from there!!":tong::bigrin:

[12voltman59]

It's a schtick to make money.

I do sometimes wonder if with people lilke Coulter and Limbaugh--if it isn't just pure gimmickry the things they say??--that they figured out by saying crazy stuff and such like they do that it was an easy way to some big money---but if that is the case--it is actually worse than they truly believe what they say it they say it out of real conviction since what I think is the worst aspect of these sorts of people---they have helped in no small measure to amp things up and "poison the well" so to speak--to make it hard for us to discuss in a real way the things that need to be discussed without all the shouting, name calling, finger pointing and all----like I have said before they offer nothing positive to the discussion--all they are are agitators, their thing is to stir things up and even as one TRUE CONSERVATIVE person that I actually like and admire---Peggy Noonan-- who used to be a chief speech writer for Ronald Reagan, called Ann Coulter a "bomb thrower!"

Like I said above----I forgot what she did say---but William F. Buckley or someone in his stead fired Coulter for some outrageous remark she had made in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Buckley was another TRUE CONSERVATIVE and he didn't put up with shit from anyone--he sure didn't put up with it from her!

Coulter is an attorney and as such---should have some degree of ability to critically think and such--and provide accurate information. Iin her books she does footnote things--but one of those organizations that facts checks public figures on the stuff they say--have found that in most of her books----the stuff she puts in her footnotes is usually so totally unfactual and incorrect--they they have given her the most ratings of "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!" than just about anyone on the scene today. She either has merely referenced back to stuff floating around the right wing blogosphere that has been proven to be untrue or she has made stuff up out of whole cloth, they said she certainly does not have the academic and legal citation standards someone of her education and profession should possess.

I did try to go and find that fact check organization that I was talking about--I don't recall the name--I have seen them on MSNBC and other networks--they use those funny ratings----I won't vouch for how accurate they are---but for a trustworthy one of these is FactCheck.org which is part of The Annenberg Public Policy Center--they have a reputation of being "straight shooters" and they have no ideological bent--they are committed to true and substantive public discourse and information. They do have some things on Ann Coulter but not as much as I thought they might--maybe they don't consider what she says to be worthy of their time and effort!

http://factcheck.org/

It is worth it to make use of this site to sort through much of the haze that is out there in the ethers today!

[coyotedude]

Hell, I don't want her back. But I like Canada; I wouldn't wish her on my Canadian friends, either.

Let's see... what place in the world is bad enough that it deserves Ann Coulter? :eek:

PS - You can keep Celine Dion. Really. Truly. :tongue:

Peace

[MarieDelta]

Hell, I don't want her back. But I like Canada; I wouldn't wish her on my Canadian friends, either.

Let's see... what place in the world is bad enough that it deserves Ann Coulter? :eek:

PS - You can keep Celine Dion. Really. Truly. :tongue:

Peace
I was thinking perhaps a garbage scow...

[Hephaestion]

BiCD4u at some point in Ann Coulter's career she has managed to offend EVERYONE.

Some of her more noted remarks..

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter


Wow - She certainly seems to have a way with her words

[JP1986UM]

Ann's a bomb thrower that's true, but I was offended that the radical hard left in Canada went to the extent to silence free speech. Its always the hard left that does that. resort to violence.

I've walked by the Tea party gatherings in Chicago and they were down right snooze-fests. No one was threatening violence or anything remotely physical. But look at the protests of the G8 and all that, the Left radicals throw molotov cocktails, destroy businesses and cause massive damage to private property.

So was the case in Canada. They didn't like what she had to say, but instead of bringing facts and other mental weapons to the speech, they threatened violence. So typical.

Ann's a smart girl, she knows she's being provocative and like her or not no one has the right to silence her by the use of force and violence. So speech freedom dies just a little bit in Canada. It will eventually infect the USA as well.

then the real violence will be over who really has freedoms at all and being a bisexual male, I don't want anyone telling ME what to do or what to say when. Sooner or later that could happen from the right as well as the left when someone wants to go queer-hunting for a gold star on their lapel.

[69luvr]

OK my American friends! One of yours was up here in the great white north causing student uprisings a few days ago. Ann Coulter, noted American journalist, authour and shit disturber was on a University speaking tour for a while. I really didn't know to much about her but I listened to some of her talks, and googled her, whatever that is worth! So after hearing the woman talk, and reading about her, I would like to make this statement: "Will you guys come take her back! I don't think she fits in well with us canucks." And if ya come get her I'll throw in Celine Dion as a bonus!

PS She does look kinda hot though, I saw a pic of her in a tight white midriffbaring top and tight jeans, not bad! :bigrin::tongue:

Actually she did not cause a thing! Your unruly and anti-American students did. Coulter is used to living in a country where she is free to express her opinions without fear of reprisals. Her mere presence was cause for your lefty leaning students to act like they were in CHINA rather then a democracy. I do not subscribe to her brand of politics but I do not condone alleged students from disrupting a speaker trying to express her opinions. That is what commies and socialists do, not freedom loving people! For a "canuck" to be so cavalier about it is quite disturbing.

And you can keep Celine Dion! I'd rather have Tony Bennett!

[darkeyes]

Actually she did not cause a thing! Your unruly and anti-American students did. Coulter is used to living in a country where she is free to express her opinions without fear of reprisals. Her mere presence was cause for your lefty leaning students to act like they were in CHINA rather then a democracy. I do not subscribe to her brand of politics but I do not condone alleged students from disrupting a speaker trying to express her opinions. That is what commies and socialists do, not freedom loving people! For a "canuck" to be so cavalier about it is quite disturbing.

And you can keep Celine Dion! I'd rather have Tony Bennett!

aaahhh..anotha anti leftie.. anotha who knos not of wot they speak...wud think fascists and nazis allowed peeps 2 speak.. an otha sleezy rite wing elements.. an lots not so far on the rite.. so called conservatives... witer than wite r they not?

Don like celine 2 much..not at all in fact...but Tony Bennet?? Jeez....:rolleyes:

[TwylaTwobits]

Actually she did not cause a thing! Your unruly and anti-American students did. Coulter is used to living in a country where she is free to express her opinions without fear of reprisals. Her mere presence was cause for your lefty leaning students to act like they were in CHINA rather then a democracy. I do not subscribe to her brand of politics but I do not condone alleged students from disrupting a speaker trying to express her opinions. That is what commies and socialists do, not freedom loving people! For a "canuck" to be so cavalier about it is quite disturbing.

And you can keep Celine Dion! I'd rather have Tony Bennett!

Well 69luvr what do you say to the Americans who have expressed an extreme dislike of Ann Coulter? I personally think she's the antithesis of everything America stands for. Yeah we're a land of the free and it gives her the right to utter the drivel she aims at anyone. No one is safe from her abusive comments. She has the right to make them, and we have the right to be upset by them and we also have the right to turn off the tv when she's on, not read her blogs or her books, and generally pretend she doesn't exist in our world.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Oh dont even get me started on this bitch. In My book she rates up there close to her hero Jane Fonda, but hey, thats just my opinion. Ya'll can keep her, or send her to live with the Phelps folks.
Cat

[Bi-Zarro]

Re: which side of the political spectrum is most violence-loving...

Yes, there are infantile left radicals who break windows and such. That's not violence against PEOPLE, which is the only violence that really matters. It's just pointless activity.

Lately it's the hard right that's been engaging in violent rhetoric and forming militias with the intent of killing people in the U.S. I'm a bit more worried about them than I am about the fringe left. The days of left-wing terrorism -- the Weather Underground and the like -- are long, long gone. The days of right-wing terrorism are right now.

[**Peg**]

Clarification.

We Canadians have the right to free speech.
We do NOT have the right to free HATE speech.... it is a criminal offense.

another clarification: I have 'heard' that some rabblerousers came over the border to heat things up outside Ottawa U on purpose.

Remember we deported Ernst Zundel for denying the holocaust and saying that Jews were the scum of the earth? We just do not do that here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel

[69luvr]

Well 69luvr what do you say to the Americans who have expressed an extreme dislike of Ann Coulter? I personally think she's the antithesis of everything America stands for. Yeah we're a land of the free and it gives her the right to utter the drivel she aims at anyone. No one is safe from her abusive comments. She has the right to make them, and we have the right to be upset by them and we also have the right to turn off the tv when she's on, not read her blogs or her books, and generally pretend she doesn't exist in our world.


Its one thing to disagree with someone but the mature thing to do is allow that person to state their opinions without acting like a buffoon. That is what those PINKOS did in Canada. Disagree all they want but be respectful. Then state their disagreements.

[69luvr]

aaahhh..anotha anti leftie.. anotha who knos not of wot they speak...wud think fascists and nazis allowed peeps 2 speak.. an otha sleezy rite wing elements.. an lots not so far on the rite.. so called conservatives... witer than wite r they not?

Don like celine 2 much..not at all in fact...but Tony Bennet?? Jeez....:rolleyes:

Laughingly you have failed to adequately state my political leanings. You assume that I am anti-lefty because I am for free speech and the right to give a speech on a college campus without intimidating behavior by left-leaning , radical students. And therein lies the problem with some folks. A person does not have to be far right to love free speech and grant others their right to speak without interuption and intimidating behavior. Try to talk down anyone in political power in NAZI Germany during WW2 and you would be eradicated. That is not what anyone in their right minds would defend, eh mate!

The only purpose of my even commenting in this thread is to bring home the fact that AMERICA has lost millions of men and women fighting for the right of free speech. There are many AMERICAN servicemen buried in the British Isles defending your right to free speech. Otherwise you'd be saying Heil Hitler in German! Ann Coulter deserved to address the folks in the auditorium that were there to hear her speak. They may not have agreed with her but they were adult and respectful enough to be there possibly in silent protest. Then there were the disruptive loudmouths you seek to defend! Attack Coulter verbally but respectfully but do not stick up for the blowhards that can not or will not allow the free exchange of ideas on a college campus! That exposes you for what you are.

And why not TONY BENNETT? Are you once again acting like the loudmouths that interfered with COULTER?

[jamiehue]

Yes! Ann, lube, bones,........Yes:cool::cool:

[TwylaTwobits]

Yeah but the thing is Pasa the same free speech rights give Ann Coulter the right to spout her bs, the church to picket military funerals and are the same rights people yell about when a lesbian wants to take her date to a prom. It's a double edged sword. We can't rally round it for one thing and decry it for another. It's just there as a tool for both sides and it's up to us how much attention we pay to either.

[darkeyes]

Laughingly you have failed to adequately state my political leanings. You assume that I am anti-lefty because I am for free speech and the right to give a speech on a college campus without intimidating behavior by left-leaning , radical students. And therein lies the problem with some folks. A person does not have to be far right to love free speech and grant others their right to speak without interuption and intimidating behavior. Try to talk down anyone in political power in NAZI Germany during WW2 and you would be eradicated. That is not what anyone in their right minds would defend, eh mate!

The only purpose of my even commenting in this thread is to bring home the fact that AMERICA has lost millions of men and women fighting for the right of free speech. There are many AMERICAN servicemen buried in the British Isles defending your right to free speech. Otherwise you'd be saying Heil Hitler in German! Ann Coulter deserved to address the folks in the auditorium that were there to hear her speak. They may not have agreed with her but they were adult and respectful enough to be there possibly in silent protest. Then there were the disruptive loudmouths you seek to defend! Attack Coulter verbally but respectfully but do not stick up for the blowhards that can not or will not allow the free exchange of ideas on a college campus! That exposes you for what you are.

And why not TONY BENNETT? Are you once again acting like the loudmouths that interfered with COULTER?

..an wy Tony Bennet? the fact that I disagree and think he is crap doent mean I am either interfering with him, her or you...

..and you are typical of the worst kind of American... you make this huge assumption that your country is apparently the only one on the planet that had men and women sacrifice their lives for freedom..the sacrifices of no one else's people matters... let me tell you Sonny Jim.. around the world..in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Holland, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Russia, India, Burma, Malaya, China and almost any country you care to mention, including my own, there are millions upon millions who have sacrificed their lives for your freedom.. but of course..no one's lives matter quite like an American's.. no other country except America has devoted itself to freedom.. no country is free except America... there are memorials all over this world to those who died in the name of freedom.. many died fighting against both your country and mine, against the French, Australians, Canadians and Soviets, the Japanese, Chinese and Spaniards to name but a few, all in the name of freedom..many still are.. you may not like the kind of freedom for which they laid and lay down their lives, or how they do it, but it is a battle for freedom to them.. the western way is NOT the only way of freedom or to freedom..and the American certainly NOT the only way.. there are others.. it is an arrogance to claim otherwise... tell that to the many in your own country who have been oppressed, crushed, enslaved and almost annihilated by the American way of freedom...

..no nation or people has exclusivity on freedom, or having fought for it and have people die in its name.. none can excuse itself of oppression and depriving others of their freedom and all the evil that goes along with it....

[tenni]

Well written darkeyes
Some in the US have a very egocentric and provincial perspective on not only freedom, freedom of speech but the difference between freedom of speech and promoting hatred and violence towards groups.

Coulter's handlers cancelled her speech in Ottawa. There were only 100 people in the hall that held 400. There were many outside the hall verbally exercising their freedom of speech to object to her presence and they were not permitted in. Coulter's handlers (therefore Coulter herself) cancelled and they said it was out of fear of public safety. Neither the university nor the police cancelled her speech and certainly not the government. This Canadian government is not far from the neo con beliefs of Coulter. Some have argued that she cancelled as to be able to use this incident to boost up her bylines and publicity. Although the university provost was attempting to forwarn her about promoting hatred, she used the warning and released his letter to increase her publicity.

Neither Coulter nor Beck etc. seem to take any responsibility for the hatred and misinformation they create to cause tea baggers to spit on black legislators and call them faggot and nigger. In Canada hate speech is not legal but difficult to prosecute. It is not far from spitting on a legislator and calling them names to next lynching and murder. Hate mongers are not permitted to use speech to promote violence and hatred towards groups in more civilized societies. Would not the blood of a murdered legislator not be on Becks, Coulter's and Rush's hands? Impossible to convict though.


..an wy Tony Bennet? the fact that I disagree and think he is crap doent mean I am either interfering with him, her or you...

..and you are typical of the worst kind of American... you make this huge assumption that your country is apparently the only one on the planet that had men and women sacrifice their lives for freedom..the sacrifices of no one else's people matters... let me tell you Sonny Jim.. around the world..in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Holland, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Russia, India, Burma, Malaya, China and almost any country you care to mention, including my own, there are millions upon millions who have sacrificed their lives for your freedom.. but of course..no one's lives matter quite like an American's.. no other country except America has devoted itself to freedom.. no country is free except America... there are memorials all over this world to those who died in the name of freedom.. many died fighting against both your country and mine, against the French, Australians, Canadians and Soviets, the Japanese, Chinese and Spaniards to name but a few, all in the name of freedom..many still are.. you may not like the kind of freedom for which they laid and lay down their lives, or how they do it, but it is a battle for freedom to them.. the western way is NOT the only way of freedom or to freedom..and the American certainly NOT the only way.. there are others.. it is an arrogance to claim otherwise... tell that to the many in your own country who have been oppressed, crushed, enslaved and almost annihilated by the American way of freedom...

..no nation or people has exclusivity on freedom, or having fought for it and have people die in its name.. none can excuse itself of oppression and depriving others of their freedom and all the evil that goes along with it....

[rdy2go]

The only purpose of my even commenting in this thread is to bring home the fact that AMERICA has lost millions of men and women fighting for the right of free speech. There are many AMERICAN servicemen buried in the British Isles defending your right to free speech. Otherwise you'd be saying Heil Hitler in German! Ann Coulter deserved to address the folks in the auditorium that were there to hear her speak. They may not have agreed with her but they were adult and respectful enough to be there possibly in silent protest. Then there were the disruptive loudmouths you seek to defend! Attack Coulter verbally but respectfully but do not stick up for the blowhards that can not or will not allow the free exchange of ideas on a college campus! That exposes you for what you are.

Let us not forget that Canada was in that war before the states, so we had as much to do with helping quash the Nazi's as you did. There are American, and Canadian, and British, and French, it goes on, buried in Europe, not just Americans. So to say only americans died defending our right to free speech is a bit of a stretch. all the countries did what they had to do, so don't go there. That was as all wars are a hellish thing, it's fine to commend your soldiers but don't forget th other countries as well. Don't get to shook up about the protesters being a bit unruly, 'cause ya see with free speech, it works both ways, one person is free to say what they want, and someone else is free to say, "Shut the fuck up." That's free speech too!

[darkeyes]

Well written darkeyes
Some in the US have a very egocentric and provincial perspective on not only freedom, freedom of speech but the difference between freedom of speech and promoting hatred and violence towards groups.

Coulter's handlers cancelled her speech in Ottawa. There were only 100 people in the hall that held 400. There were many outside the hall verbally exercising their freedom of speech to object to her presence and they were not permitted in. Coulter's handlers (therefore Coulter herself) cancelled and they said it was out of fear of public safety. Neither the university nor the police cancelled her speech and certainly not the government. This Canadian government is not far from the neo con beliefs of Coulter. Some have argued that she cancelled as to be able to use this incident to boost up her bylines and publicity. Although the university provost was attempting to forwarn her about promoting hatred, she used the warning and released his letter to increase her publicity.

Neither Coulter nor Beck etc. seem to take any responsibility for the hatred and misinformation they create to cause tea baggers to spit on black legislators and call them faggot and nigger. In Canada hate speech is not legal but difficult to prosecute. It is not far from spitting on a legislator and calling them names to next lynching and murder. Hate mongers are not permitted to use speech to promote violence and hatred towards groups in more civilized societies. Would not the blood of a murdered legislator not be on Becks, Coulter's and Rush's hands? Impossible to convict though.

With freedom comes great responsibility Tenni.. far too many forget that on the altar of liberty... freedom of speech and expression does not give us the right to say and do what we like with no restrictions whatever.. not even the great holy cow of the US constitution allows that... and nor should it...

[shybipinay]

If Ann Coulter believes she has the right to say anything she pleases under the guise of "free speach" rights, then we Canadians have the right to tell her to go home or at least temper her comments, under that same free speach banner. It was not wrong to advise her of our "hate speach" laws. Don't like the laws of our country, stay in yours.

