Yeah - I got quite the laugh out of that. For someone who is supposedly so smart she really is incredibly stupid.

You're blog is fantastic, I have been following it for weeks now. Thank you for having it. ;)

-Coulter seems to have, yet again, earned herself a seat next to zell miller for this interview. I'm glad that McKeown didn't let her off the hook for trying to villainize canada. I also find it interesting how she tried to block herself by saying "I don't think that's right" because opinion legally shields accountability for any remarks liable to be put under scrutiny.

The Republican Christian Right, like their fascist role models, specialize in the big lie. They rarely get caught, and when they do, they stick to the same lie.

Our gutless media, who wish to appear balanced, give equal time to truth and lies. If THEY get caught, a correction appears on page 23.

The REAL Reagan revolution was the repeal of the Fairness Act, which was enacted at the beginning of the radio age. Without the Fairness Act, the wealthy right wing financiers were able to create the Limbaughs, Coulters, etc., and take control of the American mind.

If our Congressional leaders wish to return America to a nation of balance we must make restoration of the Fairness Act a political priority.

Ken

I second the kudos on this excellent blog.

That CBC show on the right's takeover of the US media sounds well worth seeing--are there additional clips fromit anywhere online?

O'Reilly would've said SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

Great clip, Norm. Keep em coming.

Ann Coulter should not be given the time of day by any progressive, and should only rarely be spoken of, for the simple fact that she means very little. This idea may seem surprising since she sells many books, etc. But as far as political ideas or policy ideas she has never advocated anything but the most obvious party line, and is in that sense redundant. Secondly she changes the mind of no one. Third she may give right wingers confidence by deriding progressive causes, etc., but there have always been people like that, and they are completely interchangeable.

Lastly, besides writing some books she is quite unaccomplished. I don't know where the idea came from that she is supposed to be smart; I've never even heard a conservative make this claim. She has never served in public life or been in real journalism. Heck Rush Limbaugh has had to keep a daily talk show afloat for over a decade, that's at least something. The point is, she has almost nothing real to her name, except she's written a few books (books for which she obviously didn't need to have a basic knowledge of contemporary American history). This is why she and her ilk love to become lighting rods. That at least separates you from the crowd of shrill hacks. O'Reilly spends half of some shows talking about his own personal troubles, how his character is being assassinated, etc. It gets to the point where it's not even about politics anymore, but rather about the pundit herself. Ever wonder why the most worthless warrior is the one signing up for suidice missions? Sure, because the generals have the power and they don't want to sign up. But also because the peon gets glory in no other way. Any news--even when she comes off as a fool--is good news for Ann Coulter. This puts her in a different company from almost every other famous conservative you've heard of. Which makes her even unworthy of the dislike you reserve for those bad public figures who actually matter.

Some people on the left feel as if they must stay and listen if they catch Coulter on Fox as they're flipping through the channels. "I want to hear what the other side has to say" they reason. But Ann Coulter is not "the other side". The other side is George Will, David Brooks, Buckley, Milton Friedman, Hayek, Kirk, etc. Coulter has nothing new, nothing challenging, nothing you've haven't heard before. You'll never get those fifteen mintutes of your life back. Please do, change the channel, I beg you.

Ann Coulter is to political discourse what creationism/ID is to the study of origins; both make use of bullying, grandstanding, and bullshit to further an indefensible agenda that is paid for by the same special interest groups. Oh yeah, and neither would get any attention from an educated public.

Yeah. Great blog man. I've been coming here now for a few weeks. Can't remember how I found it though...

just another thing on top of a whole pile of embarrassments. miss coulter and many others have been proudly showing us their lack of education for years. i guess education is for those terrorist lib'ruls. ann is way above that.

Here is an interesting article about Canada's involvement in the Vietnam war: http://dede.essortment.com/canadasvietnam_rgwv.htm

Here's my problem...how did she ever find her way on TV and in columns in the FIRST place? From her very early appearances on TV I had the impressions she was all bitter and no substance. What credentials would cause someone to hire her to begin with. Sheesh - why did it take this long to get rid of her? What the world really needs...just one more terribly bitter voice.

Hey Norm, how's it going? Thanks for all the great links and vids as usual. I've been wanting to ask you this for some time. How come the volume on all the video material you put up so low? take it easy! -liminal

Ann just likes to flaunt her qualifications as White House material.

