Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Hey Ann, Just Try It!

By the scooter king in Op-Ed
Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 12:19:45 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

On a recent political round table on CNN, Ann Coulter took a swipe at Canadians, saying that we should consider ourselves "lucky that [we] are allowed to exist on the same continent" as the US.

Alright, Ann, this isn't the first time that an American has denied our right to exist. It's been going on for most of US history. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that we exist at the USA's continued sufferance. If we're that much trouble, why not do what your implications in those statements suggest.

Invade. You're bound to do better than you did before.

Just remember that last time, someone burned the White House down.


I'm not going to suggest that we did that, though a lot of Canadians would say we did. There may or may not have been Canadian troops there, but there's no doubt that the majority of the forces were fresh-from-the-motherland Royal Marines. Yes, I know, Canada didn't even exist then. And even though General Sir George Prevost gave the order, he did so as a British General, even if he was stationed in Canada. That's not the point. The British, despite overwhelming numerical superiority, could not be said to have won that war, though given that your people started it and didn't come away with any spoils save your continued existence, neither did you.

But it's different now, right? This time you have the overwhelming numerical superiority. The overwhelming tactical superiority. Let's face it, in a bombing war you could level most of our cities. On a field of battle you could destroy our forces without even facing them. From 1812 to 1815 you did a pretty good job of striking at our cities, although those you took you didn't keep long (the burning of York, now Toronto, and then the site of our parliament, led to an escalating tit-for-tat arson campaign which eventually resulted in British officers supping in your boarding houses while they watched your capitol burn). We have no doubt that you could beat us.

But could you occupy us? That's the devil right there, isn't it. Even the best of empires had trouble with that. As a matter of fact, that's the trouble you seem to be having right now. Somewhere off the Mediterranean, if I recall.

Let's compare target countries, shall we?

From Wikipedia.org

Population:

Iraq

24,683,313 (July 2003 est.)

Canada

32,207,113 (2001 Census)

Similar populations, interesting.

Military:

Iraq (pre 2003 estimates)

375, 000 regular forces

95,000 - 120,000 Republican and Special Republican Guard.

Total: 470,000 - 495,000

Canada

60,000 regular forces

15,000 reserves

Total: 75,000

Well, there you go. You waltzed straight to Baghdad, and they had 6.5 times the soldiers. Piece of cake. True, the Canadian army is more modern, but not by that much. Heck, Saddam might have been able to take us.

Geographic Area:

Iraq

437,072 km sq.

World Rank by Size: 57th

Canada

9,976,140 km sq.

World Rank by Size: 2nd

Youch. That's a lot more territory. 20 times as big.

(Incidentally, the US is #3 by size internationally, behind Russia and Canada, but ahead of China and Brazil. Top five isn't too bad. Plenty of countries would kill for your position.)

You might have guessed that holding territory has something to do with size. You can't be everywhere, and Iraq is comparatively tiny. It's still not that easy there, is it? It was pretty hard to find Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan too, eh? Most of our country is like that.

But it's different. They hate you there. They're Arabs. They're Not Like Us. Canadians would just fold like Austria in '38, right? (Incidentally, GWB is looking awfully snappy in these new paramilitary duds he's been wearing. He looks right at home.)

Well, I hate to break it to you, but even if you accept the idea that we wouldn't put up much resistance (if you want a good idea of what lengths motivated Canadian Soldiers will go to, look at Vimy Ridge, or Juno Beach), it's probably not just us you'd have to contend with. Just like in 1812, it's our friends you'd have to worry about.

Let's start with the Mother Country, Great Britain. Tony Blair's your good buddy, I know. Standing up to Iraqi terror and all that. He's catching a lot of flack for that at home though, isn't he? Imagine the flack he'd take for not helping out a country his Queen still reigns over, eh? I don't think you could count on them for support. Probably outright hostility is more like it.

Then there's France. Remember when you started this noble experiment you call democracy? (You did then, anyways). France was right there for you weren't they? Then they had their own little revolution, and things weren't so predictable any more. And remember how recently you started calling things 'Freedom Toast' and Freedom Fries'? They do. Besides, they're still kind of fond of Quebec, even if they're not so sure we should keep it.

Most of the rest of NATO would probably go the same way, though it would probably break up the alliance. The British Commonwealth, too (that includes Australia), maybe even La Francophonie. You might hang on to Poland. Think you could beat the rest of NATO?

But maybe there's some other potential allies. What about Russia? Now that they're a 'democracy', there's a lot of similarities between your countries. The irony of the US and Russia teaming up to carve up Canada against the wishes of the rest of the world is too delicious, almost makes the whole thing worthwhile from an observer's perspective. Trouble is, with the rest of the world against you two, China might make a grab for some of Russia. Or North Korea might do something nuts. And what if you two can't agree and things get nasty? Guaranteed the War on Terror would be meaningless. Who cares if someone bombs a building, when Nuclear Armageddon is back on the table.

Napoleon lost, in the end, because he conquered too much. He had all sorts of military might, but he had no friends. All it took was one motivated enemy with the willingness to scorch some earth, a bit too much time out in the Russian winter without good coats, or food, and his forces became useless. It wasn't like he could draw on his allies for help.

See, the difference between Canada and Iraq is we have friends.

So go on Ann. I dare ya.