[darkeyes]

The only purpose of my even commenting in this thread is to bring home the fact that AMERICA has lost millions of men and women fighting for the right of free speech. There are many AMERICAN servicemen buried in the British Isles defending your right to free speech. Otherwise you'd be saying Heil Hitler in German! Ann Coulter deserved to address the folks in the auditorium that were there to hear her speak. They may not have agreed with her but they were adult and respectful enough to be there possibly in silent protest. Then there were the disruptive loudmouths you seek to defend! Attack Coulter verbally but respectfully but do not stick up for the blowhards that can not or will not allow the free exchange of ideas on a college campus! That exposes you for what you are.

Let us not forget that Canada was in that war before the states, so we had as much to do with helping quash the Nazi's as you did. There are American, and Canadian, and British, and French, it goes on, buried in Europe, not just Americans. So to say only americans died defending our right to free speech is a bit of a stretch. all the countries did what they had to do, so don't go there. That was as all wars are a hellish thing, it's fine to commend your soldiers but don't forget th other countries as well. Don't get to shook up about the protesters being a bit unruly, 'cause ya see with free speech, it works both ways, one person is free to say what they want, and someone else is free to say, "Shut the fuck up." That's free speech too!

Me kinda warmin 2 u Rdy afta bit of a rocky start.. an yas rite bout tellin peeps 2 "Shut the fuck up" is as much free speech as owt else.. but its hardly constructive an likely 2 lead 2 world peace is it?:rolleyes: Not even a "please" on end..tsk!tsk! Manners, dear..please...;):tong:

[Darkside2009]

I'm not familiar with Ann Coulter, or her beliefs. I think colleges should be able to invite speakers of opposing viewpoints for debate in order that students might develop their faculty for rational thought.

There is obviously an inherent risk in this, there were those who thought they could control Hitler by giving him free rein only to find out otherwise.

However howling people down, or destroying property does not serve any useful purpose. Much better to expose the flaw in their ideas.

Also, 69,I think if you care to read a few history books you will find it was the Battle of Britain, before America entered the war, that stopped Hitler invading Britain and consequently being ruled by Germany.

American troops did not land in France until D-Day, June 1944 in company with Canadian and British troops.

There is only one American Military Cemetery in Britain, it is called Madingly. The land was donated by Cambridge University, and there are just under 4,000 brave people interred there.

I have not been there, but it is by all accounts a beautiful spot and a fitting final resting place for so many young men.

Please do not be so crass, as to denigrate the efforts or deaths of any Allied service personnel during that conflict,by assuming America won the war on her own.

The Russians alone, lost 20 million on the Eastern front, that tied-up a lot of German troops that would otherwise have been fighting on the Western Front on D-Day.

Many, on this side of the Pond, will have had family who fought and died for freedom from Nazi tyranny. It is a freedom we ALL share, and a freedom they ALL fought for.

On holiday in Europe I like to wander around the military cemeteries. I am always struck by a mixture of sorrow and gratitude. Sorrow at the tragic waste of such young lives and gratitude for their courage and self-sacrifice.

When I have visited the German cemeteries I have felt no less a sorrow. Row upon row of young men, nineteen and twenty year olds. Someone's brother, some Mother's son, full of life, laughter and a sense of duty to their country, little more than school-boys cut down in their prime.

[coyotedude]

Why the hell are we bashing each other? Canada has been a long standing and true friend of the United States. Canadians and Americans have fought together to defend our peoples, defend freedom, and defeat tyranny and repression from the World Wars onward. And Canada and the US have been partners in peace as well, particularly in the postwar period.

I'm a proud American who is grateful for the friendship and partnership of my Canadian friends and neighbors. Even though we may not agree on everything, we can and do treat each other with mutual respect and dignity.

As for Ann Coulter, I strongly defend her right to be an asshole. I also insist on my right to call her an asshole and to call her ideology foolish and misguided. To defend her right to free speech but not the rights of the students protesting her is disingenuous. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to defend Ann Coulter's right to free speech, you have to defend the rights of her detractors as well.

My signature line sums it up: It's a wonderful thing to love one's country. But why should love stop at the border?

Peace

[tenni]

Darkside
One of the most shocking and impressive sites that I saw in Europe was in East Berlin before the Wall was taken down. There were three huge plots in what was East Berlin. Each plot was larger than a North American football field...let's say Canadian because that is bigger than a US football field. In each of the three fields separated by walkways was over 100 000 Russian soldiers. That is 300 000 Russian soldiers in this mass grave. It was shocking. That was only one site of Russians who lost their life for our freedom. There were many others in Germany, Poland and Russia itself. When I travelled through Russia I was very impressed by the number of War Memorials in every town. Russian newlyweds had a tradition of going to these war monuments and placing the brides boquet at the memorial. It was very respectful and impressive to point out how many Russians died stopping the Nazis for our freedom. Russia could have easily advanced and taken Berlin all on its own while the other allies (Britain, Canada, France, and the US) struggled with the Nazis on the western front. It took Churchill a lot of skill and negotiating to get the Russians from reaching Berlin first.

Neither Canada nor the US have really suffered on their own soil the way that Russians, French and British have to keep their freedom. I agree with Coyotedude. Many from various countries have fought and died for our freedom. It was a team effort of allies. Let us be respectful of all contributions. No one country does it on their own.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

lol Well said, Yoti. Come on to the house, I'll give ya cookies..lol ;)
Hugs
Cat

[Long Duck Dong]

god I get sick of hearing about the us this and the us that.... and how the us won the war....etc....

it was a allied effort.... there was far more than the us.... and there are stories coming out about how the us failed to deliever and that is from the mouths of ww2 vets themselves.....

the next time any person wants to mouth off about what america or did not do.... remember something..... they stayed out of a lot of the war .... while many many 10's of thousands died trying to protect the innocent....

you can have your freedom of speech, but where was the us, when others were losing the right to live ????

lest we forget the ANZAC's

The Second World War was the greatest conflict ever to engulf the world. It took the lives of 50 million people, including one in every 150 New Zealanders, and shaped the world that we have lived in ever since.

New Zealand was involved for all but three of the 2179 days of the war — a commitment on a par only with Britain and Australia. It was a war in which New Zealanders gave their greatest national effort — on land, on the sea and in the air — and a war that New Zealanders fought globally, from Egypt, Italy and Greece to Japan and the Pacific.

The impact on the home front was considerable. The nature of the Second World War not only gave impetus to New Zealanders' developing sense of identity but also greatly increased their confidence in their role in the world.

Quick facts and figures:

* The population of New Zealand in 1940 was about 1,600,000.
* About 140,000 New Zealand men and women served, 104,000 in 2NZEF, the rest in the British or New Zealand naval or air forces.
* Fatal casualties during the conflict numbered 11,928 (Commonwealth War Graves Commission figures).
* Post-war calculations indicated that New Zealand's ratio of killed per million of population (at 6684) was the highest in the Commonwealth (with Britain at 5123 and Australia, 3232).
* In contrast to its entry into the First World War, New Zealand acted in its own right by formally declaring war on Germany on 3 September (unlike Australia, which held that the King's declaration, as in 1914, automatically extended to all his Dominions).

[coyotedude]

Actually, the US did contribute to the cause before the formal declaration of war at the end of 1941. For instance, the Lend Lease Act helped support the British and their efforts to survive the German onslaught in 1940-41, if I remember my history correctly. These efforts weren't necessarily decisive to ultimate British survival, but Churchill most assuredly wasn't going to turn his nose at any aid he could get from the US at the time.

Western Europe may have been involved in the war first, but the Allied powers weren't necessarily covered in glory by 1939. They had tacitly allowed the rise of Hitler in Germany, allowed the reoccupation of the Rhineland and the Anschluss with Austria, and stabbed Czechoslovakia in the back at Munich. Western Europe and the US both turned a blind eye to the persecution of the Jews under the Nazis - a fact that should haunt all of us 70 years later.

We can play bash all we want, because the fact is that none of us are perfect, and neither are our nations. We all make mistakes, and we all fail at one time or another. The fact that I said I'm proud to be an American doesn't mean that I'm proud of everything my country has done. Nor does it mean that I will scoff at someone who is proud to be a Canadian, or a New Zealander, or whatever.

Ultimately we are all human beings. We all are born, and we all will die someday. We all hunger, we all thirst, we all fear, we all love. Our differences give us spice and variety, but our commonalities bind us together into a joint future on this mother earth.

Peace

[tenni]

True Coyotedude

but while you are raising the Lend Lease agreement don't forget the US capitalists that the US government permitted to trade or be the bankers for/ with the Nazis during the time before the US entered on the Allied side. Non US historians also point this little advertised detail in the US. It was working both sides of the fence as long as money could be made.

[Long Duck Dong]

I will apologize for something and yeah coyotedude, that includes you to.... I am not against anybody that is proud of their country....... and not am I slamming any war vets....but it does appear that way, and I am sorry for that... the reverse is true, I am proud to be a service vet and I count any served or serving personnel, to be my brothers and sisters, regardless of rank or what branch of the services they are / were in

my vent was due to a remark earlier in the thread about how if it was for not the us, other countries would be speaking german......

that remark to me is disrespectful of all the unsung *heroes * of every country involved in any war......including the french / polish resistance.... they risked everything to aid the british and americans and other people......
and all the other countries that *unoffically * assisted in many many ways..... to bring the bloodshed to a end ........ and that includes the german serving officers that tried to stop hitler themselves.....

[coyotedude]

LDD,

Just my :2cents:, but I think you have every right to be proud of your service, and your country! New Zealand is another place that I'd love to visit someday... when I win the lottery and can travel the world! LOL

No worries from this lil ol' coyote...

[TwylaTwobits]

Sighs, does slinging mud at anyone's country serve any purpose? No, it does nothing but cause hard feelings. This thread is basically about Ann Coulter's big mouth. And as I posted she has the right to run her mouth per the First Amendment, it also gives us the right to not listen to her. The same First Amendment right gives that Church the right to protest at the funeral's of men and women who have died is the same right that gives a lesbian a right to make a passive protest at her school prom. It's not perfect but it's a right for all to be dicks when we want to be.

I don't think my country is any better or worse than another and I don't feel any other country is better or worse than America. I don't want the Ann Coulter's of the world to have as much power as they generate through their inciting remarks. I also don't want our soldiers giving their lives every day in a war that will never be over (Vietnam part 2 anyone?) So history lessons aside, let's get back to the point of the thread. What's the deal with Ann Coulter? She's a bigoted conservative mouth running blonde who gets her jollies inciting reactions in people as this thread has proven and causing strife wherever she goes.

[FalconAngel]

god I get sick of hearing about the us this and the us that.... and how the us won the war....etc....

it was a allied effort.... there was far more than the us.... and there are stories coming out about how the us failed to deliever and that is from the mouths of ww2 vets themselves.....

You seem to have forgotten that this site is a North American based site and it will have a rather large population of Americans (both from Canada and the US).

You know.....you seem to be incapable of capitalizing the letters U and S for US. MOst of us respect your country enough to capitalize NZ when we talk about New Zealand the A in Australia. So we would appreciate the same from you.

Now, as to who was there in the war; We are not discounting our allies, the ANZACS, Chinese, British, Free French, Free Polish, Italian Underground, the French underground, The German Underground, the Egyptians, the Africans, the Canadians and any others that I may have missed.

Stayed out of the war? Not so much as you think. Did you forget the American Eagle squadrons that help keep the Luftwaffe at bay until the U.S. officially got into the war? I guess so.

How about the AEF (Flying Tigers), who flew transport and combat missions in China and over "the Hump"? I guess you ignored them, too.

In the Pacific theater, it was primarily the US Navy and Marines, with some US Army units, that did the "island hopping and established air bases for OUR 10,000 B-29's that brought a firestorm to Tokyo on 3/10/43 And later the planes that dropped the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But we have not forgotten the allies that help from the shadows and sometimes fought alongside our troops, working with little to no support, hiding from the Japanese in the PTO or hiding from the SS in the ETO, either. They didn't make the headlines, but they were appreciated none the less.

Never assume that we have forgotten them. But you have forgotten that without the US, you may well be speaking Japanese instead of English, today.

So when you take up an attitude like that, you had better be damned sure that you know who you are talking to.

[darkeyes]

I have never denied and will never deny the enormous sacrifice the USA has made in terms of its people in defence of its freedom, and at times in defence of the freedom of others. In respect of WW2 I have never said that the USA did not contribute enormously to its winning an d without it, a victory by the allies would have been extremely difficult to achieve. It is likely that my country would have had to give up the struggle probably by 1941 without the huge support of the US in terms of equipment, food and medicines, and the people of my and other countries are enormously grateful for that support and the sacrifice made by the American people..... I have in fact referred to that in long dead posts on this site.

My argument is not whether that war could have been won, but that the USA is not the only nation on this earth which has made enormous sacrifices in the name of freedom.. China had untold millions as did the Soviet Union in the name of freedom in WW2.. China in fact not from 1939, but much earlier... and every country which was involved in that war on the side of the allies did likewise.. and many citizens of the axis powers made the ulltimate sacrifice in the name of our freedom... , as did many who volunteered who were citizens of neutral countries.. don't put words in my mouth Pasa..

I have said that the American and western ways are not the only ways of and to achieve freedom.. I stand by that.. the peoples of many countries have fought for their idea of freedom against both our countries, and against what they believe is the oppression and colonisation by our countries, and in the past by almost every nation you care to mention.. none is whiter than white and none is entirely in league with the devil... in the 1812 war Canadians fought against your country for freedom when there was a chaotic invasion of Canada.. a small example..but pertinent I think.. there are currently something like 200 nations on this sad little world of ours.. almost all have at one time or other had to fight in the name of freedom, and most have also been responsible for attempting (and often succeeding) to take away the freedoms of others.. that is what I am saying..

I am not anti American as you claim.. I am anti arrogance, and anti suppressing truth, and anti tellin fibs, and anti denying what is, anti saying what is when it is not.. in its time my country has been responsible for enormous oppression and repression.. the British Empire was good for some things.. but the cost to the liberty of many peoples was an appalling and disgusting abuse of power.. millions died fighting that empire in the name of freedom.. that is my point Pasa.. that the US is not and never will be the sole protector and guarantor of freedom.. that it or no other nation has exclusive rights to sacrificing its people in the name of liberty..

....and I think Pasa when it comes to the constitution guaranteeing absolute freedom of speech and expression you will find that it is not quite as simple as that.. think again...

[Long Duck Dong]

falcon
as for the idea that japan could have invaded nz.... roflmao... its been proven that the japanese didn't have the numbers possible to invade our country, and we are more than capable of defending our home front.... something that you appear to believe that we can't with your implication that we could be speaking japanese.....as even the japanese admitted they could not invade nz

the maori battalion were one of the most feared in the field and so were the scots... cos they would fight to the death, and then get up and fight on.....
we had the same mentality on own home turf......


as for the capitalization of letters ??? roflmao... how I write, is not a sign of disrespect at all...... I am involved with a us citizen and she is not worried about how I write, only about how I treat people..... if you have a issue with me not using punctuation... I would suggest you go back to ignoring me and my posts.... cos I am not changing the way I write...

and yes, I know who I talk to.... I talk with the vets that served during the wars, the ones that really know what happened.....and the ones that remember waiting and waiting for the us support they were promised and that never came.....

now let me spell it out...... it was a combined allied effort to win the war.... a number of countries involved.... each as equal as the other in a time of war..... and I have never seen any vet turn around, in person, and say that we could have not won without the us......
they normally say, we would have just continued to fight and fight until there was no bullets left, and then we would have used our bayonets, and when they broke, we would use the butts, and when they broke, we would use our fists.........cos only a idiot claims to be a victor in any war....... when somebody has lost their lives when the first bullet is fired.....

the scots fought hard against the english for a few 100 years....and never lost that war.... we worked out that there are times that sitting down and talking about things, sheds less blood......

the same principal with world war 1 and the armistice.....
and in the second world war, the same principal was tried between english and germany....
I will leave you to assume what I am saying there....


now like I have said.... I have no issues with admitting and acknowledging that the us played a large part in ww2..... but without the teamwork of other countries.... things like D day etc... would have not happened....
and that is my point.... it was not just the us that helped bring ww2 to a end..... but it is implied that without the us, other countries would be speaking foreign languages..... and that implies that countries like nz would have sat on their asses and watched.... and thats far from the truth....
as our commitment already shows......

btw how much of nz's involvement in nam is taught in us history books ?
cos its taught in nz history books along side the commitments of all countries involved.....

[darkeyes]

Can we knock this speaking German had germany won WW2 on the head once and for all.. I have said this and similar things before, but in the year 1066 the Normans invaded England.. the language spoken in England was then, English.. from 1066 till 1486 the Norman French Plantagenet dynasty ruled England.. when Henry Tudor defeated Richard III to end that dynasty, you will be surprised to hear that the language spoken in England was... English.. the Tudor dynasty (Welsh), succeeded by the Stuarts (Scots) and then the Hanovarians (German) from all of which the present monarch is descended today.. the language of England today is.. funnily enough.. English..

..and I will add just this.. had the US not aided Britain, and the Soviet Union during WW2.. and had those two countries been forced from the war.. and had China and India, Australia and New Zealand been forced to withdraw from that conflict.. it is at least as likely that the US would be Seig Heiling as the UK or anyone else.. or do Americans truly believe that in the 1940's, even with their huge industrial power of the time.. they could have defeated the combined power of the axis powers on their own?

It was in American interests to aid these countries as much as it was in anyone elses.. it was also at least as likely that Germany would have beaten the US in developing an Atomic Bomb, and for all my criticism of the use of the A-Bomb in 1945, and indeed its very development.. the Nazi's would not have hesitated in annihilating American cities..or anyone elses... nor for that matter would Japan..

[Long Duck Dong]

agrees with what fran said..... whole heartedly...... cos its the truth.... and cos i suck at putting things so simply and omg.... in english :tong:

but I have to be cheeky..... the english language is made up of some french and german and latin and omg... english :tong: etc
so even without germany winning a war and invading england, they are using some german anyway :tong:

gets out of the thread now before darkeyes gives me a detention :tong:

[TwylaTwobits]

Fran won't have to give you detention, I'd be happy to spank...oh wait you like that. Hugs Fran, well said as always.