This clip is wonderful and so telling of the state of "journalism"--that if spoken with confidence, a manufactured story that supports your argument is seldom challenged. Kudos to Bob McKeown. And thanks for posting the clip.

And BT, after a bit of searching I found a place to download the entire documentary using bit torrent:

http://www2.digitaldistractions.org:8080/torrents.php

Source: Canadian Encyclopedia (See credits below): During the years 1954 to 1975 Canada served on 2 international truce commissions and provided medical supplies and technical assistance. Canadian diplomats were involved in negotiations between Washington and Hanoi and successive Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, maintained that Ottawa was an impartial and objective peacekeeper, an innocent and helpful bystander negotiating for peace and administering aid to victims of the war. However, Cabinet papers, confidential stenographic minutes of the truce commissions as well as top-secret American government cables revealed Canada to be a willing ally of US counterinsurgency efforts.

Canada's record on the truce commissions was a partisan one, rooted in the presumption of Hanoi's guilt and Saigon's innocence and designed to discredit North Vietnam while exonerating South Vietnam from its obligations to uphold the Geneva Agreements. Canadian delegates engaged in espionage for the US Central Intelligence Agency and aided the covert introduction of American arms and personnel into South Vietnam while they spotted for US bombers over North Vietnam. Canadian commissioners shielded the US chemical defoliant program from public inquiry, parlayed American threats of expanded war to Hanoi, and penned the reports legitimating both the rupture of the Geneva Agreements and the US air war over North Vietnam. Ottawa would later assert that these actions were necessary to counter-balance the activities of the Eastern bloc countries with whom they shared membership on the truce commissions.

Canadian aid during the war went only to S Vietnam, $29 million 1950-75, routed through the Colombo Plan and the Canadian Red Cross. Although humanitarian in appearance, Canadian assistance was an integral part of the Free World Assistance Program, co-ordinated by the US Department of State with the International Security Office of the Pentagon as the point of contact. In the field, Canadian capital assistance was regulated by the US-RVN Health Defense Agreement and administered by the International Military Assistance Force Office in Saigon. On a number of occasions, Ottawa stopped the shipment of ecumenical medical relief to civilian victims of the war in North Vietnam.

At home. 500 firms sold $2.5 billion of war materiel (ammunition, napalm, aircraft engines and explosives) to the Pentagon. Another $10 billion in food, beverages, berets and boots for the troops was exported to the US, as well as nickel, copper, lead, brass and oil for shell casings, wiring, plate armor and military transport. In Canada unemployment fell to record low levels of 3.9%, the gross domestic product rose by 6% yearly, and capital expenditure expanded exponentially in manufacturing and mining as US firms invested more than $3 billion in Canada to offset shrinking domestic capacity as a result of the war. The herbicide "Agent Orange" was tested for use in Vietnam at CFB Gagetown, NB. US bomber pilots practiced carpet-bombing runs over Suffield, Alberta and North Battleford, Sask, before their tours of duty in SE Asia. And the results of the only successful peace initiative to Hanoi--That of Canadian diplomat Chester Ronning--would be kept from public knowledge in order not to harm official US-Canadian relations. Ten thousand young Canadian men fought in the US armed forces in the war. At the same time 20,000 American draft-dodgers and 12,000 army deserters found refuge in Canada.

Readings: Victor Levant, QUIET COMPLICITY: CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE VIETNAM WAR (1986) Between the Lines, Toronto ,Canada

This text was written for the Canadian Encyclopedia and may be used or posted only in its entirety if the following source recognition is given to the publisher McClelland & Stewart: The 1998 Canadian & World Encyclopedia, McClelland & Stewart Inc., 481 University Avenue, Suite 900, Toronto, Ontario, M5G2E9. E-mail: mail@mcclelland.com; website: tceplus.com.

"Ten thousand young Canadian men fought in the US armed forces in the Vietnam war."

Source: This text was written for the Canadian Encyclopedia and may be used or posted only in its entirety if the following source recognition is given to the publisher McClelland & Stewart: The 1998 Canadian & World Encyclopedia, McClelland & Stewart Inc., 481 University Avenue, Suite 900, Toronto, Ontario, M5G2E9. E-mail: mail@mcclelland.com; website: tceplus.com.