----

Please note, before the flaming starts, that I'm not lumping all Americans in with Ann, or her ilk. This is about the right wing take on foreign policy, not America, or Americans. In other words this is between me and her.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Ann Coulter?
o Nutcase 54%
o Tireless Angel of the American Right 10%
o Heartless Valkyrie, taking the souls of the fighting damned 7%
o Hot, but makes me question my sanity when I fantasize 7%
o All, some or none of the above 19%

Votes: 88
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o political round table on CNN
o burned the White House down
o Wikipedia. org
o snappy in these new paramilitary duds
o Vimy Ridge
o Juno Beach
o Also by the scooter king


Display: Sort:
Hey Ann, Just Try It! | 201 comments (168 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden)
yeah, occupation is tough (3.00 / 4) (#3)
by minerboy on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 10:51:25 AM EST

but a with little patience, we could buy all the worthwhile property in the country, and send hordes of immigrants that would start the annexation party, that would encoursge the US annexation of the cities in the highly populated coridor between toronto, and hamilton, as well as Vancouver. The immigrated minority party would also encourage tax revolts and try to radicalize the quebecois (divide and conquer). at the same time you would be hit with rolling power blackouts, from "accidental" grid failures in the US, as well as numerous boycotts and embargos of selected industries. You would be USians in 10 years, and will have voted to do it - except maybe quebec - but we will genocide them with neutron bombs



Your concern for our well being is touching. (none / 0) (#4)
by the scooter king on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 11:42:47 AM EST

All hail armageddon.
The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
[ Parent ]
Hmmm.... (2.40 / 5) (#7)
by Ogygus on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 11:52:10 AM EST

with little patience, we could buy all the worthwhile property in the country

Get in line. The Japanese and Chinese own most of the important parts of British Columbia.

send hordes of immigrants

Careful now. If you send all of the rightwing-nuts up here, you wouldn't be able to elect any more RepuliPuppets. If the 145,000,000 non rightwing-nuts want to come, we welcome them, as long as they meet the minimum criteria for the privilege of Canadian citizenship.

Canada represents something that is reprehensible to the selfish, the overly religious and the radical right in the Untied States. Arguably Canada is a bigger threat than radical Islam. While the U.S has been conducting it's grand experiment in empire building, we have been busy building a tolerant and just society. Implementing things like universal medical care, a tolerant secular society respectful of religious, racial, sexual orientation and cultural differences. The right in the U.S. likes to paint us as the socialist hordes, scaring the ignorant and intolerant with the spectre of communism. The threat to the U.S.? That our society actually works.

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
but is it scalable ? n/t (none / 1) (#9)
by minerboy on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:07:09 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Well... (2.25 / 4) (#12)
by Ogygus on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:12:13 PM EST

We have 33 million people with full healthcare coverage. The U.S. has 70 million with no insurance AT ALL. Obviously the U.S. system isn't scalable. By no means would Canada be called a rich country in comparison to the U.S. That we can look after ALL of our citizens speaks volumes about the social values that we consider to be important.

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
by definition (1.50 / 2) (#29)
by minerboy on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:05:00 PM EST

The US is scalable. The existance of socialized Healthcare is hardly an indicator one way or another. Perhaps if you look at heath related statistics - for example, the amount spent per person on health is twice as much in the US. Canadians aren't particularly healthier than Americans. You can find some anecdotes about americans that suffered because of lack of heath care, but in general, anyone who needs health care , get it.

Remember also that the US bears much of the cost of Canada's global defense. If we look at how socialism scales, we can look at the USSR, or maybe China.



[ Parent ]
Cost doesn't beget quality (none / 0) (#33)
by pyro9 on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:21:54 PM EST

for example, the amount spent per person on health is twice as much in the US.

Canadians aren't particularly healthier than Americans.

The telling part is that they aren't particularly LESS healthy either.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
Health Related Statistics (3.00 / 4) (#43)
by Ogygus on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 05:59:42 PM EST

Infant Mortality Per 1000 Live Births:

Canada 4.8, United States 6.6

Life Expectancy:

Canada 80.0, United States 77.4



The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
being australian (none / 0) (#171)
by fleece on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 09:11:58 PM EST

I'm naturally biased towards the Canadian POV in this argument, since Canadians and Australians are similar in many ways in what they value.

However I'm not sure it's fair to look at infant mortality/life expectancy as a measure of quality health care - only because these thing vary amongst different races, and US has a different cultural mix to canada, so it's apples and oranges a bit...Having said that, I think it is fair to look at the variation in health care quality in the US between rich and poor. In US it's essentially means tested (more money=more choice), whereas Australians (and I suspect Canadians) generally see healthcare as a basic right that should be extended equally to all citizens regardless of wealth.



I feel like some drunken crazed lunatic trying to outguess a cat ~ Louis Winthorpe III
[ Parent ]
Fine (none / 1) (#133)
by felixrayman on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 12:49:29 AM EST

If we look at how socialism scales, we can look at the USSR, or maybe China.