[darkeyes]

agrees with what fran said..... whole heartedly...... cos its the truth.... and cos i suck at putting things so simply and omg.... in english :tong:

but I have to be cheeky..... the english language is made up of some french and german and latin and omg... english :tong: etc
so even without germany winning a war and invading england, they are using some german anyway :tong:

gets out of the thread now before darkeyes gives me a detention :tong:

Yas rite Duckie.. English (an Scots) are germanic languages in ne case.. but they hav absorbed influences from French, Latin, German, Indian languages, American, Spanish, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and many others.. Russian 2 for that matter.. bit like every otha language is influenced by otha langauges..English in partic these days.. don havta b invaded an conquered for that..

..am nice..ya havn been bad enuff for detention.. but sumtimes... Twyla is rite..ya lil bottie dus need a spankin.. will leave that 2 'er...:tong:

[bemyonlyone]

Ugh, she makes me sick.

[tenni]

Pasa
You continue to believe your propoganda. I will continue to believe information about the US from outside the US as having more validity. Will you admit that your society has been sold a great deal of propoganda to control it? I doubt it. The numbers of US people who believed for years that Iraq had WMD even after there was no evidence was staggering. The numbers who believed that Communism would bury them and the US needed to spend tons of money and lives to fight communism (McCarthism) was sad. The number of tea baggers who believe Coulter, Beck etc. is also staggering. The neo con propoganda has entered Canada and continues to gain supporters. The neo con Canadian government spin even about the real truth about our constitution is sad. The near evil manipulation by Harper was surprising.

Propoganda control by a government is not exclusive to dictatorships. Who is really paying Coulter, Beck etc? Do they really believe what they say or do they see themselves as some form of entertainer. Beck basically stated on the View (I know) that he didn't feel obligated to tell the truth to his viewers. He was permitted to twist and lie because he was not a newsman. He was an entertainer commentator. Yet, people believe Beck and Coulter.

I actually appreciate reading US thoughts about my country. I too have to sift through misinformation from what I believe is false from observations about another perspective. We may all learn about our country through the eyes of others. There are wise and educated people in the US. Unfortunately as darkeyes states many US individual perspectives of international situations tends to be very myopic and self indulgent. We already have US hollywood spin about how grand the US soldier was in Iraq. The reality is somewhere in between Hollywood and what is written in classified files of your government. Are Blair, Harper, McKay, Connor, Bush, Cheney, Pearl and Rumsfeld war criminals? Wait fifty years and even then it will be debatable. Pasa, if you do not recognize some of these potential war criminal names they are Canadian suspects.

Yes, I am anti-American government. Yes, I am anti-NeoCon. I'm not stupid enough not to be. I was not stupid enough to be anti communism but personally saw the flaws by visiting Russia. I do not hate the US like Al Qaeda though. I do not wish harm to the US people. I am not anti-US individual. As Coyotedude states, we are all people when we strip away our governments. We all are more the same than we are different. Muslims are more the same as US individuals than they are different. Muslim scholars this week made a strong statement against the interpretations of an ancient fatwa that Bin Laden has used to manipulate the poor uneducated or disenfranchised Muslim to make them radical extremist. Still, Al Qaeda is able to manipulate and gains supporters due to how they use Coulter like propoganda of hatred. Even extremist radical Muslims are more the same as a US person than they are different if we strip away the propoganda on both sides.

[tenni]

"No one is spitting on anyone else for being black."
Pasa that was reported by the AP and a quote from the black legislator. He was heard by a reporter and shown on television speaking to the tea bagger. He said something to the effect. "You spit on me. You actually spit on me." You could see the Black legislator pointing his finger at the man who spit on him. I guess that wasn't newsworthy in Texas but it was in Buffalo? Buffalo, NY must be a leftist city according to you?

[rdy2go]

Why the hell are we bashing each other? Canada has been a long standing and true friend of the United States. Canadians and Americans have fought together to defend our peoples, defend freedom, and defeat tyranny and repression from the World Wars onward. And Canada and the US have been partners in peace as well, particularly in the postwar period.

I'm a proud American who is grateful for the friendship and partnership of my Canadian friends and neighbors. Even though we may not agree on everything, we can and do treat each other with mutual respect and dignity.



My signature line sums it up: It's a wonderful thing to love one's country. But why should love stop at the border?

Peace

Well said coyote dude. I spent my college days in the USA, and had a fantastic time, met lots of great people from every corner of your country, and came away with not only a degree, but fantastic memories of the people and places that will be with me until I croak! (Espesially them there Ohio State football cheerlearders! lol, so long ago now..... lol)

[darkeyes]

Ya kno..me been respondin 2 peeps an until now didn hav a clue who Ann Coulter wos... but havin dun sum checkin me finds me saw 'er on telly 1ce.. that wos enuff.. an nowt me found out makes me change me mind in least.. will say tho wot a hysterically daft Cadbury's fruit n nutcase she is... makes me glad she not on my side...

[rdy2go]

Wow! We went all the way from Ann being a loud mouth, to who is a war crminal. On war, I hate it! The whole damn thing. But what I hate even more is that those who start the wars don't have to fight in the wars. They get to send others to do the deeds and so many never come back. That is so wrong!

As far as Ann goes? She might be an opinionated loud mouth, but ya know... I'd do her! :bigrin::):bigrin:

[TwylaTwobits]

hands Rdy a bridle and spurs, make sure you put the bit between her teeth it will stop her from saying another word that can be heard and repeated through the media, other than that .... ENJOY if you can and if she doesn't emasculate you emotionally and physically before you get to have any fun.

[69luvr]

..an wy Tony Bennet? the fact that I disagree and think he is crap doent mean I am either interfering with him, her or you...

..and you are typical of the worst kind of American... you make this huge assumption that your country is apparently the only one on the planet that had men and women sacrifice their lives for freedom..the sacrifices of no one else's people matters... let me tell you Sonny Jim.. around the world..in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Holland, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Russia, India, Burma, Malaya, China and almost any country you care to mention, including my own, there are millions upon millions who have sacrificed their lives for your freedom.. but of course..no one's lives matter quite like an American's.. no other country except America has devoted itself to freedom.. no country is free except America... there are memorials all over this world to those who died in the name of freedom.. many died fighting against both your country and mine, against the French, Australians, Canadians and Soviets, the Japanese, Chinese and Spaniards to name but a few, all in the name of freedom..many still are.. you may not like the kind of freedom for which they laid and lay down their lives, or how they do it, but it is a battle for freedom to them.. the western way is NOT the only way of freedom or to freedom..and the American certainly NOT the only way.. there are others.. it is an arrogance to claim otherwise... tell that to the many in your own country who have been oppressed, crushed, enslaved and almost annihilated by the American way of freedom...

..no nation or people has exclusivity on freedom, or having fought for it and have people die in its name.. none can excuse itself of oppression and depriving others of their freedom and all the evil that goes along with it....


and you are obviously a prejudiced anti-American loser of the highest order. Rather then being tolerant of all with different views and hear then out, you feel the need to attack Americans. I wonder if you'd rather have grown up a nazi? That is exactly what you are acting like.

[69luvr]

"No one is spitting on anyone else for being black."
Pasa that was reported by the AP and a quote from the black legislator. He was heard by a reporter and shown on television speaking to the tea bagger. He said something to the effect. "You spit on me. You actually spit on me." You could see the Black legislator pointing his finger at the man who spit on him. I guess that wasn't newsworthy in Texas but it was in Buffalo? Buffalo, NY must be a leftist city according to you?


try getting the facts straight! No proof exists that anyone spit on the man on purpose. It is just pure fabrication. Yet the liberal press fails to print the truth. Much the same that the right commentators never state the truth about gay people. Lies are wrong no matter who is spewing them. Rumors and innuendo seem to exist here in bunches.

[rdy2go]

hands Rdy a bridle and spurs, make sure you put the bit between her teeth it will stop her from saying another word that can be heard and repeated through the media, other than that .... ENJOY if you can and if she doesn't emasculate you emotionally and physically before you get to have any fun.

Lol, A couple of hours in RdyWorld, and she's a changed woman!:bigrin:

[TwylaTwobits]

Well Rdy, you know the old saying Pics or it didn't happen. So you better provide pics even if they do scar us for life :p

[darkeyes]

and you are obviously a prejudiced anti-American loser of the highest order. Rather then being tolerant of all with different views and hear then out, you feel the need to attack Americans. I wonder if you'd rather have grown up a nazi? That is exactly what you are acting like.

There is an old Scots saying..there are nane sae blind as thaim that canni see.. no..I am not anti American.. I am anti a particular kind of person from whatever country who is so blind arrogant and full of their own importance that they believe their nation is perfect and can do no wrong and is unable to grasp reality out of a misplaced jingoistic fervour. We have them too in the UK.. but in this case you just happen to be an American.. an American of the very worst type..

[darkeyes]

Wow! We went all the way from Ann being a loud mouth, to who is a war crminal. On war, I hate it! The whole damn thing. But what I hate even more is that those who start the wars don't have to fight in the wars. They get to send others to do the deeds and so many never come back. That is so wrong!



Yeppers..am def warmin 2 ya Rdy hun.. yas not quite the uncivilised daftie me thotya wer.. :tong:;)

[darkeyes]

I just love the patronization that just drips from some of y'all.

I especially love this: "worst kind of American."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RSL-JvROuRw/RizU_WSWfrI/AAAAAAAAAAo/SHKOlDDrflg/s320/johnny_cash_finger.jpg

Pasa

That isnt being patronising..it is merely a fact as I see things based on the hysterical drivel and clap-trap 69er expounded.. nothing he has said does anything but confirm me in that belief.. so don't play silly buggers with me on this, Pasa.. every country has its worst kind of pompous, arrogant, holier than thou, superior arseholes.. mine is no different for we have them too.. or are u of the same kind that is unable to see what I have been saying? Because if you can't, then you are indeed just as he...

[Hephaestion]

Is this her?

[JP1986UM]

aaahhh..anotha anti leftie.. anotha who knos not of wot they speak...wud think fascists and nazis allowed peeps 2 speak.. an otha sleezy rite wing elements.. an lots not so far on the rite.. so called conservatives... witer than wite r they not?

Don like celine 2 much..not at all in fact...but Tony Bennet?? Jeez....:rolleyes:

Sorry but your recall of history is lacking.
The Nazi's were LEFT WINGr's Not RIGHT WING as so many choose to falsely claim. It was the National Socialist Party, not the National Republican/Conservative/nameyourfavenemy Party.

Fascism is also a branch of the LEFT wing, not the RIGHT wing. I would point you to several books upon which fascism is aptly described and placed in context to its Marxist roots. Its Liberal Fascism, not conservative that causes so many problems. Its left wingers again who riot in towns and cities when they don't get their way.

Its Left Wingers who will cause the country to go bankrupt and then point the other way and whistle.

[darkeyes]

"there are nane sae blind as thaim that canni see"

Nope. No patronizing going on here.

"every country has its worst kind of pompous, arrogant, holier than thou, superior arseholes.. mine is no different for we have them too"

http://lifeofummaslam.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/mirror.jpg

Pasa

Hahahahahaha.. Gud 1 Pasa.. me like's it.. brill.. best funny yas cum up wiv yet... an ther hav been a few..:bigrin:

.. but it dusn make me wrong tho dus it?:tong:

[darkeyes]

Sorry but your recall of history is lacking.
The Nazi's were LEFT WINGr's Not RIGHT WING as so many choose to falsely claim. It was the National Socialist Party, not the National Republican/Conservative/nameyourfavenemy Party.

Fascism is also a branch of the LEFT wing, not the RIGHT wing. I would point you to several books upon which fascism is aptly described and placed in context to its Marxist roots. Its Liberal Fascism, not conservative that causes so many problems. Its left wingers again who riot in towns and cities when they don't get their way.

Its Left Wingers who will cause the country to go bankrupt and then point the other way and whistle.

Jeez... wer dus u learn ya history an politics from? No party wich has at its core a blatant nationalist agenda based on racial purity can ev b considered of the left.. ther brand a socialism wos preserved for the white, aryan German people.. Socialism.. as propounded by Marxist..an non-Marxist alike is an international creed wich envisions the brotherhood of man, equality for all people, of all races, irrespective of sex..the unity of all human beings in common cause for the gud of all.. go back an read some propa books hun, cos National Socialism can hardly claim ne a that....

[MarieDelta]

From Wikkipedia



Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy.Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum,although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism. In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.They advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation. They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.

Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism for being associated with failures that fascists claim are inherent in the Enlightenment. Fascists view egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism as failed elements of the Enlightenment. They oppose liberalism — as a bourgeois movement — and Marxism — as a proletarian movement — for being exclusive economic class-based movements. They present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity. They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly running a nation, and that a merit-based aristocracy of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence. Fascists support a "Third Position" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.



The Nazi Party is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis. While the party incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right. On the Nolan Chart, the Nazi party would be described as politically extreme authoritarian, and economically centrist

[tenni]

I'll come back to you later but I have thought about this term "anti-American". I am curious as to why being "anti-American" is used so often by defensive US people when other countries do not agree with the US government. Why would any citizen of a country want to be "pro" another country? I suppose the best that I might work towards would be "neutral American"..or indifferent towards the USA. However, with the imperialistic and invasive history that the US has done over the past several hundred years, why would I not have concerns about this USA infringing upon my rights and liberties? Most US people are rather unaware how invasive and dangerous that their society is to other countries.

As far as attacking, I believe that it was a US citizen who first raised an attack on the British citizen by referring to how the British are fortunate that the US entered the WW2. Only the US perceives themselves as the sole saviour With such arrogance and stupidity coming from US citizens mouths, why would anyone from the other allied countries else be pro such dribble?


and you are obviously a prejudiced anti-American loser of the highest order. Rather then being tolerant of all with different views and hear then out, you feel the need to attack Americans. I wonder if you'd rather have grown up a nazi? That is exactly what you are acting like.

[darkeyes]

I'll come back to you later but I have thought about this term "anti-American". I am curious as to why being "anti-American" is used so often by defensive US people when other countries do not agree with the US government. Why would any citizen of a country want to be "pro" another country? I suppose the best that I might work towards would be "neutral American"..or indifferent towards the USA. However, with the imperialistic and invasive history that the US has done over the past several hundred years, why would I not have concerns about this USA infringing upon my rights and liberties? Most US people are rather unaware how invasive and dangerous that their society is to other countries.

As far as attacking, I believe that it was a US citizen who first raised an attack on the British citizen by referring to how the British are fortunate that the US entered the WW2. Only the US perceives themselves as the sole saviour With such arrogance and stupidity coming from US citizens mouths, why would anyone from the other allied countries else be pro such dribble?

If folk wanna take a huff cos what we outsiders say about the US that is their affair.. but you're right Tenni..its not the ordinary American our gripe is with.. I have said so several times on these forums in the past..the gripe is with their government.. yea..even Obama's government.. of course we may dislike the fact that people voted for a party or a policy in the US and argue vehemently with them..that does not mean we are anti American.. but hun..you will say it till you are blue in the face, and those who have a brain in their head know it to be true.. unfortunately, those who lack shall we say common sense and the capaacity to understand a point, will read what they want into it and they will still call people like you and I anti American.. which could be not be further from the truth.. as it happens Kate and I are having dinner tomorrow evening with two American friends.. we have the most riotous arguments yet they know the difference I, and you are trying to make.. just as they slag off our government for many of their stupidities (quite rightly very often.. but not always), they are no more anti British than am I.

Going back to the WW2 argument and the point you make.. the British were glad..ecstatic when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour.. they knnew then that the US was no longer simply a supplier and supporter, but within a very short time.. an ally... they knew then that while things still looked black..that the tide of the war was at it lowest ebb and would soon begin to return to drown the Axis evil.. for any to say that the British, Canadians, Australians et all were not grateful for what the USA did is to misread a reality.. but that was 65 years ago.. how long are we to be expected to have our debt to the US rammed down our throats? The world has changed..and sometimes friends require to be told when they are wrong.. thats not being ungrateful.. thats what friends do.. true friends however much you may not like it.. :)

[allbimyself]

Fran,

What you have said is true. OTOH (and I'm not accusing you of this) very many talk about "Americans" (i.e. w/o exclusion) when discussing the US govt, "ugly Americans," rednecks, "arrogant Americans," etc. etc.

It comes across as bigotry and hatred of all Americans far too often.

I understand that you are trying to clarify exactly what I'm pointing out, however many here are quite guilty of what I'm saying and I didn't want your explanation to excuse their behavior.

Regarding WWII, there is way too much crap being said. The Allies would not have succeeded w/o the US, Britain and the commonwealth nations, and the USSR all playing a part. Anyone who claims that the US won the war for the Allies is an idiot. The US was simply the last to enter the war and by that measure, tipped the scales.

That said, WWII affected the US much more profoundly than many realize. Raising the US to the level of "super power" was not in and of itself a major issue. Rather, the US long time policy of isolationism was shattered. Twice in less than 30 years the US had been drawn into what most saw as a "European war." With the devastation of Europe during the war, the mismanagement of Germany following WWI and the specter of Stalin who was every bit as dangerous as Hitler, many Americans saw no choice but to remain a super power, discard isolationism and take a leading role in world affairs lest we once more be called upon when unprepared to help "save the world." Had the US simply withdrawn back to the Western hemisphere, I honestly believe another war, this time between the USSR and Western Europe, would have erupted within 5-20 years of the end of WWII.

Has the US always been right over the past 65 years? Of course not. Has my country done things that I'm ashamed, even horrified of? Of course. Who here can say not?

Regarding Nazism being right or left... who cares? Extremism of any stripe is A Bad Thing, be it the extremes of Fascism, the Stalinist/Maoist extremes of the left, or even unbridled Democracy. If you think that Democracy cannot be extreme you need to examine the issues... and think how often the majority is wrong.