As a staunch conservative, I agree wholeheartedly that Ann Coulter invents facts to serve her purposes. Now who here will say the same about Michael Moore?

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

"Ten thousand young Canadian men fought in the US armed forces in the Vietnam war."

These young men joined the US armed forces of their own volition, Canada did not send troops.

"Ten thousand young Canadian men fought in the US armed forces in the Vietnam war."

I'm a Canadian and several fathers of friends of mine enlisted in the US armed forces (most of them were Marines). But if you'd paid attention, you would have noticed that the question was about Canada sending troops, which Canada as a nation didn't.

Canadians also fought on both sides of the US Civil War ... historically many individual Canadians have been involved in the US military and the Vietnam War was no exception. Canada was not neutral as the encyclopedia entry points out, but that wasn't what Ann Coulter was talking about.

Ann Coulter: I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam

Although not directly involved in the Vietnam War, Canada was part of the International Control Commission (ICC) set up by the Geneva Conference in 1954. "Unlike Hungry and Poland, which supported North Vietnam," writes Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr., in his Vietnam War Almanac, "Canada attempted to remain impartial. However, it provided economic assistance to South Vietnam." As a result of the Paris Peace Accords of 1973, the ICC was superseded by the International Commission of Control and Supervision (ICCS). Canada and Poland remained members, but India was replaced by Indonesia. "When it became apparent that the North Vietnamese had no intention of living up to the accords," says Summers, "Canada withdrew on July 31, 1973 and was replaced by Iran."

according to the U.N. Canada sent 6,146 troops to korea. which is 3 times more than australia. for the record luxembourg also sent 44 troops. lol

According to the U.N. Canada sent 6,146 troops to korea. which is 3 times more than australia. for the record luxembourg also sent 44 troops. lol. Also. http://www.korean-war.com/canada.html

Korea...but not Vietnam. In conclusion: Ann Coulter = dumbass!

http://dede.essortment.com/canadasvietnam_rgwv.htm

Many Americans believe that Canada played no part in the Vietnam War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Though the Canadian government tried its best to remain neutral, Canadians themselves became involved. It is believed that Canadian enlistment in the US Army during the Vietnam era far surpassed the 30,000 who fled as draft dodgers to Canada.

...

When the US became involved in war with Vietnam, many Canadian men joined the US Armed Forces or allowed themselves to be drafted. Canadian Forces were being cut back and Vietnam allowed Canadian youth to join the US military where they would be taught skills that were not available in their own country. Helicopter flying and mechanics was the goal of many young Canadian men. Another reason to join was the fight against communism and still others joined for adventure or personal reasons.

Canada allowed it citizens - many presumably members of Canada's military - to join the U.S. Army, which then sent them to Vietnam. Canada sent troops to Vietnam by proxy, basically. Unless, of course, you think that Canadians were too stupid to realize that's what would happen. Anyone want to argue that? No? Didn't think so.

I know it's a subtle distinction but there is a difference between Canadians fighting in Vietnam and the Canadian government sending troops to Vietnam. Ann Coulter claimed that Canada sent troops, she was wrong. So please no more comments about how Canadians fought in Vietnam. We already knew that. No one has claimed they didn't. It is simply not relevant to the conversation.

So the Canadian government was stupid, then, and didn't realize the U.S. would send the Canadian citizens to Vietnam? And the volunteers didn't realize that, either?

BTW, the difference between Canadians joining the U.S. military and John Lindh joining the Taliban is that Canada authorized its citizens to join the U.S. military. Lindh went to Afghanistan on his own without any approval from anyone. Nice attempt at an analogy, but it falls short.

What part of Canada didn't send them don't you understand. You are not arguing that when Ann Coulter said Canada sent troops to Vietnam it was an accurate statement? That is the only point at issue here. You can repeat your statement that Canadians fought in Vietnam and that Canada allowed them to go ad infinitum it will not change the fact that Canada didn't send them.

You're reaching. That's not what she said. She said Canada sent troops to Vietnam and Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.

I don't know exactly why you are trying to justify her ignorance. Your argument harks back to the Bush Administration’s argument for the Iraq war... first it was because Iraq had WMD. Then when it was proven that they Iraq not have WMD, they changed their reasons for invading Iraq (a sovereign nation). It’s now because “Saddam Hussein is a bad man".