That would be as fucking retarded as using post-communist life expectancy and GDP growth in the former Soviet Union as an example of how capitalism scales. Economically, Russia sucked ass as a feudal society, sucked ass as an aristocracy, sucked ass as a Communist country, and sucks ass as a capitalist country. What is the independent variable here, dumbfuck?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]

OK (none / 1) (#141)
by minerboy on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:12:31 AM EST

Care to explain away China ? So where's the example of a large socialist country that is succesful? I contend that as the size of the country grows socialism ceases to be "let's all work together" and becomes "you must respect my authoritah". Of course, the social elites (or should I say toadies and sycophants) in society have the authority.



[ Parent ]
Your comment struck a chord. (none / 0) (#201)
by Ogygus on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:42:00 PM EST

It sounds like you just described George Bush's Washington.

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
Canada != USSR (none / 1) (#157)
by Gord ca on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:24:19 PM EST

While what Canada and Europe does and what USSR & China did are both termed 'socialism', the implementations are so vastly different, economic outcomes cannot be compared.

And, yes, I will admit that Canada doesn't do its part for global defence, but shouldn't be expected to contribute %GDP sums similar to the US seeing as the US seems to want a bigger millitary than it could ever use.

If I'm attacking your idea, it's probably because I like it
[ Parent ]

It's the other way around (none / 0) (#193)
by decaf_dude on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 08:44:55 AM EST

US spends twice as much (per capita) on health than Canada does, yet achieves less than 75% coverage against Canada's 100%. Clicky.

--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


[ Parent ]
Just? "Just" Pathetic! (none / 1) (#31)
by Peahippo on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:12:29 PM EST

... at least, this is the American rightwingnut talkradio viewpoint. I've had my fill of hearing Canadian rightwingnuts call up and complain to Rush, Beck et al about heing taxed, about how they had to wait for a medical procedure, etc.

All the people in Canada who think it's so great to live in the US ... I say, come on down. But, bring your money. We're going to need all of that, considering the vast increases in the costs of insurance, fuels, food, etc.

Canada probably does look like a terrible place to live to persons with a lot of money suddenly obtained through stock options, home sale, etc. We have a word for these types of people: SOCIOPATHS. They are not participants in society; they are "just" pathetic!


[ Parent ]
of course (none / 1) (#48)
by minerboy on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 07:35:12 PM EST

The other side of the exageration is that Canada is great for lazy bums, who also don't care to participate in society.



[ Parent ]
Hmmm, Seems Familiar ... (3.00 / 4) (#110)
by Peahippo on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 11:15:45 AM EST

... where have I encountered this before ... oh yeah, that's right, I've seen plenty of "lazy bums who also don't care to participate in society" RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA! I note with some amusement that their own parents tend to move away from them in an attempt to get them out of their homes.

I've been to Toronto and Windsor, and from that view of Canada, she just didn't seem to have legions of welfare-gulping bums laying about on the streetcorners, piled 3 high. In fact, Canada simply looked like America.

When it comes to bums and various layabouts, America and Canada are equal lands of such opportunity in my view.

This just supports my theory that Canada is demonized by the US for only 1 reason: Socialism. Canada certainly has more of that. And it takes taxes to support it. But America has better things to do with the money represented by these taxes. America needs to build bombs to drop on other countries. America also needs to build the walls of the gated communities of the increasingly insular "I've got mine so fuck the rest of you" class.

Socialism is even more of a dirty word now, what with the Democratic Party completely sold out to the monied interests who hate Socialism. It only stands to reason that the Republicans hate it equally. That takes care of 99% of the voting electorate. But with the still-growing wave of Middle Class poverty, even the most shrieking rightwingnut making $8/hr will have to relent somewhat, in the face of $3/gal gasoline, $2/ccf natural gas, 30c/KWh electricity, and so on. It's been said that "when the prices of luxuries fall, and the prices of necessities rise, then your civilization is in trouble" ... and America is on that course.


[ Parent ]
But Canada is too cold for bums (none / 1) (#116)
by minerboy on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 12:53:07 PM EST

Vancouver, which probably has the best climate in Canada, was loaded with them last time I was there. worse than Chicago, and even Seattle.

But we could go back and forth on this forever. The fundamental question, I think, is socialism scalable to US population sized countries like the US? I say no, you, I imagine say yes. In my view socialism belongs at the state level, and can be modified to fit the particular needs and lifestyles of the local population, and you can move to get away from a system you don't like. Some places may prefer to be individualistic (like Montana) - its not a sin. Others want (and need) more social programs. For example, Pennsylvania has health care for Children, and had prescription support for senior citizens for some time now. At the same time, we deregulated the electrical power industry, which lowered the cost of Power, AND improved the local power Grid. Federalized, one size fits all programs are not good for countries with large dispersed populations like the US. They may be fine for Canada or Sweden.



[ Parent ]
Canada's Army. (none / 1) (#6)
by caine on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 11:50:40 AM EST

Is it really that small? I'm guessing you don't have compulsory military service, but still, it sounds awfully small, especially the reserves.

--

It really is that small (none / 0) (#8)
by the scooter king on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:05:38 PM EST

On the other hand, they do have the reputation as one of the best trained fighting forces in the world. The main thing they do though, is peacekeeping and logistics support. We did send our equivalent of Special Forces (J2F2) to Afghanistan, and I believe I remember an American general asking for more of them. (ie because they were good)

For the most part though, we depend on our amazing ability not to piss the world off to keep us out of trouble.