[tenni]

I think that it is important and interesting to pay attention to Coulter and Beck in how they use the terms "fascists", "communist", "left wing", "right wing", " and progressive". Fascism is far right winged and the point that some US posters are actually attempting to connect it to far "left winged" philosophies like Communism is very telling. The US propoganda machine spent a great amount of effort over the past sixties years connecting Communism to negatives and building fear up about Communism (a far left political philosophy). The same may be said to a lesser degree about Fascism although in reality Fascism has not been a very significant political philosophy since WW2. It is however still used to refer to "controlling" efforts found in centralized dictatorships. In mainstream language to be called a Fascist is used to refer to an over controlling dictatorial rule. This centralized control aspect is one of the main features of the far right. While the far left deals with decentralized control with decisions being made communally for the benefit of all within the society rather than a centralized few. Neo Conservatism is an extreme far right political philosophy close to Fascism and Nazism. Neo Con policies are set up to dismantle any communal laws that are socialist in nature.(for the good of the many over the good of the few).

I recall reading about the traits of the far right and the far left. The Bush regime was actually discussed in terms of how far right that it had created policies on. The Bush regime was found to have a majority of these extremist right traits but I do not recall all of the categories nor I am able to google them quickly. The use of the word "freedom" was used to control the populace and in fact the Bush regime's laws and policies reduced freedoms of the US citizen to a great extent in comparison of other former US regimes.

When Coulter and Beck connect "progressiveness" aka liberalness to such political philosophies as Fascism they are being rather successful at creating fear to control the masses to oppose policies and laws of these "progressive (liberal) parties.

There is a political philosophical connection between Fascism and Nazism regardless whether the title of the Nazi party used the term socialism. The same may be argued about the USSR and its connection to not only Socialism but the Communist philosophy. Yes, they used certain socialist (Left beliefs where the need of the many are placed higher than the need of the few) philosophies but they also used extreme right politics to control the masses found in such political beliefs as Fascism.

[darkeyes]

Fran,

What you have said is true. OTOH (and I'm not accusing you of this) very many talk about "Americans" (i.e. w/o exclusion) when discussing the US govt, "ugly Americans," rednecks, "arrogant Americans," etc. etc.

It comes across as bigotry and hatred of all Americans far too often.

I understand that you are trying to clarify exactly what I'm pointing out, however many here are quite guilty of what I'm saying and I didn't want your explanation to excuse their behavior.

Regarding WWII, there is way too much crap being said. The Allies would not have succeeded w/o the US, Britain and the commonwealth nations, and the USSR all playing a part. Anyone who claims that the US won the war for the Allies is an idiot. The US was simply the last to enter the war and by that measure, tipped the scales.

That said, WWII affected the US much more profoundly than many realize. Raising the US to the level of "super power" was not in and of itself a major issue. Rather, the US long time policy of isolationism was shattered. Twice in less than 30 years the US had been drawn into what most saw as a "European war." With the devastation of Europe during the war, the mismanagement of Germany following WWI and the specter of Stalin who was every bit as dangerous as Hitler, many Americans saw no choice but to remain a super power, discard isolationism and take a leading role in world affairs lest we once more be called upon when unprepared to help "save the world." Had the US simply withdrawn back to the Western hemisphere, I honestly believe another war, this time between the USSR and Western Europe, would have erupted within 5-20 years of the end of WWII.

Has the US always been right over the past 65 years? Of course not. Has my country done things that I'm ashamed, even horrified of? Of course. Who here can say not?

Regarding Nazism being right or left... who cares? Extremism of any stripe is A Bad Thing, be it the extremes of Fascism, the Stalinist/Maoist extremes of the left, or even unbridled Democracy. If you think that Democracy cannot be extreme you need to examine the issues... and think how often the majority is wrong.

Thank God.. a rational argument with which I can substantially agree.. I know that very many Britons are anti American in the sense to which you refer.. people from both left and right of the political spectrum.. although I can honestly say the greatest suspicion of the US and its motives is among those of us on the left.. when it comes to people as individuals and as human beings many do have the stereo-typical view of Americans that they are loud, arrogant, materialistic to an extreme and think they are God's gift to humanity, it is much more evenly split.. I have met Americans who meet that criteria, but in the main I find them as I have always found the French, Germans, Ausralians, New Zealanders, Russians and others I have been fortunate enough to meet and become friendly with.. they are compassionate, nice and decent human beings.

Many of your compatriots have misconceptions of what the British and Europeans are like, just as we have many misconceptions about peoples from any other country.. but we can always find common ground by remembering we may have differing points of view, but knowing that there is always more that unites us than divides.. there will always be bigots wherever we come from.. there are people on this site and everywhere else who have a go at Americans as if they are personally responsible for the acts of their government, just as there are bigoted Americans who look down their noses at those of us from other nations as being somehow inferior.. many are as appalled by that which is done in their name as any of we non-Americans.. why else did Obama win? It was only in part because of his race.. mostly it was because Americans are basically decent people who hated what was happening and being carried out in their name and in defence of one distorted view of liberty, and because he offered them hope of a better future.. and my God do we all need hope of that...

I understand the difficulties the US faced at the end of WW2.. I am not sure I agree entirely with you on this but know that it was a difficult time for the whole world not just the USA.. the aftermath of such a huge conflgration was always going to be messy and so it proved.. Americans still do seem to have some hankering back to the days of isolation, the ones I know anyway, and it must have been a huge shock to the American psyche when they finally realised these days were gone forever.. but reality hits them in the face and they know it is not a realistic option..

..and I care whether fascism or Nazism is considered right or left.. for I have no intention of being tarred with either of those brushes..I still passionately believe in the socialist credo but unfortunately we do have a lot of mud which has stuck emanating from Uncle Jo, and no matter how much we argue that what we see as socialism, and what his kind of socialism was, or as I would argue, wasn't..it is a bit of an uphill struggle.

Finally, I know only too well that democracy can be extreme.. people get it wrong much of the time.. millions people got it wrong in 1933 Germany and the world paid an awful price for that.. people got it wrong in the Argentine by electing Peron twice and paid the price, people got it wrong by electing Thatcher in 1979, and Bush in 2000..and will probably again... history is full of examples of democracies and their people getting it badly wrong and paying the price.. and they will again...

[Long Duck Dong]

nods and agrees with allbi..... I am anti aspects of american conduct but I am not anti america or americans....

I am not sure how many people have ever heard of the anzus treaty....
ANZUS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS)

in 1984 nz took a stance over nuclear capable ships in nz harbors, and as a result, we are no longer part of the treaty, we have to deal with trade tariffs and we are still expected to give ongoing support to the us in matters of security... ie the waihopai spy base 25 miles from where I live and supply of troops for conflicts ( we have sas troops, regular troops and civilians in iraq )

so yeah, I do find it interesting that america is touted as to how good they are and how grateful we should be to the us.... when my country is being punished for having a different of opinion, while still giving support to the us

to give a clear example of how the us trade tariffs hurt me as a person.....
a pair of wrangler jeans $37 us..... $52 australia..... $199 nz...
levis jeans... can cost me up to $500 a pair

I will give obama credit... he did acknowledge to the nz government that the trade tariff was stupid and it was time it ended..... but like many americans waiting for obama to furfill other promises to the us people.... I am not holding my breath

[allbimyself]

BTW, I just want to clarify something I said. When I referred to the "profound" affect of WWII upon the US I most certainly did not mean to imply that I feel the US suffered more. Obviously that is not the case.

[JP1986UM]

lemme see here if I get this right:

Dictatorship of Hitler - Check

Government instituted socialist reforms - Check

National Socialist German Workers' Party - check

Gun control (fav of left wingers) - check

Allied with Stalin who killed off 20+ million - check

Controlling business -check


But is a far right wing philosophy? WTF is wrong with some of you? The NSDAP was right oriented but merged with the SA which was left oriented. clipped both wings to be sure, but Hitlers regime, much like the Obama regime, is decidedly left oriented.

If you really want a middle ground, it was neither since you could argue it was either be with the NAZI's or be dead or enslaved, but that's a stretch I'd willingly give you. But they stood for nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement. Kinda like Obama, admittedly he's not trying to create a brown shirt brigade, but the principles are still there and no one calls Obama a right winger. He's decidedly a left winger. Far left.

And oh yes, in much NAZI literature, why were Christians widely condemned as "right wing fanatics"? Seems contradictory for a RIGHT WING group to condemn a RIGHT WING group does it not? perhaps instead of reading WIKI pages, you people should pick up legitimate historical reviews and broaden your perspectives from Choamsky to Horowitz perhaps.

What is most telling is that my grandfather who survived the NAZI regime, never once called them right wingers. He called them fascist, nazi, and left wing fanatics, but never right wing. And he survived it.

Oh and using Wiki....bad form. Any source that can be altered, as I did in less than 30 seconds, is not a source to be trusted. Period. End of story.

Although most of the information on Guanine and Methionine is pretty accurate....:tongue:

[Long Duck Dong]

Oh and using Wiki....bad form. Any source that can be altered, as I did in less than 30 seconds, is not a source to be trusted. Period. End of story.


sorry, that part made me laugh..... and the reason is that any book, website, program etc is rarely 100% accurate.... yet so many of us make statements and comments supported by * gasp * things we have read, seen or heard, in books, websites, programs and other people.....

but that aside.... posts can be altered in the site, so do we trust yours :tong:

seriously tho, I use wikipedia and other sources as a way of sharing info.... not the truth.... as the truth is only the truth in the eyes of people that believe it to be the truth....
and that brings me to the aspect of the ring wing fanatic comment about christians..... now are they referring to right wing fanatic christians or saying that all christians are right wing fanatics.....

the 2 differences can change the whole statement

[Hephaestion]

Funny that the NZ contingent should mention this slightly schizophrenic expectation from USA politicians.

In WWI, the UK was dragged into war by moral obligation towards France and the lowlands. That broke the back of the Empire (but was intrumental in boosting female equality).

Having seen a chink in the armour, according to the late AJP Taylor a reputable UK historian, the avowed intention of the USA after WWI was that the USA should topple the UK as the world's No.1 trading nation.

In WWII, the UK bought help via lend / lease (and finished paying ca Nov 2006was it?). The UK was bankrupted by the war effort and lamed for years afterwards. There will be no dwelling upon the plunder of scientific and technical resources in the process and immunity from crimes against humanity (a phrase so liberally spread since).

No one seems to dwell much on Japan's invovlvement in WWII. From what I have encountered, China was being plundered by the West and so Japan decided to take a piece of the pie in traditional territory. The West then put a trading embargo on Japan concentrating on oil. The USA had already broken the military codes of Japan and so set about reinforcing its overseas bases - except it would appear in Hawaii.

The purpose of war over the ages would seem to be profit.

The UK was invited to play in VietNam but declined. The UK PM of the time was then labelled as a Communist sympathiser and the UK economy went bad (ok - worse). There was a ridiculous situation where the PM would speak to the faceless head of the security services via the head of the civil service who was positioned in a strategic doorway

This time around, PM Blair did as he was told and followed into the Middle East and guess what, the UK economy has gone bad (ok - worse; because the UK ain't making any profits from the venture - much as would have happened in VietNam).

The same look on Blair's face was seen previoulsy on the faces of the doctors who attended JFKennedy's body after assassination and were then treated to inidvidual meetings with faceless beurocrats many yrs later in one of the 'reviews'. Whereupon the shocked doctors seem to give a reversal of what they had said in 1963.

Wasn't there something similar to the NZ situation, in Australia in the 1980's where the building of a new USA 'military base' was requested from the Aus government, who declined. The UK was then asked / told (?) to dissolve the legitimate goverment of the Aus through the powers of the UK Crown (Governer General?).

As people I have met many wonderful US Americans. However, US politicians leave much to be desired. Yes the UK has been shoulder to shoulder with the USA but it has been in a positon of solid buggary. What else could one expect from a intimate friend.

All of this doesn't really matter as the Chinese now own us all. It seems that they are invincible in war and capitalism.

[darkeyes]

Pasa..now me knos that the terminology left/rite means a diff thing in the US from the rest of the world.. but surely the differences r jus a little more profound than the shallow definitions u hav outlined.. an am not quite sure they r entirely accurate.. me asks cos in Europe, certainly in the UK.. how the rite defines the rite/left divide bears little or no relation 2 how the left dus.. as indeed we shall find out in a few weeks mos prob wen we hav our general election...

[Bluebiyou]

Returning to the original subject... kinda.
I'd love to do a threesome with Darkeyes and Ann Coulter!
(I think Ann's a closet bi, anyway!)

[darkeyes]

I know of know one, even those I know who voted for Obama, who see that election as anything like what you describe. Only the really really far left whack jobs saw it that way. And they were not enough to make the difference in his victory. What you are describing is VERY different from the way it was seen here. Remember, too, that Obama won by a very small margin (just as small as Bush won, both times).

I don't know if this comes from your personal perceptions, or from the love affair the media had with Obama, or your news outlets distorting things. Hell, Tenni still is of the opinion that we had our freedom of speech squashed under Bush (and he uses phrases like 'regime,' as if Bush wasn't elected or something).



This is sad, that you don't get it. Germany didn't get it wrong. Hitler abused his nation, set himself up as a dictator, and they went along willingly...at first. Democracy didn't fail. Hitler did. Thatcher was duly elected, as was Bush. They did their jobs. That you disagree with them does not mean that democracy was extreme, or that democracy got it wrong.

There was a time when both sides of the aisle were committed to doing the right thing, and merely disagreed how to get there. Now, if you disagree, the other side must be evil. You will note that I have not said terribly much negative about President Obama, and nor has the Republicans in office (Entertainers such as Rush say negative things no matter who is in office, so I will eliminate them from the discussion here). Unfortunately, folks like yourself think that if the other side of the aisle get elected that democracy get it wrong. You aren't alone. My country is currently held hostage to those who think like you. Doesn't make you right, either.

Obama wants to do what he feels is right for this nation. Unfortunately, what he feels is right includes: government takeover of private industry, email addresses set up for you to rat out your neighbors for disagreeing with his programs, social programs we cannot afford, 10% unemployment, Labeling of anyone who disagrees as 'racist' and I can go on, and on, and on.

I try not to discuss President Obama, because he won, and I while I feel we should be able to disagree, we shouldn't get nasty about it. Democracy didn't get it wrong when he got elected, though he only has a 45% approval rating (that's 55% who feel differently). If he screws this up, democracy didn't fail...he did.

Finally, race played very little in the election here. Once the novelty wore off, most people voted for him, or didn't, based upon his ideas. Yes, of course there are still racists who voted against him no matter what he said. But, those folks wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway (they usually vote extreme right..and anyone on the extremes are not to be considered part of the main body...that's why they are extreme). What played a far bigger role was Sarah Palin. McCain picking that idiot cost him the election. The swing voters would rather have taken a chance on Obama than have the Alaskan Queen Crab a heartbeat away from the presidency. I can't say I blame them

Pasa

Pasa.. my view of Obama's election has never been one through rose coloured specs.. but such as it is was gleaned from both European and foriegn media (including American) and from friends if mine who are American but resident in this country and who participated in the election.. not all are democrats and voted for Obama. It is not unusual for my view of the world to be taken apart and like anyone else I can look daft sometimes.. but so far I think it holds up.. I will admit that so far I have not read any authoritative post election critiques but shall in due course, but what is happening now in the US is of much more interest and certainly importance to the world both inside and out of the USA...

I do accept in some way your argument about failures (or otherwise) of democracy.. yet I don't think it takes away from my argument that democracy does fail, and it fails more often than we like to think.. that it is less frequent for it to fail in a spectacular way such as Germany in 1933 is something we should all be thankful for.. it often fails because it is the nature of the beast.. popular vote often gets it wrong because as human beings we get many things wrong.. there are innumerable instances of we, the people messing up, and while I accept the argument that Obama's failure's are his responsibility, such is the sectarian that democracy operates that it is not his alone.. Representative democracy is a notoriously innefficient and unreliable creature. That it is preferable to more authoritarian regimes I do not doubt for a moment but it is always likely to fail as it fails to meet the aspirations of its voters.. and at its most spectacular it fails big time.

Of course much of the responsibility of the failure of democracy is down to those we elect, it is also down to the powerful vested interest groups (which arguably show that democracy will never succeed entirely because of the preference shown them over voter aspiration, not always may I add honestly), by a reliance on populist rather than proper policy formulated to meet the needs of society, and of course, the voters themselves. It also fails because it is such an imperfect instrument, slow to react very often which can be a good thing because it gives us time to reflect.. but not always..

Democracy as we know it often fails because there are not proper checks and balances on those we elect.. we can never get that perfect, but we should be able to devise some way to control the more extreme instincts of those we elect.. The Argentine failed over Peron, Germany over Hitler, the US over Bush and Britain certainly over Thatcher.

[darkeyes]

Returning to the original subject... kinda.
I'd love to do a threesome with Darkeyes and Ann Coulter!
(I think Ann's a closet bi, anyway!)

Don't hold your breath sweetie..:)

[tenni]

Pasa
I would agree with you that in some political circles in the US that left and right politics have a different meaning than the rest of the world. I would also state that it may have different meanings for Coulter/Beck/Rush right believers than the rest of the world and the rest of the US. I am not clear that those who might call themselves "left" in the US would agree with you on what it means to be left or right.

It may be the philosophy of US "individualism" and how those who state that they are on the US right perceive and interpret "Individualism". This seems to be mixed in with more standard understanding of "left" and "right" political perspectives. Might it be that some of the US "right" political perspectives fall more in line with "Libertarianism"?

If you are really referring to "Libertarianism", then those who profess to be "right" and wanting "individualism" need to clarify if they are really using the word "right" appropriately. I do not know very much about Libertarianism. I do know that some who think of themselves as "right" politically and are from the US also claim to support Libertarianism. Some have argued that to be Libertarian is the follow a "Left" political philosophy or at least that was how it was originally perceived in the 19th century. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0706b.asp

The use of words such as "socialism" "left" and "right" seem to have changed over time and now Pasa proposes that geography should also permit differing meanings. If you live in the US, you may use these political words differently than other English speakers. Is this also US "Exceptionalism" to believe that the US determines things in the world?



[QUOTE=Pasadenacpl;161993]I think, perhaps, the problem is that in the US we might have different definitions about what is "Left" and what is "Right." For those of you in Europe, Canada, and other nations playing the home version of this game, allow me to give you the simplified version.