I don't care what they say after the fact. The reasoning they gave first was that Iraq had WMP. Why can't they say that they were wrong instead of changing the reason?

Why is it that right wingers can't admit mistakes? Why do they need to justify everything instead of admitting mistakes?

BLATANT mistakes?

She was wrong. She was wrong. She was wrong. Why can’t you admit it and move on instead of trying to justify?

Uh.. Canadians joining the US army has not one thing to do with Canadian policy on whatever wars the US might be fighting at the time. Canada was and is a free country (we have a democracy too!) and our citizens are allowed to roam free without the government's permission, even over the border into the US. Once there, they're allowed to become landed immigrants, get green cards, and even join the army, because the US is a free country as well. There are Canadians in the US army in Iraq right now and this doesn't mean Canada is secretly supporting the war or sending them to Iraq by "proxy".

That said, Norm is right that this has squat to do with what that Nazi twit's false statement.

Even if she was wrong, so what? Who gives a crap about Canadians and their history anyway? Are Americans supposed to know everything about Canadian history? Does this one instance of Coulter getting a minor, insignificant, worthless point wrong mean she's stupid or always wrong? Of course not. Get over yourselves.

Even if she was wrong, so what? Who gives a crap about Canadians and their history anyway? Are Americans supposed to know everything about Canadian history? Does this one instance of Coulter getting a minor, insignificant, worthless point wrong mean she's stupid or always wrong? Of course not. Get over yourselves.

Ann, is that you? :D

So, anon, how much is Ann Coulter paying you to do PR for her? :-)

Even if she was wrong, so what? Who gives a crap about Canadians and their history anyway? Are Americans supposed to know everything about Canadian history? Does this one instance of Coulter getting a minor, insignificant, worthless point wrong mean she's stupid or always wrong? Of course not. Get over yourselves.

I see.... you must have had an American education.

I like that tactic, anon. After being repeatedly proven wrong, you just say, "so what... who gives a crap anyway?" Are you nine years old, or what? Touchy touchy!

Some people like to know about WORLD history, not necessarily just one country... The point is, maybe an average joe doesn't know, but a public figure who goes on international television and purports to be an authority on her topic SHOULD know. Otherwise, what the fuck is she doing on the show in the first place?

THAT is the reason people have a problem with Coulter. It isn't only one incident, she does it All. The. Time. Maybe if you weren't mesmerized by her trashy looks, you might listen to the garbage that comes out of her mouth and realize that she's full of it.

Even if she was wrong, so what? Who gives a crap about Canadians and their history anyway? Are Americans supposed to know everything about Canadian history? Does this one instance of Coulter getting a minor, insignificant, worthless point wrong mean she's stupid or always wrong? Of course not. Get over yourselves.

This comment perfectly sums what is fundamentally wrong with the American people. I feel many Americans think the rest of world is of no consequence , only when there is something to be gained financially. If Americans took the time to learn something, anything about the rest of the world and stopped believeing the self absorbed propaganda shoved down the populations throat then maybe the country would be in better shape financially and psychologically. The American Psyche is so frustrating, it makes many of us want to cry....only because you are so hard to reason with due to your extraordinary ignorance. I challenge every American who reads this to grab a book and read some world history.....Think about it, what's so special about your history anyway, none of it is true. Its all rewritten and embellished. It's no wonder most Americans live in a dream world. Your President doesn't even read the papers, do you think he knows anything about the rest of the world?

I Apologize to all Liberal and Learned Americans (don't take this personally)

If that were the only example of Ann Coulter with her head up her ass that would be one thing, but alas Ann has demonstrated her ignorance of history, ours and others numerous times. On Larry King live she was in a debate with Alan Dershowitz about whether Clinton should be impeached. She said that no one was more deserving since "they impeached Jefferson" Dershowitz said "I'm sure you meant to say Johnson" she reponded "... of course - Jefferson was never president." Link scroll down for the actual transcript.