The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
[ Parent ]

And the Monroe Doctrine (3.00 / 3) (#15)
by Adam Rightmann on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:27:33 PM EST

The rest of the world knows they'd be in deep doo-doo if they messed with America's little buddy and hockey player reservoir.

[ Parent ]
Yes, don't forget hockey (3.00 / 11) (#16)
by the scooter king on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:32:20 PM EST

Every Canadian man, woman and child instinctively knows how to pull your shirt over your head and pound you in the kidneys.


The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
[ Parent ]

Don't forget.. (3.00 / 2) (#17)
by JohnnyCannuk on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:35:39 PM EST

the quality of our Armed Force is far more imprtant that the quantity.

My brother is a Sgt in an Armoured Unit. They and the Strathcona's routinely beat the US Army and Marines in Tank combat competitions using our retrofitted 25-year-old German Leopard tanks, even after going up against brand new Abrahms M-1s.

My brother tells me they are pretty well respected by their US counterparts as well.

So I think our 75, 000 member Armed forces would make Iraq look like a picnic. And I wouldn't recommend any US forces try taking and holding the North Shore of Lake Huron (Sault Ste Marie, Thessalon, Blind River)...Canadians actually own more guns per capita than the US and we know how to use them. A US soldier is probably easier to spot and hit than a deer or moose. And we have lots of places to hide.


We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]

But, (none / 1) (#30)
by Smothie on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:10:12 PM EST

We have numbers. If you kill is 20 to 1, we still kill all of you.

--

Please visit my scoop site, Guppylog - For help with all livebearing fish.
[ Parent ]
That appears to be working well in Iraq [nt] (3.00 / 5) (#109)
by JohnnyCannuk on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 10:31:56 AM EST


We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]
The other main task for our military (none / 0) (#183)
by Trepalium on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 07:08:43 PM EST

Weather disaster handling seems to be another major function of our military within Canada. For example, the 1997 Red River flood in Manitoba involved the biggest deployment of Canadian Armed Forces since Korea. Just one year later, the ice storms in Quebec brought out our military again to help restoring power, and providing aid and assistance to residents.

[ Parent ]
ROR! (2.22 / 9) (#10)
by Dont Fear The Reaper on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:07:27 PM EST

Summary:
Yeah, invade us again you big bully! We burned your capitol down last time you tried that! Ok, we didn't really, but, ok, we couldn't do it this time either. But you couldn't occupy us, HA! Just you try and invade us, you'll never be able to occupy us because our country is so big! We'll do like the Russians, burning our cities and retreating to the north! You won't be able to survive the Canadian winter! Really! Ok, you have a modern mechanized army that can conduct extended military operations in multiple places around the world simultaneously after all, so you probably could. But we have friends! Yeah! The UK would get our back on that one, and France! They'd kick your ass! Maybe. It could happen!

Heh heh, woah there little guy, no need to get so defensive! Why would we want to invade you? You're not the bad guys. We're buddies, we even have mutual defense agreements, remember? Just because we provide most of the muscle doesn't mean we want to make you our bitch, you know what I'm sayin'? Relax, do that Canadian chill out thing - you'll feel much better, I promise.

And please, don't let your insecurities allow crusty broads like Ann Coulter to goad you into a dick waving contest with the US. It just makes you look silly, OK? Hey, stop biting my leg!

That , my friend, is more or less my point. (none / 0) (#13)
by the scooter king on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:14:38 PM EST

Can't we all just get along? ;}
The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
[ Parent ]
What, that you're insecure and whiny? (2.00 / 10) (#28)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:02:46 PM EST

Yeah, I thought that was pretty obvious.

Canada needs to come up with some slogan other than "we're not Americans".

Do you think we take Ann Coulter any more seriously than you do?

A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it is insane. - Obscure Chinese Proverb
[ Parent ]

pretty superficial (2.00 / 3) (#14)
by DominantParadigm on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:20:07 PM EST

you should talk about how the corporate media in America is starting to work up a frothing hatred of Canada in Red America, through vassals such as Coulter. And doing a damned good job, too. It's really amazing. Americans will hate whoever they're told to.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


At the outset of the Iraq war... (none / 1) (#18)
by the scooter king on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:55:28 PM EST

there were a number of Ebay sellers who wouldn't do business with Canadians, because we wouldn't send troops.

I didn't lose sleep.

I don't think it's anything that organized. If they start talking about 'Constitution Bacon' along with the 'Freedom Toast' I might change my mind.


The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
[ Parent ]

You don't have to be told do... (none / 0) (#123)
by MrLarch on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 05:43:43 PM EST

there are plenty of Canadians spewing hate themselves. Normal people just try to stay away from them.

[ Parent ]
Not quite right. (none / 0) (#186)
by rpresser on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 11:01:24 AM EST

Some Americans will, instead, hate whomever tells them to do the hating.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
+1FP hilarious (1.20 / 5) (#19)
by xutopia on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 01:15:24 PM EST

Ann Coulter and the ring wing machine says some of the most dumb ass comments ever!

Ya know.... (3.00 / 2) (#21)
by the scooter king on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 01:33:04 PM EST

I am reminded of Jon Stewart's pre-election night comment, on November 1st.

"When you vote tomorrow, make my job sh*t. I wanna come in and it'll be like 'whadda we got? .... pfft .... I dunno, Madonna's doin' some kaballa thing....'"