[Hephaestion]

Pasa..now me knos that the terminology left/rite means a diff thing in the US from the rest of the world.. but surely the differences r jus a little more profound than the shallow definitions u hav outlined.. an am not quite sure they r entirely accurate.. me asks cos in Europe, certainly in the UK.. how the rite defines the rite/left divide bears little or no relation 2 how the left dus.. as indeed we shall find out in a few weeks mos prob wen we hav our general election...

'Divided by a common language' is the saying and probably now extends to encompass the rest of the world. The problem is that the US film industry holds greater sway than wanted. The stars and stripes always in the right and sorting all of the world's problems out against reputedly insurmountable odds - where men are men and small furry things form Alpha-Centauri are small furry things from Alpha-Centari.

An incidental three cheers then for Bolywood and the Indian sub-continent in general where vocabularies and original meanings of words persist for now

Here in Blighty we strive to understand that the claimed caring left is now the new individualist right and that the individualist right is claiming to be the caring left (a bit like the swap between the Democrats and Republicans in history elsewhere). Meanwhile the centre is going around in circles while the regionals look on and fall about laughing at the break up of the UK. No one knows who to vote for as the language we use to communicate with and which forms the bedrock of any democracy is abused beyond use. Spin Doctors and diplomacy, small print and gesture of deceit have pointed at 'bogey men' that now co-exist with the 'reds under the bed'. Democracies have made mistakes in their voting and now that fear of that repetition has meant that people are reluctant to vote. Goverments are then formed from a 25% turn out and represent no one but themselves and their bedfellows.

I preach the good words of others - "Spoil your ballot if need be but ALWAYS vote - too many people have died for your right to do so and you should not squander it". Reluctance to vote will only be seen as apathy and justification to ignore; it is simply an aspect of divide and conquer.



Now to more important things - a 3 some with Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin - YES! (but with custard and wellies)

[darkeyes]

'Divided by a common language' is the saying and probably now extends to encompass the rest of the world. The problem is that the US film industry holds greater sway than wanted. The stars and stripes always in the right and sorting all of the world's problems out against reputedly insurmountable odds - where men are men and small furry things form Alpha-Centauri are small furry things from Alpha-Centari.

An incidental three cheers then for Bolywood and the Indian sub-continent in general where vocabularies and original meanings of words persist for now

Here in Blighty we strive to understand that the claimed caring left is now the new individualist right and that the individualist right is claiming to be the caring left (a bit like the swap between the Democrats and Republicans in history elsewhere). Meanwhile the centre is going around in circles while the regionals look on and fall about laughing at the break up of the UK. No one knows who to vote for as the language we use to communicate with and which forms the bedrock of any democracy is abused beyond use. Spin Doctors and diplomacy, small print and gesture of deceit have pointed at 'bogey men' that now co-exist with the 'reds under the bed'. Democracies have made mistakes in their voting and now that fear of that repetition has meant that people are reluctant to vote. Goverments are then formed from a 25% turn out and represent no one but themselves and their bedfellows.

I preach the good words of others - "Spoil your ballot if need be but ALWAYS vote - too many people have died for your right to do so and you should not squander it". Reluctance to vote will only be seen as apathy and justification to ignore; it is simply an aspect of divide and conquer.



Now to more important things - a 3 some with Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin - YES! (but with custard and wellies)

When u get a turn out of only 20% Heph..that is a failure of Democracy..it is a failure of the political parties and politicians, and of the electorate themselves.. it seems you have been reading the Fran diatribe on electoral obligation sweetie... no bad thing..u could do worse..;)

[TwylaTwobits]

ROFLMAO Heph. Unfortunately most of your post is dead on. I will say that Bush DID NOT CHEAT. I did not vote for the idiot cause I had no wish to continue Daddy's business but he was duly elected by the electoral college no matter that Al Gore won the popular vote. Now the second time, I voted for Bush. Why? John Kerry was proven a liar many times over and his record speaks for itself. I am a registered Democrat and I have always said if you don't vote you lose your right to bitch. I happen to like bitching so I exercise my right to vote at every election that comes up. Technically I vote independent and not along party lines, I registered as a Democrat because I believe if you have no say in the primary then you have lost your major say in the big election.


Personally, I kinda like Sarah Palin. As a person not a political figure. And the reactions that she garners now over having a television show about Alaska is bordering on ridiculous. She's the host because she's knowledable about the state she governed. Now back to the regularly scheduled pissing matches.

[tenni]

"'Divided by a common language' is the saying and probably now extends to encompass the rest of the world. The problem is that the US film industry holds greater sway than wanted. The stars and stripes always in the right and sorting all of the world's problems out against reputedly insurmountable odds - where men are men and small furry things form Alpha-Centauri are small furry things from Alpha-Centari."

An incidental three cheers then for Bolywood and the Indian sub-continent in general where vocabularies and original meanings of words persist for now"

Quite true Hep. Add to that US people believing their own propoganda about themselves and we end up with certain US posters making strange statements about "saving" the Brits and Europe from the Nazis. The Brits etc would be speaking German. I've actually read that before, I wonder if it is Coulter/Beck propoganda spill? The US movies about that WW2 era definitely support this myth. Now, we see the beginning of Hollywood imposing a sanitized view of the Iraq invasion beginning. (We're the good guys propoganda). Sadly, the average US good citizen has no understanding about how their culture is exported and imposed on other societies. Everything is a commercial product for the US government and the US citizen would be quite displeased if Bollywood were to become as invasive and imposing Indian cultural perspectives on the US cinema industry. if one day, all US theatres were controlled by Bollywood movie companies, then the US citizen might get a more realistic understanding of the imbalance of US culture and now defining English words and political concepts...:bigrin:

[Hephaestion]

We would be speaking German?

As the powerhouses of Europe the Germans and also the French seem to have made their presence felt. Whereas the incompetence of British management has driven the UK in the opposite direction.

In reality the Germans have carried their responsibilities to a new world well and their people are generally fine citizens. I speak with the experience bestowed by a Tanja, x2 Ingrids and an Emmie.

Vass is das fine sauce that you have prepared?
It is called 'gravy' female german person
How is it made?
DEMONSTRATION from meat juices, starch, and using a fat separator
It is so simple und is vunderbar
You must be kidding, right?

They give us rocket flight, an adavance understanding of chemistry, engineering successes such as Siemens, BASF, BMW (taking over Rolls Royce), Mercedes and the VAG group (taking over Lamborghini, Bugatti, Bently etc), LidL, Haribo, and we give them....... gravy

I am sure that everyone has seen the joke where language is harmonized 'und ve all start speking ze new harmonized english'.

A version below - with due respect.
--------------------------------
Europe English
The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the "k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen ze world!

[tenni]

ah...ha...ha...ha

I have received a similar explanation in a email send out...lol

Of course, Britain does have what some refer to as a rather German monarch..:bigrin:
(so that may make German even more vorld dominzinatinz...Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.....next ve do zee Vashinkton.... :) )

[darkeyes]

ROFLMAO Heph. Unfortunately most of your post is dead on. I will say that Bush DID NOT CHEAT. I did not vote for the idiot cause I had no wish to continue Daddy's business but he was duly elected by the electoral college no matter that Al Gore won the popular vote. Now the second time, I voted for Bush. Why? John Kerry was proven a liar many times over and his record speaks for itself. I am a registered Democrat and I have always said if you don't vote you lose your right to bitch. I happen to like bitching so I exercise my right to vote at every election that comes up. Technically I vote independent and not along party lines, I registered as a Democrat because I believe if you have no say in the primary then you have lost your major say in the big election.


Personally, I kinda like Sarah Palin. As a person not a political figure. And the reactions that she garners now over having a television show about Alaska is bordering on ridiculous. She's the host because she's knowledable about the state she governed. Now back to the regularly scheduled pissing matches.

I have always found this thing in the US that registered voters of one party vote for the opposition..peculiarly American I think..

As a socialist, and one time active member of the Labour Party I could no more vote Tory than I could have sex with Adolf Hitler.. to me the policy and political philosophy is the thing.. the leader is irrelevant.. the aims and aspiration of the party is the thing. That precludes me from ever voting for a party of the right. That at present there is a void in my life inasmuch as Labour is no longer the party dedicated to achieving socialism in which I was raised and spent so much of my life campaigning for, between now and the election next month I have to consider what I am going to do.. voting for Shiny Face and the Tories is out.. Cleggie and his little band of odd bods is just not an option, Nationalist is anathema even though they claim to be a party of the left.. Labour and Brown?? Brown is more of a human being than Blair, but the ethos of the party remains Blairite.. the Scottish Socialists are simply clowns.. that leaves me abstention or spoil my ballot paper.. what a fucking choice... depression personified for poor lil Fran...:(

[TwylaTwobits]

Aww but that is the crux of our system, Fran. It's all secret ballots the only thing recorded is who goes to the voting pen, they make sure you are registered and off you go to the little booth with a curtain. No campaigning, nothing within so many feet of the polls. You don't have to look at the last ditch slogans posted around and you are free to make your choice. Very few people vote along party lines except for last presidential election. I can not tell you the people that told me all they did was flip straight ticket Democrat rather than going through the choices. They just wanted Republicans out.

Now the good thing about party lines blurring is supposed to be that they can work together and enough of them meet in the middle on the really big issues to have a smooth flowing government...... wake me up when it happens okay?

[allbimyself]

Fran,

The reason that Americans often do NOT vote party lines is because we have far fewer choices than you. Very few of us have ideals that line up with either party exclusively, in which case voting party lines is pretty idiotic.

"the leader is irrelevant" sheesh, that's a scary thought. Why have individuals stand election in that case? Why have them vote in parliamentary proceedings? Just have the electorate vote for a party, give the party the votes that represent the votes of the districts it wins and then the party bosses can decide all of those votes in parliament.

I think we could agree on how that would be A Bad Thing. Voting party lines exclusively doesn't seem a wise course to me.

[Hephaestion]

Don't know what the answer is for you Fran. Spoiling the ballot is likely best.

Latterly I have taken to giving my political representatives as much grief as is possible when they look or sound as though they are going off course. 'They work for you' is a good site which I found accidentally.

Eggs, paint, and stink-bombs hold great appeal at present. I have a series of 'I told you so' proclamations and bucket of cold water awaiting my MP should he have the courage to knock on my door.

.

[darkeyes]

Just a kwikkie.. I forgot the Greens..am involved in green issues a lot an have a lot of sympathy for them.. but the party I have never taken seriously..maybe its time I reappraised.. however Heph.. bearing in mind what Ive said about voting and my obligation to those who got it for me.. I will definately be at the polling station and cast my vote.. abstention is not an option.. but spoiling my ballot paper most certainly is.. what a bloody awful state of affairs...:(

..and Allbi me luffly...will get back to you on your query too when I get home:)

[Hephaestion]

It would apear that ALL of the Royal families of Europe are related and of Germanic content. Of course, inbreeding has its problems; Albert and Victoria were 1st cousins although born in different countries.

Albert Francis Charles Augustus Emmanuel of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (of the Wettin lineage) married
Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria Hanover) who was Hanovarian and so the Royal House retained this name for the duration.

On her death the Surname of the Royal House changed from Hanover to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (rather than Wettin). This was retained until it became unfashionable to be of German descent whereupon Windsor was chosen as disguise.

Fresh genes have been introduced over the years all-be-they steeped in controversy (dispute). The word 'ginger' comes to mind. It has also been claimed that a royal has been firing blanks throughout and that in a circuitous way a footman to the present Queen has been involved. A certain Phil the Greek has been outbreeding with success for ages.

Ooooooh - bitch, bitch - paparazzi material if ever there was any.

.

[darkeyes]

Fresh genes have been introduced over the years all-be-they steeped in controversy (dispute). The word 'ginger' comes to mind. It has also been claimed that a royal has been firing blanks throughout and that in a circuitous way a footman to the present Queen has been involved. A certain Phil the Greek has been outbreeding with success for ages.

Ooooooh - bitch, bitch - paparazzi material if ever there was any.

.

Don kno ne thin bout ne footman Heph.. but hav heard the term Phil the Greek..me dad uses it all the time as a contemptuous term for u no hoo.. an "ginger".. now wonda jus 2 whom ya refer ther hmmmm? naughty Heph.. how can ya b so cruel??? :eek:

[darkeyes]

Fran,

The reason that Americans often do NOT vote party lines is because we have far fewer choices than you. Very few of us have ideals that line up with either party exclusively, in which case voting party lines is pretty idiotic.

"the leader is irrelevant" sheesh, that's a scary thought. Why have individuals stand election in that case? Why have them vote in parliamentary proceedings? Just have the electorate vote for a party, give the party the votes that represent the votes of the districts it wins and then the party bosses can decide all of those votes in parliament.

I think we could agree on how that would be A Bad Thing. Voting party lines exclusively doesn't seem a wise course to me.

I can see your point Allbi why u often cross parties when voting.. in its own way it is a condemnation of US politics that only two huge behemoths sit astride your politics leaving virtually no space for anyone else..

Can I explain our system? You may know it already but u expressed some concern so here goes..

In the UK we elect a party to power not an individual.. thats why I say whoever is party leader is irrelevant.. it is the parliamentary party that governs, not the leader when he or she becomes Prime Minister.. although there is no doubt that the leader does become truly the First Among Equals (a term to describe his or her position in the cabinet) and is the most important member of the government.

Each party goes into an election on a manifesto. These manifestos are policies as decided by various different means over the term of a parliament for implementation during the life of the next.. In the Labour Party for instance, manifesto commitments as decided democratically by the party, and upon which a Labour government is elected, means that MPs are supposed to support a Labour government in Parliament, not without question but certainly when it comes to a final vote on implementation of that commitment..a commitment they promised the electorate they will deliver.. any other government legislation outwith the manifesto commitment, and outwith party policy, MP's have in theory at least a free hand on how to vote..sometimes though the whip system is used which is a system of strong arm tactics meant to intimidate MP's into voting with their leadership.. other parties operate similarly to some degree or other.. but the Tories are certainly the most disciplined, and Labour the least.. Labour MPs have always been most likely to rebel against their leadership no matter how small a majority a Labour Government may have.

So in a way you arent wrong Allbi..when it comes to manifesto commitments the party bosses do have right on their side when expecting MPs to vote with them..MPs after all were elected on the manisfesto and like the government are expected to fight to implement those commitments.... but very often Governments dont implement as expected, and often dont implement at all, and so they are likely to get a rebellion from members who feel they are betraying the manifesto on which they were elected.. some of course in all parties are mavericks who do their own thing anyway.. but on issues where no party policy exists, and no manifesto pledge is given..thats where very often constituency MPs of all parties come into their own.. and governments have to play things very cagily indeed to get anything like they want onto the statute books.. even on manifesto commitments very often, because of amendments placed by MPs of all parties, including the ruling party of the day, the act which is passed by parliament bears little resemblance to the orignal legislation placed before it..

Voting on party lines is a bad thing sometimes..but when it comes to pledges made by a party to get itself elected.. then I am sure you can see there is some sense and logic behind how the British system works.. even if you dont like it... it is clumsy, messy and horrible.. but it sort of works...

[Long Duck Dong]

I remember talking with twyla once about the us demos and repubs..... and the difference between the two..... it took about a hour.....
then i told her about the nz politicial parties and the system of voting.....
it took me 3 weeks....

nz political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand)

[darkeyes]

I remember talking with twyla once about the us demos and repubs..... and the difference between the two..... it took about a hour.....
then i told her about the nz politicial parties and the system of voting.....
it took me 3 weeks....

nz political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand)

God Duckie..u ole smooth talker u.. ya gave 'er the abbreviated version then??:bigrin:

[TwylaTwobits]

I remember talking with twyla once about the us demos and repubs..... and the difference between the two..... it took about a hour.....
then i told her about the nz politicial parties and the system of voting.....
it took me 3 weeks....

nz political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand)

So who's fault is it that you took time off to sleep between one telling or the other? :tong: Seriously though, the differences between the two were amazing for all of the same government bullshit.

[JP1986UM]

Firstly, Pasa, I love you and want to have your baby. nevermind I am a male, just deal with it and sign here -->X


Secondly, Eyes, wtf?


Democracy as we know it often fails because there are not proper checks and balances on those we elect.. we can never get that perfect, but we should be able to devise some way to control the more extreme instincts of those we elect.. The Argentine failed over Peron, Germany over Hitler, the US over Bush and Britain certainly over Thatcher.

Fact: America is not a democracy. It was never a democracy and never shall be. its a representative republic.

And to compare Hitler and Bush means you've given up the debate, because nowhere in any paper can I find Bush executing 7million people due to their faith or existence as Jews. That rationale is just pathetic and it should be shouted down. I can see you're an ardent leftist. Great I get it, but I'll take Thatcher any day over that piece of shit we have sitting in the WH. he's an abortion.

Second, we can correct errors in our Republic, because we can amend our constitution. Term Limits would end many of our spending abuses, which did continue in the way of Bush and now Obama, and institute a check on who gets how much power and for how long. If companies can't exploit a congressman because they OWN him, they are less likely to get inordinately favorable treatment in spending bills.

BiCD4u wrote:

News outlets distorting things? Can you say “Fox network”?

Can you spell MSNBC? The most biased news all the time 24 hours a day 7 days a week? Holy shit dude, yer cracking me up. Before that, we had CNN spewing shit from the left and CBS and ABC as well. Now one network kicks the party line to the curb and yer throwing a fit. what a joke.
:tong:

[TwylaTwobits]

Whoa Whoa Whoa, first off I'm an American but I am also one who votes, is knowledable about our Constitution and cognizant of our history. I am also someone who has traveled outside of the US in recent years and got to see how others view us, both favorably and unfavorably. America started out as a Republic but the trend has lately been more towards a Democracy. http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html

There have been changes to our Constitution, yes, but the last addition was a guarantee of equal pay for equal work for women. How sad is that? We are not perfect, but at times we are blinded. It's fine to be patriotic it's not fine to be so stubborn that we do not learn that the differences between countries can be as vast as an ocean or as just over the line as your neighbor's house.

Yes we export goods and services but guess what else we do? We outsource jobs to India and send our companies either north to Canada or south to Mexico thanks to NAFTA.

To say that we only do what the world asks of us is also not fair in my opinion. Falls back to the old saying that if a bunch of lemmings were jumping off a cliff would you join them? America had a policy of isolationism until forced by events to join in a war. We did and never looked back. But there are things going on now in my country that I am not proud of and I do not want this war to continue in the Persian Gulf. I want our brave men and women home. We can not fight a war with people who have been fighting for 1000's of years with no end in sight.