This comment perfectly sums what is fundamentally wrong with the American people. I feel many Americans think the rest of world is of no consequence , only when there is something to be gained financially. If Americans took the time to learn something, anything about the rest of the world and stopped believeing the self absorbed propaganda shoved down the populations throat then maybe the country would be in better shape financially and psychologically. The American Psyche is so frustrating, it makes many of us want to cry....only because you are so hard to reason with due to your extraordinary ignorance. I challenge every American who reads this to grab a book and read some world history.....Think about it, what's so special about your history anyway, none of it is true. Its all rewritten and embellished. It's no wonder most Americans live in a dream world. Your President doesn't even read the papers, do you think he knows anything about the rest of the world?

I'm American, but I agree wholeheartedly.

please note - not ALL Americans are drooling morons (just the red state wackjobs )

My wife is Canadian, I know a ton about history and I too find most American's self-aborbtion and lack of education and empathy chilling. Most American's think we single handedly won WW2. Errrrrr, not. Most Americans think FauxNEWS is, well, news. It is throwback xenophobe propaganda. If you don't know the meaning of the word, please visit dictionary.com and look it up.

The current regime in the US is the biggest bunch of lying war profiteering jingoistic dipsh!ts ever to seize power. Fight the evil power. Before it is too late.

Just to recap: Iraq had no strategic WMDs, no connection to al queda and has oodles of oil. Now.... think!

I recently viewed The Battle of Algiers - Pontecorvo's 1965 re-enactment of the occupation of Algeria by the French. I wonder what Coulter thinks about this and the parralles any idiot can see between that and the occupation of Iraq. The Pentagon recently viewed this film but not to better foreign policy, not to better deal with rebellion and not to help them with the issues of moral. But to learn how to effectively and silently crush the population. Like the French in Algiers the Americans have won the battle for Bagdad but they have not won the Iraq people.

Read the New Yorks Times review http://www.rialtopictures.com/eyesxtras/battletimes.html

Then rent the movie yourself

Apparently, some guy named the Canadian Cynic is having some fun with this thread here. And you sure can't blame him.

She said that no one was more deserving since "they impeached Jefferson" Dershowitz said "I'm sure you meant to say Johnson" she reponded "... of course - Jefferson was never president.

These quotes are actually someone else's recollection of the Larry King interview. For the record, Coulter said Alexander Hamilton was impeached (he was never president) and that Thomas Jefferson was never president. The Hamilton mistake was probably just a case of mixing up his name with Andrew Johnson's, but it sounds like she really thought Jefferson was never president. :D

How amusing that someone who reads my blog made a note of it here. So let me just add my own $0.03 Canadian -- Ann Coulter is an ignorant, pathological liar who just makes stuff up out of thin air.

As one example, read about her interview on Hardball here where host Chris Matthews (who certainly can't be accused of anti-conservative bias) chewed her out and concluded his segment with Coulter by saying, "Facts mean nothing to you, Ann."

Yeah, that pretty much says everything you need to know. I can provide a dozen more examples if anyone wants to see them.

Just like Michael Moore! For instance, when he says Bush let the Bin Ladens fly out of the country after 9/11, but really is was Richard Clark who authorized it and has stated so in public time and time and time again. I got dozens of examples on him too. They're both such garbage slingers it's amazing anyone gets behind any of the nonsense they spew. I wouldn't trust either of them to tell me what color the sky was.

anon, Richard Clark was taking the downfall. Moore may be slanted in opinion, but not in facts in Fahrenheit.

What a bunch of whining losers. Get over the fact that it sucks to be you.

Don't respond to me, I will never find this site again.

Yes, I admit to making a mistake. I was looking for humor and I got horror instead.

Most of you sound like JFKerry, no solutions, just crying. Tell it to Tom Dasshole.

pllllbbbtttt!!!

OH WOW SORRY GUYS FOR SOME REASON I WAS THINKING WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE KOREAN WAR BECAUSE I'M DOING A REPORT ON KOREAN WAR NOT VIETNAM WOW. OOPS

Rhetoric 101: a primer in arguing with conservatives.

As much as this thread deserves to die, I think it's worth summing up the standard right-wing debate tactics that were used here since, if you plan on ever debating a right-wing dingbat, really, you should at least be prepared for what's almost certainly going to happen.

In the text that follows, I'll invent the occasional dialogue, which will be a conversation between you, the reality-based liberal left-winger (Y), and your right-wing wanker opponent (W).

As you can see, step one in the wanker approach to discussion is to simply ignore facts and stick stubbornly to one's position:

Y: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam." W: "Yes, they did." Y: "No, they didn't." W: "YES! YES, THEY DID!"