The American voter. God's gift to comedy.

The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
[ Parent ]

I, for one, (1.55 / 9) (#20)
by trane on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 01:27:33 PM EST

welcome our new White-House-burning, nuclear-bombing, lots-of-friends-having Canadian overlords.

You, my friend... (none / 1) (#22)
by the scooter king on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 01:35:05 PM EST

may have a delicious Beaver Tail in a Better Tomorrow.


The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
[ Parent ]

THIS STORY IS UNPATRIOTIC AND OFFENSIVE (1.40 / 10) (#23)
by The Black Ness Monster on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 01:47:33 PM EST

WHY DO YOU HATE OUR FREEDOM?

Whose Freedom am I hating, exactly? (none / 0) (#24)
by the scooter king on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 01:50:12 PM EST

Just to get our nationalities clear...


The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
[ Parent ]

OURS. (none / 0) (#25)
by The Black Ness Monster on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 01:51:31 PM EST

.eet ne

[ Parent ]
Right. Just checking. (3.00 / 4) (#26)
by the scooter king on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 02:00:01 PM EST

I think the best way to address why we hate your freedom would be to start a Royal Commission.

Unfortunately, the best person to head this Commision, Pierre Burton (a member of the Order of Canada), passed away recently, after penning over 50 books about Canada, and explaining how to roll a joint on national television.

Until such time as Bryan Adams matures into a Canadian Icon, I'm afraid the Commission will have to wait.

If you have any comments or questions as to why we hate your freedom, please direct them to The Freedom Hating Commission, Heritage Canada, Ottawa.


The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
[ Parent ]

Make Treaties, Bitch! (1.80 / 5) (#32)
by Peahippo on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:14:19 PM EST

First, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Next, Iran and North Korea.

Can Canada really be that far behind, for the Great US Corporate Oil Warmachine (GUSCOW)? After all, Canada has it's own Arab minority (1991 Census: 194000), and Canada also produces oil.

If I were Canadian, I'd be pressing my government officials to make a self-defense pact with Iran, Syria and North Korea. That way, a la both World Wars, the US will step into deep shit by attacking one of a group of several sworn allies. It'll be sweet to finally see Bush (CINC-GUSCOW) sweat for once.


not only do we.... (none / 0) (#151)
by Morphine007 on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 11:56:58 AM EST

....produce oil, but as of 02, we were your chief source at 17%, with Saudi Arabia at 14.5% and Iraq at 4%. I haven't found any more recent stats (or older), but we were #1 from at least 2000-2002... fewd fer thought eh?

[ Parent ]
Gorge on This (none / 0) (#176)
by Peahippo on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 11:05:02 PM EST

If Canada's oil families have business connections with the Bush family as Saudi Arabia does, then Canada has nothing to worry about. Osama bin Laden could be living in an apartment in Toronto, giving talks on foreign policy at local universities, and the US won't do much about it.

God help you if your government has a falling out with the American CIA. Then's it's Invasion City for sure.


[ Parent ]
Dignity (2.40 / 5) (#34)
by Cant Say on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:32:02 PM EST

Any lengthy response to Ann Coulter gives her more credit than she deserves.

Never underestimate (none / 0) (#35)
by the scooter king on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:35:59 PM EST

the power of ridicule


The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
[ Parent ]

France and Britain have nuclear weapons (2.40 / 5) (#36)
by MichaelCrawford on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:38:17 PM EST

Just food for thought:

I've been worried for a while that the US is going to make itself so troublesome for the rest of the world that all the other countries will have to work together to put the US back in its place.

Considering how much weaponry the US possesses, both conventional and nuclear, that's a very frightening thing to contemplate.

But then maybe it's just me being paranoid.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


and so does the US. (1.66 / 3) (#66)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 12:23:06 AM EST

and, just as in the cold war, the US would always be able to pave whatever country dropped a nuke or 2 on it.

For this reason, France will no more nuke the US than Russia would, nor would the US nuke anyone else - the cost is just too damn high.

A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it is insane. - Obscure Chinese Proverb
[ Parent ]

YHBT (2.50 / 10) (#37)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:40:09 PM EST

Coulter is a troll in the truist sense of the word.  Her success is primarily based on pissing people off rahter than people agreeing with her.  She is on pundit shows because she draws the viewers who hate her or think she funny rather than viewers who think she has insight.  She is no longer a respected journalist who can write for mainstream publications so trolling is her only occupation.

Also, "she" has an Adam's apple and it's really gross.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

Local Paper (none / 0) (#60)
by iLurk on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 11:41:57 PM EST

She is no longer a respected journalist who can write for mainstream publications so trolling is her only occupation.
Actually, my local newspaper picked up her column a short time ago. Oh, wait...

[ Parent ]
Are you kidding ? (1.00 / 7) (#38)
by svampa on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 03:42:18 PM EST

No country in the world may face a direct attack from USA. Well, perhaps, Russia or China, just face, not win. USA spends in military almost as money as the rest of the world togheter.