There are times to stand up and say "I'm proud to be an American" and there are times to stand up and say "Yes,I'm American and I'm proud to be one while recognizing our country's faults."

We have a democratic process for changing our leaders, we have a system in place to change our Constitution. But we also have issues facing us now about Social Security in crisis. For the first time the system has paid out more than it's taken in, now they want to add Mexicans who have been in the US and NOT PAID INTO SS onto the program and start paying them. That is an issue I have. It affects me and every American. What doesn't affect me is what people think of us, we can agree or disagree and move on with friendships and partnerships and a true love of humanity.

[Hephaestion]

Pasa

Dinner with an ex pat is not the best criterion for comparison. Such Brits are known to travel to exotic far away places with their own sandwiches in their bags. I shall agree that the USA is not like the UK (we tend not to use GB as we are no longer Great). It is that the UK is becoming USA like.

However, I'll remember that we are not like the USA everytime:

I have to put in grant and sponsorship proposals which compromise freedom
I watch TV programmes that are sponsored and afflict the populace with awful jingles
I watch TV prgrammes in general Judge Judy, Columbo, ...(the list is endless)
That our children have to sit "SAT's"
We deal with High Schools
Ridiculous University courses
Professorships bestowed upon senior lecturers rather than reserved for HoD's
We have pom pom girl and marching band parades US style
That our leadership has become presidential in style
Political corruption in style and fixed elections
That I have to deal with those ridiculous stretched limos
The abundance of overt Dodge and Chevrolet vehicles that have joined the pre-existing Fords and General Motors wagons
CB radios and rigs, convoys
Drag racing and custom cars
I pass down any street that is bung tight full of USA fast food outlets
Levis and Wranglers are old hat most of our clothes now come from the East
Everytime I put on my NATO surplus jacket marked USAF
I note that our kids have formed US style gangs
music..... urgh e.g. (C)Rap
When I hear the language of my countrymen liberally spread with
'Yo Dude' and 'hey man' emebellished by spastic hand gestures and chest bumping.
baseball caps
High Fives
Doggy bags?
The police seem to have stopped 'Cruisin' down the main drag in Chelsea in US bedsteads (cars).

What happens in the USA invariably is imported a couple of years later (and then we find a cheaper source). There are countless examples of the insidious penetration of USA culture and bending of history. We have even come to believe that USA law is that of the UK. We now have Superior Court similar to that of the USA. We make immigrants swear an oath of allegiance and they have to pass citizenship exams.

We have yet to treat our citizens as carefully as the USA. When we ask for extradition then we have to prove a case beforehand. Whereas when the USA simply names a suspect that unfortunate is trussed up and sent over with an apple stuffed in the mouth.

We even believe that the USA wants to be our friend and so in true fashion we buy expensive aircraft which the USA (not the UK) controls the attack codes (incidentally, we have adopted the USA concept of billions and trillions)

In a review of the EU at the time of Blair (televised), it was suggested by more than one representative that they could forsee Scotland and Ireland (entire) remaining as members while England would become something akin to a state of the USA; Wales wasn't mentioned.

Not everything USA is bad but there are moments when sheltering under the great bum of the world fills one with a chilli trepidation (that's a play on words for chilling).

Perhaps the ideal would be that the USA be as devoted to the UK as England is to the USA with mutual respect thrown in. But it is realised nowadays that THE SPECIAL relationship is only A relationship amongst many.

But at least we know where Australia is.

[darkeyes]

Boys .. Boys stop this acting like children.. between Pasa and Heph you are a right pair.. Pasa every word you uttered is arrogant whether you like to think otherwise.. while it bears a grain if truth it is such an overexaggeration that you should stand in a corner and I will post your dunces cap later.. and heph.. its a bit petulant and I understand why you reacted as you did but it is often reaction which creates much of the strife in the world..

I am British.. I am Scottish.. I am a human being.. None in particular of these things is anything to have pride in.. each was an accident of conception and birth.. I love my country, Scotland, and the larger state to which it belongs, The United Kingdom.. I love Europe what Ive seen of it, and the little I have travelled outside, that also.. I love being a human beinng, and love my fellow humans.. I love the world in which I live and the incredible variation of life it contains.. I am British, Scottish, Human.. I love it.. I am not proud of it.. I simply am...

I know much too much about humanity, about the history of my country, and the history of our abuse of our world to ever think of having pride in what we have achieved.. we are what we are.. and I think it best we leave it at that..

[tenni]

"Tenni, another Canuck, has no clue what goes on here either. And heaven forbid those of us who actually live here setting the record straight."

Pasa
Perhaps, I have misled you. I agree that I do not know what is going on in Texas. You have a better perspective. I do know what is going on outside of the US as far as how the US is acting internationally. More specifically, I have a better perspective of how your culture influences my province and city. Some of the influence is very good and great. Some is very bad for us. Individually, Canucks have no more power to stop this than the average individual Texan. I am able to see and read your media and the messages that it sends out from your US sources. I was able to see how your countrymen were lied to by Bush etc. because I was able to see how the Canadian, British etc. report and what the US media left out during that era. I was able to see documentaries that are banned from being shown on your countries television. Some were actually British documentaries revealing things about how and what Bush was doing in the early days of the US invasion of Iraq. I am able to see how your corporations act in my country and how they impact my life and my culture. I am a cultural worker. I have some understanding about how your US media corporations have choked access off to cinemas and only permit US films to be screened. I know that I should and do blame my government for permitting this. However, I also know the power and control of the US sources whether it is a product or ideas. Just as these corporations control and influence your US government, your US government then attempts to control and influence other countries' governments and laws. It is a rather nasty circle.

Just as I am not as aware of the Texas culture in detail and what it is like to be a man working and living in Texas, you do not seem able or willing to understand the impact of your country on my life and the lives of billions who live outside of your country. You do not seem willing to listen and grow an better understanding about how your culture impacts us. You seem not to able to look at your culture and comprehend the impact of your country's violent and aggressive actions towards many in the world. Your culture is the dominant world culture. It is a wealthy culture and deviously cunning at the present time. Just as the British culture influenced the world at one point it passed. If you are alive when your culture wains, you may "get it" then.

The sickness and evil of a Coulter should be kept within your own boarders. It was our own neo con government that permitted her sickness to enter our country but in reality people like her come into our country daily via the media. We are exposed to the O'Reilly's, Becks, Rush and the stupidity oozes into our brains. The vileness of thoughts bombard us just as they do your people. I am beginning to see the signs of this neo con beginning to take hold in my country.

[jamiehue]

bad lay.

[tenni]

Pasa
There is truth to your statements. The response may be the power of marketing. Why did over 300 000 I pads get sold on Saturday in the US? Why did Canadians travel to US border towns to take part in the purchase?

Marketing. The idea that anything that may be marketed and sold is good. Control people to make them believe that they need a product. Slip in some US cultural component and state that the "foreign" market is not large enough to make it specific for that culture and other such points and you have cultural domination.

Manifest Destiny has morphed into world domination. Annexation of Canada has basically arrived in many ways already. Why buy the cow if you can get her to gives the milk free?

[darkeyes]

Two points:

1. If you weren't buying, we couldn't sell our culture to you.

2. We have no desire to annex Canada. You obviously don't understand annexation, nor Manifest Destiny. If we wanted Canada, it would have happened long ago. You might notice that we haven't taken a new state in nearly 60 years.

Facts are the natural enemy of paranoia.

Pasa

I buy American sometimes.. Sybina is American and very good she is an all.. gives us a right buzz...:bigrin: I watch what I consider the best American films, but most r simply pap.. listen to what I consider decent American music.. read the best of American fiction (particularly detective fiction), biography and politics,.. even buy decent American clothes an undies.. an shoes sometimes even.. we have two cars, 1 which was built in the UK by Vauxhall a subsidiary a GM, an American company..and very nice and comfy it is too..great for a family a 7 far less the 4 of us.. we hav a German estate car an all.. thats fun 2.. but only seats 5.. sum of our households goods r American..tho lots wos prob made in China or sum such place... sum is gud..sum is absolute crap an will b replaced in time .. but we also hav lotsa stuff..the majority wich wos produced in bout ne an every country ya can think of.. sum gud..sum less so.. but our furniture an stuff is overwhelmingly British.. sum antique.. but alla gud quality (mosly obtained by Kate's mum an dad wen they wer alive..an they had taste!!).

We like wot we like.. an we don like crap..so we buy wot is the best we hav the dosh 2 buy..sumtimes it is 'merican.. but not ne wer near the majority a stuff.. we prefer European cinema the best a bollywood.. long as they don dance an sing me face off usually.. we prefer European literature.. an we prefer European music (not jus pop..but folk (a partic pash for me ne way) an classics an all.. tho mus admit the US has it wen it cums 2 blues an jazz).. we do not like Starbucks.. we h8 Macdonalds an Burger King.. loathe KFC an most..not all US style nosh shops.. wy?? Cos the food an the coffee is generally crap an they r nev comfy or cosy for a sit in.. an the way they employ an treat peeps who work ther is hardly progressive... so American culture such as it is, its a mixed bag..sum gud..sum absolute shit.. like most otha cultures on the face a the earth..

Can me jus ask lil question on Annexation a Canada? Just how werya ev gonna do that Pasa, had ya wonted 2? Prior 2 WW1 not by invasion for sure, an prob not even up 2 WW2.. an afta? Bribery and corruption mayb? Historically the US did wont Canada as it happens.. ther wos an abortive invasion in 1812.. an the colonists me seems 2 recall wer rite miffed wen the loyalists in Canada didn support ya lil revolution.. an also cos so many loyalists from the colonies sneaked out 2 Canada fore ya ancestors cud string 'em all up... as far as me knos, is it not the US way for peeps 2 hav self determination an decide on ther own destiny? Officially at least..not always in practice a course.. an so.. wud that not mean that the peeps of Canada wud vote on becummin a state a the union..or the provinces, states? God knos how Quebecers wud play that 1... U think thats likely? Is it wise? Am havin a lil fun on this Pasa so forgive me that.. but wile me has me lil bitta fun..they r interestin questions..if only 2 me.. Cos me dus hav a view on those questions .. much as me has a view on the UK an its relationship wivin the EU... ther r parallels.. remarkably strong 1s..:)

[darkeyes]

@ Tenni

You said that your government should not have let Ann Coulter in. Why not? Are you against free speech? Are you afraid of her message? Are you so afraid of het that you mst silence her?

I'm baffled, quite frankly that someone who belives that Bush sqaushed our freedom of speech and who is upset about it could think that noy allowing someone to speak is a good thing.

Or does that only apply to messages that are "Tenni Approved"?

Pasa

For the first time in a whilie me agrees wivya Pasa 100%.. wots ther 2 b scared off? Daft cow who opens 'er gob, lets 'er belly rumble an sound ridiculous.. she 'bout as dangerous as bein mauled by 1a me Steiff teddies.. mind u..they can giveya a good ole clump on head when swung rite..so will change that.. 1a Lou's fluffy soft toys.... besides..we all need gud laff sumtimes...:tong:;) An demolition by hysterics is betta than many a demolition by oratory or rant..:)

[TaylorMade]

at least Celine can sing.......Ann Coulter..........sighs look up the word bitch in the dictionary and it has her picture. You could ship her off to some mideast kingdom where they would admire her blonde hair and remove her tongue........nah that wouldn't even work cause then she could still type the drivel.

Wow. Tolerance. I mean. . . there are times when she makes me facepalm, but she's no different than Keith Olbermann or Ed Shultz. . . and I sense there are few people on these fora who would wish for this on them.

And shipping someone to a mideast kingdom, a place where you and I could die just as quickly as she?

I guess there is no crossing of ideological lines with compassion.

*Taylor*

[TwylaTwobits]

Taylor honey, read the next post of mine with her quotes bashing everything and everyone then tell me about tolerance. There is time for turning the other cheek there is a time when you run out of all four cheeks to turn. That was also a sarcastic comment but a very good indication of the level of disgust I feel at someone who profits off the misfortunes of others.

[Hephaestion]

Two points:

1. If you weren't buying, we couldn't sell our culture to you.

2. We have no desire to annex Canada. You obviously don't understand annexation, nor Manifest Destiny. If we wanted Canada, it would have happened long ago. You might notice that we haven't taken a new state in nearly 60 years.

Facts are the natural enemy of paranoia.

Pasa

There are such things as strategic agreements in which somethings are sacrificed for the achievement of others likely less well known. Defence agreements are one such thing. Turkey has been kept afloat and lavished upon so that there was a strategic presence geographically. The Cuban missile crisis touched upon this.

Elsewhere it is "We'll do this for you if you open your markets to us and you mustn't subsidize your existing industries even though we may be subsidizing ours secretly - and we'll put in a good word for you at the IMF sothat you can function elsewhere"

Then there is the downright hostility.
The bitchiness of the USA over the the supersonic passenger aeroplanes run by France and UK has been one example
Then there was the auto-navigaiton systems for airports world wide where the USA made up the problems to favour its own
The promise of reciprocal benefit has frequently not been honoured

The USA specialises in self indulgence without concern. Once there, it is very difficult to prise the creature loose especially when there may be loss leaders (a bit like the first bags of addictive drugs where the benefit comes at penalty).

In other words there is more than a simple market going on even when the banner is a "free trade". Manipulation is a refined art.

Why wouldn't the USA take over Canada? it has no desire to shoulder the running costs - the cost benefit ratio is not high enough. Better lure them into a sense of mutual benefit and they will do it themselves.

"Kill women and children" doesn't work whereas "those terrosists are fanatics even the women and children are suicidally hostile - best they be despatched in case of secret harm" does work. "Ours is a war of justification and there is acceptable colateral damage".

.

[tenni]

The Canadian government is presently a neo con like government. They did not let a British MP in to talk. They falsely made up grounds given were that he had connections to some terrorist group. I do not remember his name sorry. There was /is no proof that this British MP was a danger to Canadians to hear. They let this wacko US Coulter in. I think that her hate mongering was close enough to exclude her.

In reality I agree with you and darkeyes about letting her in. There has been much made about "freedom of speech " here over her.

However any Canadian that really wanted to see or hear this nasty person Coulter just has to turn on their television and find her on some US Fox station or the View or whatever that is also carried on a Canadian station. She was coming to make money and sensationalize. We do not need that type of US culture of hatred. Thanks but no thanks. We do let Palin in...lol We let most US politicians in to talk. KKK types are often turned away. I'm not sure but I think that Phelps was permitted to come. He didn't come as Canadians threatened to deal with him if he and his crew came to a Canadian soldier's funeral.

The issue is that Coulter is someone who promotes hatred. We have enough of your culture... thanks but no thanks. We get your illegally sold guns smuggled in by ganstas. We get your good and bad movies, tv shows, etc. Enough is enough.

The point that you still don't know (or chose to ignore) what Bush did shows your lack of freedom of speech. You Yanks talk about it but you are so manipulated into believing whatever your capitalist upper class want you to believe. Bush was of this capitalist class.



@ Tenni

You said that your government should not have let Ann Coulter in. Why not? Are you against free speech? Are you afraid of her message? Are you so afraid of het that you mst silence her?

I'm baffled, quite frankly that someone who belives that Bush sqaushed our freedom of speech and who is upset about it could think that noy allowing someone to speak is a good thing.

Or does that only apply to messages that are "Tenni Approved"?

Pasa

[tenni]

Hep
The US will do all that it can to get our Canadian resources when they need them and turn them away despite agreements when they don't want them. Drinkable water is next to be placed on the table as you "must" share it with us. It will pressure and manipulate as you mention. The US considers culture just a commodity as Pasa says but will find a way to get any resource that the capitalists want to feather their pockets with wealth. It doesn't matter what country those resources are in. The capitalists will use the US government to get what they want. The poor US average citizen will be manipulated into believing that it is in their best interest. Point to note, Teabaggers and Healthcare.

[darkeyes]

The Canadian government is presently a neo con like government. They did not let a British MP in to talk. They falsely made up grounds given were that he had connections to some terrorist group. I do not remember his name sorry. There was /is no proof that this British MP was a danger to Canadians to hear. They let this wacko US Coulter in. I think that her hate mongering was close enough to exclude her.

In reality I agree with you and darkeyes about letting her in. There has been much made about "freedom of speech " here over her.

However any Canadian that really wanted to see or hear this nasty person Coulter just has to turn on their television and find her on some US Fox station or the View or whatever that is also carried on a Canadian station. She was coming to make money and sensationalize. We do not need that type of US culture of hatred. Thanks but no thanks. We do let Palin in...lol We let most US politicians in to talk. KKK types are often turned away. I'm not sure but I think that Phelps was permitted to come. He didn't come as Canadians threatened to deal with him if he and his crew came to a Canadian soldier's funeral.

The issue is that Coulter is someone who promotes hatred. We have enough of your culture... thanks but no thanks. We get your illegally sold guns smuggled in by ganstas. We get your good and bad movies, tv shows, etc. Enough is enough.

The point that you still don't know (or chose to ignore) what Bush did shows your lack of freedom of speech. You Yanks talk about it but you are so manipulated into believing whatever your capitalist upper class want you to believe. Bush was of this capitalist class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

'im Tenni..thats the guy...will say this for 'im..for so borin a human bein..'e is rarely dull.. spesh wen 'e ripped inta the US senate hearin...:bigrin:

[tenni]

darkeyes
Yes, I believe that you are correct. He was accused of having connections to terrorists connected to Palestine. Now, this Canadian neo con government has actually become so pro Israel that they have lost the Canadian government position of attempting to be neutral. Governments tend to find reasons to stiffle freedom of speech if they don't agree with the position. I don't know if this is more true for the neo cons but I suspect that is so. (of course, I'm a pinko commie....not...lol)

[tenni]

Pasa
This thread is really about Canada and the Coulter situation. Bush is a side bar issue that reflects your violent culture and imperialist actions. I don't think that any proof that I might offer would be accepted by you. We are too far apart in our perspective of what I consider your violent invasive society. We would not be able to compromise what "freedom of speech" versus promoting hatred and violence towards minorities is. What is the balance?