This is a strategy that substitutes volume for logic. But don't get too caught up in this, as the strategy will almost certainly change without warning, as the wanker suddenly redefines the terminology:

W: "You have to admit that Canadians fought in Vietnam, right?" Y: "Sure, everyone knows that." W: "Then Canada sent troops to Vietnam by proxy." Y: "Huh?"

This position is, of course, equally nonsensical, but you have to be prepared for it. (In extreme cases, be prepared for your wanker opponent to redefine terms like "Canadian", "Vietnam" and "is".)

Eventually, if your opponent is sufficiently persistent, you may decide to invest the time and effort to marshall all the facts at your disposal, put together an absolutely devastating, irrefutable rebuttal and utterly destroy said wanker. At which point, be not at all surprised to hear:

W: "Man, chill out. It's not that big a deal. So I was wrong. You're getting way too obsessive over this. Get a life." Y: "What the f...???"

This is, in fact, a fairly clever wanker tactic. Having previously embraced their position like a Rottweiler all over a raw flank steak and dragging you into the discussion, they suddenly appear to totally lose interest.

Not only does it downplay their defeat, but they now paint you as somehow so consumed with anti-conservative bias that you would invest this much time in the discussion. At this point, you are now the overly-excitable, closed-minded left-wing fanatic with no sense of proportion. The fact that your wanker opponent only minutes before was equally as fanatical is conveniently forgotten.

And, finally, there is the ever-popular change-of-subject strategy:

Y: "Ann Coulter is a pathological liar." W: "No, she isn't." Y: "Yes, she is." W: "NO, NO, SHE ISN'T!!" Y: "Yes, she is, and here's the evidence." W: "Well, OK, she is but so is Michael Moore."

What the wanker has done here is to, without warning, change the subject and try to shift the entire discussion to a different topic. Don't be suckered by this. The proper response is to say, "Um, we weren't talking about Michael Moore, we were talking about Ann Coulter. Don't change the subject."

If the wanker persists in dragging Moore into the dialogue, there are ways to deal with this:

W: "But Moore is a liar, too!" M: "All right, we can debate that if you want. But, by your own admission, since you say that Moore is a liar, too, you're implicitly admitting that so is Coulter. Can we agree on that?" W: "Well, OK. But so is Moore!" M: "We can discuss Moore if you want, but that is clearly a different topic. Let's finish the conversation we're having now, which is strictly about Ann Coulter. Can we now agree that she's a pathological liar? If we can, we can close that issue and move on to the next one."

Anyway, like Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief, you can pretty much count on the right-wing wanker's four stages of debate:

1) Unreasoning embrace of nonsensical position. 2) Redefinition of basic terms to suit the argument. 3) Unexpected change of subject to avoid impending defeat. 4) Sudden admission of error, accompanied by insistence that this whole thing is no big deal.

Sound familiar?

CanadianCynic - 1. How do you know who was a conservative poster here unless they said they were? The people who posted outtakes from the Encyclopedia I read as providing proof Ann Coulter was full of crap. You read them as conservatives trying to prove that Canada really sent troops. I can't see one post here that says Ann Coulter wasn't full of crap from anyone. 2. The only 2 identifiable conservative posts here say Ann Coulter is a liar. Yes, Micahel Moore is named as well - but no-one changed the subject. The admitted their mouthpiece was wrong. You characterization nis unfair. 3. Don't paint with such a broad brush - it destroys the opportunity to have dialogue with anyone who isn't at the extremes? 4. Are you at the extreme?

From CC:

Well, you just knew this thread wasn't going to die, so I might as well flog it a little longer.

First, the purpose of my previous, meandering post was, in fact, not to simply respond to comments here. It was to discuss the rhetorical weaseling of conservatives in general -- I just happened to choose examples from the comments in this thread to make my point, as well as inventing fictional dialogue to use as analogies. All of that is perfectly acceptable.

(Naturally, the same complaints about rhetorical weaselness can be applied to liberals as well, and it's just as unacceptable when they do it. But in the context of this thread, it was the right-wingers who were doing all the dodging and weaving, so I used them as the examples.)

Now, as to your questions:

1) I knew there was at least one conservative as, sadly, I've had personal experience with him. Ergo, I wasn't just guessing. I knew. And that poster was clearly trying to defend Coulter; ergo, was trying to prove she wasn't full of crap. Q.E.D.