Any comparation with Iraq is absurd:

  • A logistic difference. Canada is near USA, Iraq is not.
  • Goal difference: USA doesn't want to conquer Iraq. They don't want to kick Iraquies out from Iraq and repopulate it with USA citizens.
  • USA military could seize Canada in a few months, and send Canadians to Mexico, Europe, or to wherever they want to go and are accepted, but out of the new USA territory. They don't have to move troops, planes etc, they have all their military power near.

    If USA would want to conquer Canada like did with native indians territory, they would do it. In fact, UN and international comunity would complain, so what? Could anyone stop them?

    Why USA doesn't do it? Well, until now I would say that it's absurd.

    "lucky that [we] are allowed to exist on the same continent" as the US.

    After such sentence, now I'm not very sure. 30 years ago the idea of USA invading a country in a "preventive war" seemed absurd for the world, now it's not. Perhaps, in 30 years the idea of Invading nighbours territories won't be absurd.

    It looks that the idea "We are the strongest, we make or own rules" is growing fast in USA. That could be the future.

    Perhaps Canada needs nukes now, tomorrow could be too late.



    Are you kidding? Or just stupid? (2.66 / 3) (#44)
    by cactus on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 06:49:53 PM EST

    Sure, the US could blow a lot of stuff up and do a number on Canada's organized military. But there's no fricking way that the US could occupy even a tenth of Canada, even if the vast majoirty of our forced were already busy in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't even manage to decisively occupy Iraq, and they aren't unifed against us as Canada would be.

    If we in the US did the unimaginable and used military force with Canada, we'd be starting a guerilla war that we would have no chance of winning or even ending on favorable terms. Our border with Canada is simply too long to defend, and while Canadians civilians aren't very well armed right now, there's no doubt that they be able to smuggle vast quantities of arms in from the US.

    Starting a war with our closest neighbors would be suicidal.
    --
    "Politics are the entertainment branch of Industry"
    -- Frank Zappa
    [ Parent ]
    Guerrilla? (none / 0) (#46)
    by svampa on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 07:28:31 PM EST

    You have a guerrilla war if you want to rule the defeated people. If you clean of canadians a zone, and then you make advertisings "The goverment sells former canadian properties for ten dollars. Requeriments: You must be USA citizen, you must live here for at least five years, you must heltp to defense, and you can't sell the property for 30 years", then you have frontier war, not a guerrilla problem.

    Starting a war with our closest neighbors would be suicidal.

    As I have pointed, I'm not very sure of that. But even if it's suicidal, it doesn't change the fact that sentences like: "lucky that [we] are allowed to exist on the same continent" as the US." may be the mainstream of USA society in X years, so the goverment's ideology, so eventually canadians would stop being lucky.



    [ Parent ]
    But Canadians don't have a strong martial (3.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Adam Rightmann on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 07:49:50 PM EST

    heritage. And they're very polite. The guerilla war would end up with a few Canadians asking the American to please park their Humvee on a big red X, where they have boresighted a WWII surplus .50 caliber machinegun. But, like Russia, once the winter rolled in, American troops would be at the mercy of ice skating hockey enforcers dropping their gloves for a fight, until they shot them.

    [ Parent ]
    not right (none / 0) (#56)
    by bankind on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 10:16:04 PM EST

    you wouldn't bore sight an M2, there is enough play in the cradle that you always walk an M2 to its target.

    "Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
    [ Parent ]

    Canadians civilians aren't very well armed (none / 0) (#59)
    by scatbubba on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 11:04:00 PM EST

    you crazy? From http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/wd97-3a-e.html "Nearly 22% of Canadian households possessed at least one firearm. Possession was highest in the United States (48.6%)" It looks like canadian citizens have 1/2 the guns compared to US citizens. It should be noted that 95% of those canadian guns are long guns.

    [ Parent ]
    Not exactly what your point is... (2.00 / 2) (#94)
    by cactus on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 06:20:35 AM EST

    Exactly - 22% is poorly armed from where I (a USian) am sitting. As far as long arms go, everybody I know in the US who has a handgun (and quite a few people who don't) also have long arms.

    But that's moot, since as I mentioned Canadians would be able to get as many weapons as they like over the vast, porous US border.

    Here's a better idea: the US conscripts illegal Mexican immigrants and sends them to fight in Mexico under a Mexican flag, with the promise that they can join the US as new states once they run the country.

    Hey, it worked for Texas.
    --
    "Politics are the entertainment branch of Industry"
    -- Frank Zappa
    [ Parent ]
    If you think hunting down insurgents is hard now.. (none / 1) (#90)
    by Markusd on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 06:11:24 AM EST

    Try hunting down insurgents that look like you, talk like you, and are able to easily slip into your country (via the longest undefended border in the world). You think car bombs on the streets of Baghdad are bad, try it all over your own soil. It'd make 9/11 look like a weekly event.

    And what is it that makes this military force so great? Well, behind all the weapons and technology, it's just people. Convincing people to take over a foreign land with a dictator everyone over here thinks is evil (i.e. Hitler, Saddam), isn't too hard. But the amount of propaganda needed to invade Canada would be huge. It's a lot harder for soldiers to kill people they can relate to.

    [ Parent ]

    Dunno wot you are talkin aboot, eh? (none / 0) (#159)
    by CodeWright on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 03:07:44 PM EST

    The Canadians are among us.