I've seen the brainwashing. You do not see it. You are living in it. All governments seem to attempt to brainwash their citizens. I believe that my government is doing its best right now to make the society become more right and neo con by using fear. If you are not on guard to watch for such attempts within your society that is your choice. I get the impression that you support Bush and his actions. I can not imagine why. You seem like a nice person. I can understand why you do not understand the negative impact that your society has on other countries though. You do not seem open to becoming aware of it though. No one would care if your country's politics only affected the US.


I know what was done here, Tenni. And, I get just about every news channel you care to mention, worldwide. Yur perception yhat Americans only get the info from American news outlets is silly. Further, if you think the American news media were on his side, you are insane.

Your frequent accusation of brainwashing is little more than a cover for bad debate tactics. So, we're going to actually do this the right way. You're going to make a bullshit claim, and I'm going to say "proof or STFU." You aren't going to weasel your way out of it. Either proof that Bush squashed my 1st ammendment rights or you STFU and stop leveling baseless and whackjob accusations.

Time to put up or shut up.

Pasa

[tenni]

Pasa
I will write this one more time for you. I do not believe in freedom of speech they way that you appear to believe. I and many Canadians distinquish between the difference between freedom of speech and speech that promotes hatred and encourages violence towards groups. It is difficult to distinquish where freedom of speech ends and this promoting hatred and violence towards a group begins.

As far as your request to converse on Bush in a separate thread is concerned, I do not see an open mind in your position. Sorry, if you are offended by the fact that I and others see Bush and his regime as suspected and probable war criminals. Tell me to stfu if it offends you...but then you are contradicting your own interpretation of freedom of speech?

btw Look up the meaning of regime.

[darkeyes]

Speech is not free if you can't say anything you please. And you are able to Pasa? I have already disproved that claim.. every nation, even yours with its precious constitution has restrictions on freedom of speech.. so we can agree then....no nation whatever has absolute freedom of speech..

..and while we are at it.. the definition of a regime is a government, especially an authoritarian one (Oxford English Dictionary).. especially..but not exclusively..it can be taken to mean any kind of government. It derives from the French word regimen meaning to rule.

I decided to look up an American definition and Webster's online definition is "The organisation that is the governing authority of a political unit". So even your own dictionary would appear to contradict you.

Wiki isnt perfect but I suggest you have a wee look see what it says about the word regime.. fun piece... if you were right it certainly is a hysterically funny fun piece.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime

[TwylaTwobits]

I'm as proud of my country as the next person but I am not blind to her faults. I've said it before I'll say it again. It ain't perfect but we have the right to bitch.

BiCd that was a cheap shot at my lifemate and I don't appreciate it. Disagree all you want with him but go back over the history of his posts and you'll see he's always argued equality for ALL without bashing Christians or Americans. He disagrees with the policies of the American government but he's smart enough to know you don't hold an entire country responsible for the actions of their elected leaders.

Now refer to the post I made about Bush and Gore and Kerry see my thoughts on the elections. As for Obama, he has a lot of explaining to do when his new health care law will start fining people for not having insurance. There are other pressing issues arising in America and in the rest of the world as we speak. And we sit here arguing over whether or not a country is brainwashed? Please try to focus more on the point of the thread. Ann Coulter spills her vitriol at everyone unless you are a white conservative Republican. I don't like her, but she does have the right to say what she says, and people have the right to say what they want back to her and about her. She is a poison in our society and unfortunately she's young, we have many many more years to look forward to her causing international incidents.

[tenni]

Pasa
Calm down. Many in your country believe that Bush and his regime are guilty of one thing or another. I am inclined to see him but more so Cheney, Rumfeld, Pearl and Wolfowitz (I think that is the person. He was not public for very long but it seems to have been involved in the deceit..lol) as having blood on their hands and candidates as war criminals. Bush may have just been the public persona of the corruption. There was so much wrong with that presidency that it is almost unprecidented. Sorry but the guilt of the Bush regime is such a commonly held view and obvious to people that I know that it is difficult and boring to explain it to anyone who seems to believe that the regime was good.

Pasa
In Canada, the news reported it both ways. Bush Administration and Bush regime. Remember that this thread is not about the US and how freedom of speech is understood there. it is about Canada and Coulter coming in and spouting what some Canadians believe is hate mongering. Are you trying to impose your country's values on us? It seems that way.

[OmegaGray]

<raises the peace flag> I love everyone! Who wants hugs? :bigrin:

[darkeyes]

Freedom is not freedom if there are limitations on it. I am not trying to impose anything. I am trying to get you to admit the truth: That you are not for freedom of speech.

I don't care if she is spewing forth invectives that call your mother a whore and Jesus a prostitute, and that spics are only good for manual labor, and that niggers are only good for making more nigger babies (I feel dirty for having just typed that). Freedom is only freedom if we can say those things.......



........John Stuart Mill, a British parlimentarian wrote, "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Apparently, Canada didn't get the memo.

Pasa

The Postie obviously dumped the mail bag..cos u will keep harpin on about something which u dont have in your own backyard however much you wish to ignore it...

[darkeyes]

Secondly, Eyes, wtf?



Fact: America is not a democracy. It was never a democracy and never shall be. its a representative republic.

And to compare Hitler and Bush means you've given up the debate, because nowhere in any paper can I find Bush executing 7million people due to their faith or existence as Jews. That rationale is just pathetic and it should be shouted down. I can see you're an ardent leftist. Great I get it, but I'll take Thatcher any day over that piece of shit we have sitting in the WH. he's an abortion.



Correction hun.. the USA is a representative democratic republic.. just as is Germany, France, Italy, Portugal and a lot of other countries.. the UK is a representative democratic monarchy, just as is the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia , canada and lot of other countries.. I am sure your fellow conutrypeople will be delighted to hear that they do not live in a demcracy.

..and I never said anywhere that Bush executed 7 million people.. Hitler didnt either.. not personally.. nor Thatcher.. yet all three, like Peron and Blair also, have a mass of blood on their hands..

I think there are a lot of people in this country wishes you had had Thatcher.. so many of our problems now stem for her massacre of public services, stripping of industrial assets, the destruction of British Industries and ruination of entire communties.. she also has blood on her hands.. but never mind... she was one of democracies great success stories was she not?

[darkeyes]

I agree with what you wrote about freedom of speech how if you try to limit it or censor it how you are not for freedom of speech at all.



But your freedom of speech is limited nonetheless... also, its not a true claim you make.. restrictions in freedom of speech do not necessarily mean you do not have it.. it may mean you do not have as much as you would like but you still have it. Restriction means you are restricted in what you can say in certain areas and in certain ways. (Sorry to teach grannie to suck eggs but Im not sure how bright grannie is).. both our countries and most others have at least both those types of retrictions.. whether or not this shouild be so is definately debatable, but it is a fact..

[darkeyes]

Apples and oranges.

A law against incitement is not a law limiting free speech. It is a law that says "if your speech has X affect, you will be held responsible." It is a fine distinction, and yet, an important one. It is one that pretty much knocks your argument that we have restrictions on free speech.

The Canadians, however, censor free speech. You cannot express things they do not agree with. They won't even let you in the country, if they can help it.

You cannot say "I'm for freedom of speech" AND say "I want that person to go to jail (or kicked out, or muzzled) if they say things I find loathsome" and maintain credibility.

Pasa

There is much more 2 it than that Pasa and u know it.. now stop playing with words and just accept there are limits to what u can and cannot say...

[Hephaestion]

If it is against the law to e.g. incite then boundaries exist. Freedom of speech only exists WITHIN those boundaries i.e. freedom of speech IS limited, probably justly so. The problem arises as to what may seen as purposeful incitement and what is legitimate challenge that has uninvited repercussions.

Of course, freedom of speech also embraces the freedom to remain silent which has interpetations also.

Semantics, but important semantics nevertheless.

The US also denies entry to people who have incongruous ideas sometimes based on trivia and it is not alone.

.

[darkeyes]

No. Distinctions are important. I will not just accept what isn't true to make you feel more comfortable.

And I will certainly make the distinction between incitement and thought censoring.

Pasa

Apart from incitement..sedition... conspiracy.. slander..libel..defamation.. blasphemy.. expressing of racial hatred.. obscenity..speech which threatens public order..forms of speech which are a threat to Government.. these are all restricted in the United States in some way..

Its not a matter of making me more comfortable. It is a matter of realising that you are not quite as free to say what you like when you like and stop being so bloody pompous about it! Just think about this..any or all of these restrictions can and will be used to shut you or anyone else up by the US governing regime should it serve their purpose.. believe it.. and if you don't..then I pity you and all who think like you.. who don't trust the government... and have a nice cosy view of how free your speech is when in reality..it is anything but..

[TaylorMade]

Taylor honey, read the next post of mine with her quotes bashing everything and everyone then tell me about tolerance. There is time for turning the other cheek there is a time when you run out of all four cheeks to turn. That was also a sarcastic comment but a very good indication of the level of disgust I feel at someone who profits off the misfortunes of others.

Then you're no better than she is and you lose your moral high ground. She expects the kind of response you give her.

*Taylor*

[MarieDelta]

Just a few of her greatest hits:


Christianity
The Episcopals don't demand much in the way of actual religious belief. They have girl priests, gay priests, gay bishops, gay marriages — it's much like The New York Times editorial board. They acknowledge the Ten Commandments — or "Moses' talking points" — but hasten to add that they're not exactly "carved in stone."
The Jesus Thing; January 7, 2004

Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed').
From her column; March 4, 2004

Democrats cannot conceive of "hate speech" towards Christians because, in their eyes, Christians always deserve it.
Godless: The Church of Liberalism, p. 21

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
I'm a Christian first, and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it.
If Democrats had Any Brains, They'd be Republicans, ISBN 0307408957, p. 77



Gee, I couldnt give her a worse name than by simply quoting her.

I think we ought to print these up and paste 'em on a billboard for everyone to see.

Oh and this , this is priceless:


I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs.
Exclusive Interview: Coulter Says Book Examines 'Mental Disorder' of Liberalism; June 6, 2006

Gee I'm not an anthropologist and even I can see the fault in that logic :rolls eyes:

[12voltman59]

Well Marie---I guess since our friend Ann, doesn't believe that Evolution is real--she can't make use of the medicines and such that get developed thanks to the evolutionary process---it is thanks to changes in the evolution of species that researchers were able to come up with drugs like the vaccine for the H1N1 flu so fast----the researchers can go through generations of flu bugs in short order to get it to the point that they can make a safe and effective vaccine to fight it --and for those who say "well that swine flu thing didn't turn out nearly as bad as they said it would!!'

Well--we really don't know that do we----what if we had not had a vaccine created so fast and what if health officials had not put into place the protocols in the early stages of that bug to help contain it and such?? We were fortunate that the thing didn't morph into something more deadly----but it might have done so if it were free to just do what it will and instead of us thinking it was just a big ruse---we might be talking about how many people we know got sick and died--with many of us here falling victim to it as well.

Let us hope that the next bug that emerges--we get such "overreaction" by health officials the world over----the same goes for that nasty strain of Avian flu that is still out there----you have to hand it to the health officials in places like Vietnam, China and Malyasia who have fought that one vigourously---if that one were to ever break out and be allowed to truly morph into a flu that is spread from human to human without an intermediate species like chickens or ducks---we are all gonna be screwed!! That bug has something like a 75 percent kill rate--at that---if it went worldwide---it would killl almost half the world's population.

That strain of Avian flu is a nasty one--the immune system goes bonkers when a person gets it and it basically turns all the internal organs into mush--and the body bleeds out from every hole we have plus it leaks out the skin!! Very much the same thing from Marburg and Ebola. Thankfully those both got contained too!! Ohhh--bet that is a great way to go!!!

But---if that bug breaks out----and they develop a vaccine for it---we won't let Ann get a shot--since it would be developed thanks to a "theory" she doesn't believe in!!!

[MarieDelta]

Heh! You know last I checked science didnt require belief to exist...

Science is just, you know, facts and stuff. We wouldnt want to let reality get in the way of our justification for hatred, now would we?


"I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." --on the murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, FOX News interview, June 22, 2009


"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"


"I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot." --at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media."

"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."


All I can say is that she needs to join the church of Phelps...

Oh and by the way for those of you who are christians here, tht believe we hate all christians - not true. Its just individuals like Coulter and Phelps.

They hate us and we hate them, its a queer thing. And no, I'm not going to appologize for not accepting them.

These people would just as soon shoot every single queer person, in my opinion.

[TwylaTwobits]

It's not just a queer thing, Marie. Lots of straight people suffer from her diatribes and would cheerfully tell her what we think of her and her attitudes.

To Taylor, I never claimed a moral high ground. I don't think anyone in here really does much, what I stated were my personal feelings. I don't relate to her in any way shape or form and she gives women a bad name, she gives Americans a bad name, and she gives anyone with a sense of decency at all the cold chills when her name is a headline again. We don't care to have our country bombed because she pissed off North Korea with her comments.

[tenni]

"John Stuart Mill, a British parlimentarian wrote, "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Apparently, Canada didn't get the memo."

"The Canadians, however, censor free speech. You cannot express things they do not agree with. They won't even let you in the country, if they can help it."
Pasa
The last statement above is a beaut...lol You must have been excited to no end to write such a statement? or a bad breakfast? :)

With regard to the Mill's quote, discussing an idea is certainly within the freedom of speech realm in my opinion. People may discuss and report that Coulter told a Muslim woman that she should ride on her magic carpet or she should ride her camel if she wears a head scarf. That statement did not go far enough to be charged with promoting hatred and violence towards a group.

We may discuss what may be considered a hate crime. As I wrote, it is extremely difficult in Canada to distinguish between what is a hate crime and what is freedom of speech. It is difficult to convict a person of inciting hatred and violence towards a group in Canada. I think that it is interesting that most people that I am aware of that have been charged with hate crimes have been ranting about Jews. Do you recall a man by the name of Ernst Zindel? He created quite a bit of problems for both of our countries. Eventually, he was striped of his Canadian citizenship(I think) and sent back to Germany where he was convicted of denying the Hollocaust. I think that he is still in jail. Your country had a hell of a time getting him out of the US too.

I read three articles today from McLeans Magazine(a Canadian more politically based rag). Here is a quote from an article written shortly after the Coulter incident was revealed.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/23/throw-ann-coulter-in-jail/
"When Section 319 of the criminal code, the hate speech provisions, was subject to a Charter challenge and reviewed by the Supreme Court some two decades ago, it survived only because the judges reasoned that, as written, it should not have an overly broad interpretation, and that only the most extreme cases should be subject to prosecution. Such cases typically include a sustained effort by the accused to willfully promote hatred over a period of time, and, in such a way that there would be no redeemable political speech. Hate speech has to be near fully void of relevant comment on issues of public interest. In fact this is written right into the criminal code and anyone charged with promoting hatred has recourse to several defences. The defences include truth, commenting on religious topics, making comments that stem from religious beliefs, and making comments that are on a topic of public interest.
Even if Coulter repeated every inflammatory thing she ever wrote during her visit in Canada, she likely still wouldn’t be charged. And, if she was, she would have several legal defences at her disposal.
Provost Houle wants Coulter to educate herself on our hate speech laws, I would suggest he take his own advice."

Here is an example of where the police are investigating hate crime.
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/03/08/york-student-investigation-for-hate-speech/

Another MacLean's article reported on the events. I read this in the April 12 hard copy today and somehow can not find it on line. To review the events:
1/ The Provost of the University sent a letter warning Coulter about freedom of speech versus inciting hatred.
2/ Coulter decides to release the letter on her website.
3/ Coulter speaks at Western University and makes comments derogatory to a Muslim woman in the audience
4/ As Coulter prepares to speak at a university in Ottawa, large crowds of students form and stand for many hours waiting to get in. The police are monitoring the situation.
5/ The Coulter organizers and handlers have prepared an "invited" email guest list unknown to the crowd. "Special" guests are also permitted to enter in the side entrance. The handlers begin to read out names of people who will be permitted in. The crowd becomes angry and pushing and shoving follow. Less than half of the "invited" guests are able to enter...one report stated only 100 out of 400 seats were filled.
6/ The police report to the handlers that it is becoming a public safety issue due to the poor organizing of the handlers. The handlers realize that their insurance will not cover them now that the police have stated that it is a public safety issue. The handlers cancel Coulter's speech.
Note: Coulter's right to freedom of speech was not infringed upon by the university nor the police. It was her handlers that had done a poor organizing of the event and permitting the crowds to enter the building so that the doors of the auditorium could not be opened. Nor did the handlers inform the gathering crowd hours earlier that it was by invitation only. (Conservative supporters from what I have read were invited).

7/ The next Coulter speech in Calgary went without incident even though there were also protestors there as well.

A third McClean article took the issue of freedom of speech to task. There have been others who have been critical of the Provost. He played in to her hands some have stated. The third article pointed out that Coulter was joking when she made comments about a Muslim woman in the audience at Western. Stating that the Muslim woman should ride her magic carpet or ride her camel was intended as a joke. Other issues of minorities and jokes from recognized comedian in comedy clubs have also found themselves in front of Human Rights Commissions. Some opinion writers have questioned whether this is an infringement on freedom of speech. (note: Neither the woman nor most who attended found that a joke though.)

Making statements that "Muslims are vile killers of freedom and dirty filthy people who are sub human creatures closer to monkeys. All Muslim women should be executed upon sight if they wear a habib" in public. That type of statement may be closer to being charged.

I'm not really offended by what you write. I'm not sure what section of our Charter that you are referring to.

[12voltman59]

Heh! You know last I checked science didnt require belief to exist...

Science is just, you know, facts and stuff. We wouldnt want to let reality get in the way of our justification for hatred, now would we?



All I can say is that she needs to join the church of Phelps...

Oh and by the way for those of you who are christians here, tht believe we hate all christians - not true. Its just individuals like Coulter and Phelps.

They hate us and we hate them, its a queer thing. And no, I'm not going to appologize for not accepting them.

These people would just as soon shoot every single queer person, in my opinion.