2) Your point 2. is simply incorrect. At least one commenter is adamantly defending Coulter. Again, Q.E.D. And bringing in another topic before the current one is resolved is, by definition, changing the subject.

3) I wasn't painting with any kind of brush. I was delivering a lecture on rhetoric, and just happened to use examples at hand.

4) Am I extreme? Why would you ask that? I'm not aware of anything I've written here that qualifies as extreme.

Quite simply, the point of my previous post (as I said before) was to identify well-known and sleazy debating tactics, so that folks would recognize them when they happened and be able to take immediate countermeasures.

The fact that I used examples from conservative rhetoric is only because that was the context in which we were working. If you want to do the same with left-wing discourse, feel free.

You forgot the part where they call you names and then say something akin to "Don't bother replying to me, I'm never coming back!".

Oh yeah, cuz the lefties never call anybody names or curse at them on this blog.

Name calling is not the main problem. It is name calling sans argument. Yes and both sides do it.

thx canadiancycnic very funny and useful in fact! I have had these exact same convos w conservative friends all two of them (sure some family back in the midwest are also red staters)

one of these two guys is a dear friend - I was in his wedding party - we disagree on much, but not all, our discourse is frank, honest, funny and based in a firm understanding that both parties love the USofA

the other guy is sadly something of an x-friend... while debating w's comedy/tragedy of erros he called me an "armchair general and a maggot" this from a draft dodging emigre who sucked down a million dollars worth of socialist german health coverage when his illegitimate child was born way preemy

after a while i figured, why bother?

o the irony of misspelling "errors"

Funny, enkidu, I've had a similar experience (though I'm Canadian)... my one friend considers himself a "libertarian" and he's always attacking me. Also, he assumes he knows my stand on every issue and dismisses everything I say because I'm a "leftie," not bothering to see that some of my views are not those of the traditional "left." I once asked this guy to explain to me, honestly, how we would handle things like justice, trade and commerce, infrastructure like building roads, etc. in an anarchy (he claims to be an anarchist), and his answer was the usual pointless rhetoric I get from him - "You can't pay your rent with a hug" - or some shit. I now refuse to talk politics with him, because otherwise, we can't be friends.

My other friend works for the Conservative Party of Canada and has always supported them. Lately, however, she's getting fed up, partly because of their extreme stance on gay marriage, which she supports. There used to be two right-wing parties which merged before the last election. She's disappointed on how it turned out - in her words: "how did we end up with corporate welfare AND the God Squad?" Anyway, she's planning on quitting the party, getting a new job, and joining the Greens.

See? There IS hope.

Oh yeah, cuz the lefties never call anybody names or curse at them on this blog.

I was referring to a specific post.

CanadianCynic is obviously very well versed in constructing straw man arguments to rant like a lunatic about. But we're supposed to believe he's "reality-based." Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

For those interested in more concrete examples of right-wing rhetorical revisionism and redefinition of terms, indulge me in a little blog-whoring and point you at one of my recent pieces here.

I take it the piece will be self-explanatory and, with that, I think I've pretty much had my say on this thread. Ciao.

Although factually incorrect about troops, Coulter's point about Canada alligning itself (and especially experiencing a financial windfall in return) from the US is correct as well as thousands of Canadian citizens in (US) military uniform in Vietnam, obviously not sanctioned by Canadian government. Her credentials include a degree and years of practice in Constitutional Law, working in congress, and years in journalism, since someone asked. It is a shame that she did not have her facts in order or retun to retract her false statement, but what I find suspect in many of these postings are the constant, bitter personal remarks (dumbass, ugly, stupid, bitter, useless) on this and other websites, rather than information and stimulating political debate. Someone asked about Michael Moore? I noticed noone called him names or asked his qualifications, just fairness on the behalf of his supporters; I wonder why. Think about that and you should ask yourselves why you hate someone you don't even know so much. Good day, neighbors and God bless you and your sons and daughters defending freedom now.