    --
    A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
    Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

    [ Parent ]
    MAD (none / 0) (#104)
    by Betcour on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 08:28:05 AM EST

    No country in the world may face a direct attack from USA. Well, perhaps, Russia or China, just face, not win. USA spends in military almost as money as the rest of the world togheter.

    Who cares about how much you spend. ICBMs are the great equalizer, and UK and France have them too.

    Moreover the US governement only stays afloat by borrowing massive amount of money from abroad. An army is expensive...

    [ Parent ]

    Not really (none / 0) (#160)
    by CodeWright on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 03:19:58 PM EST

    France and the UK have, what, 20 ICBMs apiece? Generously presuming that they are all MIRV'ed and carry ten 75kt warheads each, that is 200 targets each.

    To destroy, say, Detroit, you'd need at least 30 or 40 of those things. A single 75kt warhead won't wipe out more than a few downtown city blocks.

    So, at greatest possible damage capability, the UK and France together could take out 10 cities in the US.

    That would just piss us off (hint: observe the outcome of a few destroyed city blocks in New York).

    A more realistic estimate, considering that those missiles are not MIRV'ed and that the US has both boost phase and re-entry phase ICBM interception capability... well, I would guess there is a distinct possibility that none of the ICBMs would find a target... and even if one did, it would not be crippling.

    More like severely annoying.

    Compare the response: the US has something like 12,000 ICBMs and IRBMs. Unlike the UK and France, most US missiles are MIRV'ed and they mostly carry the W-80 "dial-a-nuke" warhead which can go up to 150kt yield. If you factor in long range bomber warheads, we exceed 20,000.

    Given zero boost phase and limited to non-existant re-entry phase interception capability in the UK and France, chances are that all those warheads would hit target.

    If they were all spent on those two targets, the terrain would be distinctly altered and of limited human utility for some time.

    In other words, the UK and France deterrent capability is only plausible against each other, not a real superpower.

    --
    A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
    Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

    [ Parent ]
    you are a bitt off (none / 0) (#164)
    by caridon20 on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:11:48 PM EST

    france have about 350 air-launched and 4 subs with   missiles 16 missiles. the sublaunched missiles are mirv (4-10 with ayeald of 100-150 KT
    total warheads are 410-510.
    they also have a undisclosed number of bombs but we can ignore them for this exercice

    Brittan have about 200 sub launched missiles (presumed MIRV) that comes to betwen 800 and 2000 warheads. I asume about the same yeald as france.

    so the total number betwen 1210 and 2510 warheads.
    with a yeald that is att a minimum 25% larger/warhead than your guess)

    a note about effects.
    http://www.radshelters4u.com/index.html#1a
    a 150 KT blast would create moderate damage out to about 3.5 miles. A bit motre than your "a few downtown city blocks"

    so asume 5-10 warheads/city instead

    About, your so called boost and re-entry interception capability. so far you havent been able to hit anything without a transponder in it :)  so i'l be nice and give you 10% of for suicidaly brave pilots.  still leves you with
    a minimum of 110 of your larger cities gone.

    Diferent ballgame ?

    Nuklear war is NOT winable. by anyone.

    /C
    Dissent is NOT Treason Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    [ Parent ]

    huh? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Run4YourLives on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:36:03 PM EST

    the US has both boost phase and re-entry phase ICBM interception capability...

    Are you reading from the same fact book as Ann on this one?

    You guys can barely hit the missles you fire yourselves, never mind anyone else's.

    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
    [ Parent ]

    Hint... (none / 0) (#190)
    by CodeWright on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 10:51:33 PM EST

    ...I'm not talking about retarded anti-missile missiles.

    --
    A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
    Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

    [ Parent ]
    The only thing more stupid than Saddam (1.80 / 5) (#39)
    by jubal3 on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 04:12:29 PM EST

    not coming clean over WMDs is someone taking Ann Coulter seriously.

    She's the Michael Moore of the right.

    She's a disgusting, lying, shit-stirring little gnome. She sells lots of books to the wackjobs and gets invited to all the more popular fascist dinner parties.

    But no one else takes her seriously, which, now that I think on it, makes her somewhat less dangerous than Moore. Though no less disgusting.


    ***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***

    Moore isn't so bad... (none / 1) (#47)
    by Remfin on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 07:32:09 PM EST

    He has his crazy moments, but you can agree with some of his stuff when it's more moderate. Even if he's just using that moderate language to hide his extreme view it doesn't matter much to me. But I don't think I've EVER heard Coulter comment on anything without advocating murder, outright genocide, or imperialism, and people DO take her seriously

    [ Parent ]
    Why don't you give me a list (none / 1) (#63)
    by jubal3 on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 12:07:16 AM EST

    of serious people in positions of power who even SPEAK to Ann Coulter.

    Meanwhile, who was that at the Demo convention in a box seat?


    ***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
    [ Parent ]

    Was going to say... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Wulfius on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 07:28:56 PM EST

    > of serious people in positions of power who even SPEAK to Ann Coulter.

    Staff at FOXNEWS but then I reconsidered since you said 'serious people'.

    > Meanwhile, who was that at the Demo convention in a box seat?

    Actually, he was at the REP convetnion too as a reporter.

    The funny thing about MM is that he is pissing off the right in the US with facts. As he says on his page, if he is lying, sue him.