I know I had joked about it in another posting--but I wished we really would have a tally of all the sorts of contributions made to the world by "GLBT" or Rainbow People as I said before from across time just so we do know--and also---a full list of the things that science has created or discovered using techniques that the various world religions find "offensive" or "blasphemous" just so they could see if they would like to be living in the world without such things--if they really do hold to the logical extension of their views--it does seem to me that if they think that "gays" are so depraved and wicked--then the works of "gays" must also be tainted--and if they don't believe in scientific fundamentals such as evolution--then the thumpers cannot make use of things derived from such "false beliefs" since it must be some sort of evil magic I guess.

If they are true to their beliefs--the thumpers cannot "cherry pick" and they must also be held strictly to the standards of things out of the entire Bible--once again--not cherry picking this and that like many Catholics get dissed for being "cafeteria Catholics"--its either an all or nothing deal if they really believe all that stuff--I would gladly stone them for committing adultry, fornication or raping kids--with the only one of those things I find objectionable enough to stone people for is pedophillia for those who aren't a bible toting thumper--but hey--they would have to live by Bible rules since they think that living back in the bronze age would be so cool!!

As Marie said--I don't dislike all Christians---just these most extreme types---I also get profoundly pissed that these types have gotten away with "hijacking Christianity" since there are actually many reasonable Christian faiths and sects out there with people who really do try to follow in the spirt of Christ---and don't go bragging about and yapping that they do---they just live that way the best way they know how to do!! Live their life by example and modeling--not by decree or operating in the fashion of "do as I say, not as I do" since no one as the Bible itself says "is without sin!"

As I have also said---it is one thing they hold the sorts of beliefs they do and chose to live their lives accordingly---teach their kids in line with their beliefs and attend the churches they do--as a free country--that is their right--but when they enter into the public sphere and try to change the way I want to live and such--then the fight is on and they are just one more group in the scrum trying to get power and affect policies----they also don't get a pass by hiding under "God's" peticoat as it were--and for them to claim that they have God on their side so anything anyone does against them is somehow offensive to God and all! That is total BS!!!

[MarieDelta]

Well for one on your list modern PC's. Lynne conway developed the science that allows modern chips to process at the speeds they do. She was also intrumental in developing.


Lynn Conway is a famed pioneer of microelectronics chip design. Her innovations during the 1970's at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) have impacted chip design worldwide. Many high-tech companies and computing methods have foundations in her work.

What no one knew till recently is that Lynn also did earlier pioneering research at IBM in the 1960's. Fresh out of grad school, she invented a powerful method for issuing multiple out-of-order instructions per machine cycle in supercomputers. By solving this fundamental computer architecture problem way back in 1965, she made possible the creation of the first true superscalar computer, and participated in its design at IBM. Lynn called her invention dynamic instruction scheduling (DIS).

In addition many computer games use programing designed by Rebecca Heinman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Heineman)


A video game programmer. A long-time veteran of the computer game industry, Heineman was a founding member of Interplay Productions, Logicware, Contraband Entertainment. She has also been affiliated at various times with Barking Lizards Technologies, Electronic Arts and MacPlay, among other game companies. She is currently working for Microsoft in the Microsoft XNA Game Division.

In the mid-1980s, Heineman programmed the cult classic graphic adventure games Tass Times in Tonetown and The Bard's Tale III: Thief of Fate. Heineman also programmed the Macintosh, Super Nintendo and Apple IIGS ports of Another World, as well as some other lesser-known games, such as Mindshadow, Borrowed Time, Battle Chess, and The Tracer Sanction.

And many other innovations...

I'm not sure if there is a list of persons who may have been GLBT and are considered founders in their feilds.


I , too would like to see someone do the research on that. I believe that it would make for interesting reading.

[TaylorMade]

It's not just a queer thing, Marie. Lots of straight people suffer from her diatribes and would cheerfully tell her what we think of her and her attitudes.

To Taylor, I never claimed a moral high ground. I don't think anyone in here really does much, what I stated were my personal feelings. I don't relate to her in any way shape or form and she gives women a bad name, she gives Americans a bad name, and she gives anyone with a sense of decency at all the cold chills when her name is a headline again. We don't care to have our country bombed because she pissed off North Korea with her comments.

I relate to her because I can be a total asshole and not care that I pissed someone off. And sometimes, I enjoy pissing someone off because they fucking deserve it. She's just like that... all. the. time.

I don't think the Norks care much about what she said. . .

*Taylor*

[MarieDelta]

More of AC's greatest hits:


Homosexuals
And why is it "homophobic" for Senate Republicans to look askance at sex in public bathrooms? Is the Times claiming that sodomy in public bathrooms is the essence of being gay? I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital.
[4]; September 5, 2007

You would think there were "Straights Only" water fountains the way Democrats carry on so (as if any gay man would drink nonbottled water)
"Massachusetts Supreme Court Abolishes Capitalism" 11-27-03

I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/index.html

RE: Jersey Girls (A group of 9/11 Widows)

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.
Excerpt which caused media controversy
Godless: The Church of Liberalism June 2006[10][11]

RE: Liberals

Vester: You say you'd rather not talk to liberals at all?
Coulter: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days.
(FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6)

When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.
Conservative Political Action Conference; February 26, 2002

A couple [of] alleged males attempted to sucker punch a 100-pound woman and missed. And they ended up with their faces smashed in and spending the night in the Pima County Jail, where I'm sure — being good liberals — their views on gay marriage will serve them well.
The Sean Hannity Show; October 22, 2004

Her feelings on having 2 protestors throw pies at her during a speech

The tolerant liberal suddenly becomes very intolerant when their official religion is challenged.
Online promotional material; June 6, 2006; accessed June 17, 2006
So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.
[13]; June 28, 2007; accessed June 29, 2007

Ironically, for all of [liberals'] love of conspiracy theories — the rigging of the 2000 election, vote suppression in Ohio in 2004, 9/11 being an inside job, oil companies covering up miracle technology that would allow cars to run on dirt, Britney Spears' career, etc., etc. — when presented with an actual conspiracy of Soviet spies infiltrating the U.S. government, they laughed it off like world-weary skeptics and dedicated themselves to slandering Joe McCarthy.
[14], November 8, 2007

Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation.
Hannity & Colmes 6-7-06
Whenever a liberal begins a statement with "I don't know which is more frightening," you know the answer is going to be pretty clear.
Treason p. 6

Since liberals never print retractions, they can say anything. What they said in the past is always deemed inadmissible and unfair to quote.
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) p. 66

Coulter: Every presidential assassination or attempted presidential assassination was committed by some sort of left-wing loon, communist, anarchist, communitarians, yes they were or they had no politics at all.
Behar: The homegrown terrorists are also another group we have to worry about here.
Coulter: Okay but they're all liberals.
The Joy Behar Show: 10/22/2009: [15]:accessed October 24, 2009


I really cant think of anything worse to say about her, than simply repeating her quotes.

[darkeyes]

I think I will take issue with you here pasa.. in many ways we do have the right not to be offended.. at least gratuitously.. people like Coulter go out of their way to be offensive and shock.. she may or not believe what she says but no one should make statements which are so inflammatory that they can cause offence.. wars have begun and millions of lives lost because of what people say.. in every city in the world lives are lost, people are injured and maimed because of people being deliberately offensive., neighbours kill and maim each other because of one or other or both being offensive. With a little thought most of these casualties could be avoided.. with a little sensitivity...

There are times when we say things which may cause offence.. we do not mean them as offensive but people do take offence. Often this also causes trouble and has also caused conflict between nations.. so it cannot be a hard and fast rule.. but offence which is caused unintentionally is a different matter.. what I refer to is the obnoxious deliberate goading of people, insulting them and trying to cause offence.. in some ways there is law against such behavior but inadequately and imperfectly so, as law is always inadequate and imperfect.. there is a fine dividing line between offence and incitement.. it is often difficult to tell that which is deliberate to that which is accidental.. but not always.. none of Coulters outrageous statements can be considered in any way accidental.

So I do not agree entirely that we do not have the right not to be offended.. we do have exactly that right in many, perhaps most circumstances. Let me turn what you think on its head..the right which we do not have is for people not to take offence at anything we say or do.. whether that be by accident or design..but we do have the right for people to take as much care about what they say in order to avoid causing offence as far as possible by being sensitive to the cares and circumstances of others. Its called sensitivity pasa... and caring..

[darkeyes]

I think I will take issue with you here pasa.. in many ways we do have the right not to be offended.. at least gratuitously.. people like Coulter go out of their way to be offensive and shock.. she may or not believe what she says but no one should make statements which are so inflammatory that they can cause offence.. wars have begun and millions of lives lost because of what people say.. in every city in the world lives are lost, people are injured and maimed because of people being deliberately offensive., neighbours kill and maim each other because of one or other or both being offensive. With a little thought most of these casualties could be avoided.. with a little sensitivity...

There are times when we say things which may cause offence.. we do not mean them as offensive but people do take offence. Often this also causes trouble and has also caused conflict between nations.. so it cannot be a hard and fast rule.. but offence which is caused unintentionally is a different matter.. what I refer to is the obnoxious deliberate goading of people, insulting them and trying to cause offence.. in some ways there is law against such behavior but inadequately and imperfectly so, as law is always inadequate and imperfect.. there is a fine dividing line between offence and incitement.. it is often difficult to tell that which is deliberate to that which is accidental.. but not always.. none of Coulters outrageous statements can be considered in any way accidental.

So I do not agree entirely that we do not have the right not to be offended.. we do have exactly that right in many, perhaps most circumstances. Let me turn what you think on its head..the right which we do not have is for people not to take offence at anything we say or do.. whether that be by accident or design..but we do have the right for people to take as much care about what they say in order to avoid causing offence as far as possible by being sensitive to the cares and circumstances of others. Its called sensitivity pasa... and caring..

...it is also being well mannered and polite.. obviously something about which Ms Coulter knows very little...

[rdy2go]

...it is also being well mannered and polite.. obviously something about which Ms Coulter knows very little...

Not that I am overly or sickenly polite by any stretch, remember I'm from NS we only say please just before the Bartender tops up the rum and coke, lol, but I am more apt to listen to, and take seriously someones point of veiw when I am spoken to in a civilized manner. I probably won't agree with it, but I'm less likely to utter the phrase "Shut the fuck up" if i am not talked down to, or in a rude way.... maybe that's why I have no use for Ms. Coulter. Naw that isn't it, I just disagree with her outright, yeah.... that's it! I agree darkeyes, there is nothing wrong with being polite.

The more I think of it the more I am inclinded to think that folks like Ann, and that Rush Limbaugh and those of that mindset are all for free speech, as long as they are the ones doing the speaking. They seem to own the patent on free speech, no one else is allowed to disagree with them, just my :2cents:

[MarieDelta]

Really? I see plenty of people disagreeing with them. I see nearly this entire forum disagreeing with Coulter. I only see a few people, however, advocating that Ms. Coulter be censored.

No one has told anyone who disagrees with Coulter or Limbaugh that the need their rights taken away.

Pasa


Vester: You say you'd rather not talk to liberals at all?
Coulter: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days.
(FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6)

gee I suppose that was what she calls humor...

[MarieDelta]

:P I dont want her to shut up, not at all.

Something about handing a fool a rope...

[TaylorMade]

gee I suppose that was what she calls humor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jocRd-aajW0

People find this funny, and this is actual violence. And not even with the fig leaf of politics over it.:bigrin:

*Taylor*

[MarieDelta]

Some more of AC


Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist"; "I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties"; "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning.
New York Observer, January 10, 2005

Canada
[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.
Fox News; Hannity & Colmes, November 30, 2004

The Episcopals don't demand much in the way of actual religious belief. They have girl priests, gay priests, gay bishops, gay marriages — it's much like The New York Times editorial board. They acknowledge the Ten Commandments — or "Moses' talking points" — but hasten to add that they're not exactly "carved in stone."
The Jesus Thing; January 7, 2004

RE: Court-ordered desegregation of schools

Few failures have been more spectacular. Illiterate students knifing one another between acts of sodomy in the stairwell is just one of the many eggs that had to be broken to make the left's omelette of transferring power from states to the federal government.
Ashcroft And The Blowhard Discuss Desegregation

a question on reparations has got to be confusing when you're half-white and half-black. What do you do? Demand an apology for slavery and money from yourself? I guess biracial reparations would involve sending yourself money, then sending back a portion of that money to yourself, minus 50 percent in processing fees — which is the same way federal aid works.
(regarding Barack Obama)http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi


The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that's the Biblical view.
Oil Good; Democrats bad; October 12, 2000

They're [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment.
University of Florida speech; October 20, 2005

[darkeyes]

Nothing of what you posted is applicable. Whether we should be polite or not isn't the point. You can't legislate politeness.

You don't have freedom FROM speech. You don't have a right that protects you from hearing offensive things, or that says that one may only speak if they are not going to offend someone else.

And what you think should happen doesn't change that.

Pasa

That isnt the point Im tryin making.. we have a right to be spoken to in a manner which befits decent human beings and not insulted, not offended.. if you belive it is not applicable thats your affair.. as long as people believe such as you then people like Coulter will continue to rant and rave hysterically like the loose cannons they are hitting whoever and whatever is in the way..I appreciate that we shall hear offensive words and very often.. what we have a right to expect is that people treat other human beings with courtesy and not as so much waste disposal.. that means saying things in such a way that is considered, fair, well mannered and polite and not insulting.. we all fail in this sometimes, and I am no different from anyone else in that regard.. we have no right to be deliberately offensive, but we do have a right to not be deliberately offended.. it is therefore as applicable and relevant as anything you may have said.. and certainly is a much more civilised and decent way to live than doing things your way...

[MarieDelta]

Actually anyone can say any damn thing they like anywhere, they just have to be prepared to face the consequences for their actions.

If you speak in certain ways, you can be branded a traitor (revealing state secrets etc..) and killed for it.

If you knowingly make certain statements regarding an in tent to harm someone you will face the consequence of being charged with assault.

If you incite violence against someone you maybe charged with disturbing the peace.

Just because something is a crime, doesnt meant it doesnt happen.

Just because something is a cime, doesnt mean people will get charged for it.

People who insult other people may suffer the consequence of a punch in the face. Or worse.


What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea.
Mohandas Gandhi

[MarieDelta]

oh and for what its worth Censure is diffrent from Censorship

Censure:
a)harsh criticism or disapproval
b)reprimand: rebuke formally
c)excommunication: the state of being excommunicated

Censorship:
a)The suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

I dont mind censure, in fact I think our society needs more of it.

[darkeyes]

Please find for me in either of our nations foundational documents that sets down the rights of citizens where the right to be spoken to politely exits. In this nation, we have rights clearly delineated. I'm assuming your nation does the same.

Pasa

You are quite right Pasa.. but there are laws regarding the use of offensive language at least in this country.. I cant say bout yours..and try being offensive to the polis... that'll get you nicked and in clink quicker than you can scratch your arse...

.. there are different kinds of rights..I assume you do not believe that unless it is written down in black and white in your constitution it is a myth.. well I do not.. I believe in decent human relations and that involves having rights which come from having decent manners and treating people decently..the people of my country are probably no better mannered than yours.. that does not excuse them from being louts like Ms Coulter.. I am talking of civilised behaviour Pasa..and that involves civilised speech.. and we all have a right to that being spouted in our face... but then I doubt you agree..its not in your constitution is it? So such rights do not exist do they?

[allbimyself]

I think part of the problem in this discussion is terminology. When we speak of rights what do we mean? When we speak of restrictions what are we saying?

In the US the rights of individuals as legally defined are guaranteed not to be infringed by the government. Which is why a law criminalizing holocaust denial, such as many European nations have, would never stand. However, that does not mean that a right to free speech is guaranteed at all times. Incitement and other laws do play a part. These laws are constitutional as they are meant to protect the rights of others from being infringed. "Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose."

That said, vitriolic speech is not inherently an infringement of the rights of others. Certain very specific requirements have to be met before that is the case. Were someone to say "Slavery is an honorable institution and should be legalized," that person, while having obvious character defects (to put it mildly) has not committed a crime. He is advocating a change of law. While I certainly hope that the vast majority of us would oppose him and find his speech offensive, that does not mean we have the right to prevent him from advocating his belief. On the other hand, were he to encourage others to break the law he is attempting to change, he would be committing a crime by encouraging others to commit crimes, but even then certain criteria have to be met. Was the speech rhetorical or did it have intent? Did he have a reasonable expectation that others would do as he asked?

While the idiocy and offensiveness of most of what Coulter says is obvious and often times borders on incitement (I wouldn't want to have to prove in a court of law that they were), she is not committing a crime in uttering them, nor should that be made illegal in my opinion. Not everything that is said at some point of time that the majority would find offensive at that time are necessarily bad things. Progress is made by challenging the status quo. Yes, there are dangers that our slavery advocate might succeed in swaying enough people to his way of thinking as to be a serious threat someday, but it is far less likely than would be the very likely suspension of progress by the stifling of unpopular ideas were we to seek to limit that speech.

On the other hand, while people have the right to utter things we disagree with and find offensive, they do not have the right to force any particular forum to grant them a platform from which to speak. The government cannot legally stifle them, but it doesn't have to give them a bull horn either. Nor does any non-government entity.

Should a nation that advocates free speech seek to bar entry to someone who advocates unpopular ideas? Not if it truly advocates free speech. That does not mean, however, that the university in question has to provide her a forum from which to speak.

[jamiehue]

i like to see her on a gator.

[rdy2go]

i like to see her on a gator.

or "in" a gator.

But seriously, to put a different spin on it. In Canada, we have free speech, also in Canada we have laws that are meant to penalize hate speech, a point which has been noted in this thread many times. So, given that in the opinion of many, (including yours truly) she incites hatred, why didn't the Canadian authorities arrest her for some of the shit she said while in Canada? I know it's difficult to prove, damn near impossible as a matter of fact, but still! What makes her so high and mighty that she can come into someone elses country, do and say whatever the Hell she pleases, put it's citizens down, and act like we all are so enamored of her that she gets treated like a goddess or something. When I attended school in the USA, I treated the state and federal laws with the respect they deserved. I was a guest in that country and acted accordingly. Ann Coulter was a guest in Canada, and acted like she was the Queen of the place. I am so glad that the vast majority of Americans do not share Ms. Coulters pompus, greater than thou attitude. You can bet that she wouldn't go to some countries and spout off at the mouth like she does in the USA, and Canada. Because there are places on this Earth where her comments would make her the star attraction at a public beheading.