The point of the post was that Ann was incorrect and failed to acknowledge it. It is true someone asked about Michael Moore but didn't provide an example of a factual error he had made. There was nothing to discuss. If he was trying to excuse Ann's factual error by pointing out someone else had made an error I would have to respond so what two wrongs don't make a right. You don't really believe that I should be required to make a post about a left-wing pundit making an error every time I make one about someone on the right? This blog has a point of view. It is a liberal point of view. I express my opinions on issues of interest to me. But then you already knew that. So what is the point of your post, that Ann wasn't treated fairly, fine that's a discussion we could have, but what on earth does Michael Moore have to do with that. As you rightly point out I don't know Ann Coulter and it's not Ann Coulter I hate, what I hate are her views on a variety of subjects. The fact that she bases those views on faulty information is even more reason to question the worth of what she says. The quality of her thinking is poor in spite of her education perhaps she slept in class.

truthseeker: I don't know what you mean by 'serving in congress' and 'being a journalist', but if you mean she actually was a reporter and that she did something in congress besides intern then I stand corrected. As for having a law degree, so what? I know dozens of morons with law degrees.

As for the personal attacks, this is a blog and people are shooting the breeze about an arrogant, poisonous public figure who really deserves it. Of course I don't know her, maybe she changes bedpans at the nursing home in her spare time and is really nice to kids. But she does a horrible disservice to American public discourse and for that she deserves ridicule. It's not just her views but the venomous, over-the-top way she expresses them. In fact she rarely even talks about her views on specific issues, she's almost always talking about liberals. She dedicated a whole book to the claim that liberalism is treason. The liberals I know don't take that charge lightly, and so I forgive them if they give her rough treatment on a left-wing blog comment thread.

white buffalo - just for the record re CanadianCynic's rant:

Posted by: Jinx McHue on January 31, 2005 09:40 PM "Canada allowed it citizens - many presumably members of Canada's military - to join the U.S. Army, which then sent them to Vietnam. Canada sent troops to Vietnam by proxy, basically. Unless, of course, you think that Canadians were too stupid to realize that's what would happen. Anyone want to argue that? No? Didn't think so."

Posted by: anon on February 1, 2005 09:42 AM "So the Canadian government was stupid, then, and didn't realize the U.S. would send the Canadian citizens to Vietnam? And the volunteers didn't realize that, either?"

Posted by: anon "Even if she was wrong, so what? Who gives a crap about Canadians and their history anyway? Are Americans supposed to know everything about Canadian history? Does this one instance of Coulter getting a minor, insignificant, worthless point wrong mean she's stupid or always wrong? Of course not. Get over yourselves."

Posted by: johnboy "What a bunch of whining losers. Get over the fact that it sucks to be you. Don't respond to me, I will never find this site again. Most of you sound like JFKerry, no solutions, just crying. Tell it to Tom Dasshole."

I suspect the above posts may have had something to do with CC's rant about Conservatives who argue like lunatics. Not exactly civil discourse. I don't believe it was directed at you in any way - don't take it personally. We all know you're a conservative, but you don't argue like a lunatic. Well, most of the time. ;-P

Replacing crap with crap, but it goes a long way in describing why Ann get no respect around here.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter has been replaced with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin.

Erie Times-News Editorial Page Editor Bryan Oberle sums it up best when he says Coulter simply did not meet our standards. We gave the always controversial syndicated columnist a year on the op-ed page ? an election year at that ? opposite outspoken liberal columnist Molly Ivins. But Coulter, it seemed, did not only not meet basic standards for excellence in writing and commentary, but seemingly met no journalistic standards for civility. Apparently, the vitriolic Coulter has none.

"It was with great reluctance we turned over the column space to Ann Coulter," Oberle said. "We understand she already had a loyal following, but her columns are more exercises in grenade-throwing than column-writing. There is a mean-spirited tone that dominates all her columns." Looking back, Oberle said, "The final straw came during the election when she attacked triple amputee Max Cleland, stating so matter-of-factly that he wasn't a war hero but was instead some sort of fraud. Enough is enough."

There's plenty more to say about Coulter ? her description of Muslims as smelly, her shrill hatred of all Americans who do not agree with her, and perhaps her most infamous comment shortly after 9/11 that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Bob McKeown is a Revisonist Hack! Canada is a Denier Nation! Ann Coulter was RIGHT, even though she is NOT a Canadian and should not be expected to know as much about Canadian history as should the Canadians. Canadian Troops in Vietnam Canadian Troops 1968