    ---
    "We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
    http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!
    [ Parent ]

    That's a BS line (2.00 / 2) (#127)
    by jubal3 on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 07:47:20 PM EST

    A public can't sue him for lying about them on anything that can be at its furthest stretch, called a matter of opinion, whihc has generally been the successful defense of libel suits brought by public figures.

    It's like saying "If I'm lying, shoot me." then hansing a guy a gun with no bullets.

    Nope, Moore's been roundly pounded for his looseness with the facts repeatedly, and not just by right-wingers. But no one's going to sue him and he knows it. Anymore than Bush could sue the guys claiming he was just like Hitler.

    What's worse, is that the fringe left of the Demos cost them the election and another term or Republican control of BOTH houses congress.

    Moore and his ilk did more to elect GWB than Karl Rove. And now I have to live with nutcase policies because the opposition hasn't got enough sense to ignore the fringe.


    ***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
    [ Parent ]

    How so? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Perpetual Newbie on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 10:06:19 PM EST

    What's worse, is that the fringe left of the Demos cost them the election and another term or Republican control of BOTH houses congress.

    I've seen that sentiment and I don't understand it at all. Usually I see MoveOn and Michael Moore cited, like in George Will's recent column, but I haven't seen anything MoveOn has done that could offend anybody other than being partisan Democrats. I've only seen Republicans say how grieviously offended they are by the group's existence. As for Moore, he's not even in the Democratic left. He's just leftist, and he attacks the Democrats too. I've personally pointed out more serious problems in Fahrenheit 911 than I've seen pointed out by his detractors. Most are upset that it was Moore who made it or that anything would dare criticize Fearless Leader, or they just reference the problems in Bowling. Then there's Howard Dean, the moderate pro-gun Democrat who is accused of being a leftist because he opposed waging one particular war under a particular set of circumstances. So what did this fringe do that was so offensive that it was more offensive than anything Bush's side did, like claiming that Democrats were going to ban the bible (straight from the RNC) or that the US was sure to be hit by a terrorist nuke if Kerry were elected (Cheney on the stump), or Bush's own fringe impugning Kerry's service?



    [ Parent ]
    Did you not see (none / 1) (#181)
    by jubal3 on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 11:53:59 AM EST

    the short film Move-On put on their web-site comparing Bush to Hitler, basically accusing the ENTIRE BUSH FAMILY of being Nazis?

    It wasnt a humor piece, it was agitprop.

    And claiming as some have that it wasn't a move-on MADE film is a weak-assed counter. Like Joe sixpack will believe that or CARE about such a subtle difference.

    I don't like Bush at all, I voted against him in to elections. But GOD DAMMIT he's a sitting president of the United States, and that kind of crap offends me.

    If it offended me, how the hell do you think people quite a lot to the right of my political sentiments reacted to it?

    In fact, the Republicans used that ad in their own campaign, essentially showing Kerry in bed with what the vast majority of Americans would consider anti-American far-left nutjobs.
    When the election is going to be decided in moderate-right states like Ohio by single digit percentiles, that's the kiss of death.

    Aside from the enormous problems the Kerry campaign had coming up with a message other than "Bush is bad, vote for me," this kind of thing makes reasonable people who don't see a hell of a lot of difference between the two candidates anyway move away from the fringe left.

    A mojority of the population is a LOT more comfortable with conservative policies than leftist policies, if they have to choose between the two.

    The Republicans successfully painted the Demos with this extremist crap because the Demos took $40 million in funding from Move-On (527 my ass).

    Moore also hurt the Demos, and his movie was such addle-pated lying crap, rankly, repudiating him would have been the right thing to do anyway. F-911 was not helpful to anyone, didn't tell any important truths, and served only to enrich Moore and get people who were ALREADY going to vote Kerry worked up. For the people in the middle, it just pissed them off.

    I have done a little informal polling among a lot of my rural friends. These people, who are mostly social liberals, ALL expressed disgust with the left over the war, not i over their opposition, but with the disgusting tactics. For those of us who remember Viet-Nam, one thing we sore was never again were we going to let the far-left spit in the faces of veterans and callthem baby killer. And this is precisely what my friends perceive the fringe doing. Their attitude was: "Idon't like Bush, but that other shit is disgusting. I'll be damned if I'll vote for the guy THOSE fuckers want to elect."

    I don't know when the Demos will figure out that America is fundamentally a much more conservatie place than Europe and always has been. You can't run way off to the left in the primaries and expect to get anywhere in the General election.

    To many people, rightly or wrongly, a vote for Kerry was a vote for the fuckers carrying banners saying "We support our troops when they shoot their officers."

    Kerry never repudiated these wackjobs and it cost him the election. His one chance was talking about how qualified he was and what a failure Bush was. But when people looked at the $87 bill. vote which he made in response to the Dean "cut and run" candidacy, it hurt his credibility badly. then take all the leftist wild-eyed crap and the vocal support of the Europeans, for whom middle America (The people who will decide the election) have nothing but contempt, it's the kiss of death.

    I'm not making this shit up, it's the kind of thing Bill CLinton has ben saying since the 1980s.

    You DONT win elections running to the left, including during the primaries. And lets face it, who the hell was voting FOR Kerry anyway? It was all against Bush, which doesn't generate the voter turnout that the Rs were able to get.

    What it all ads up to is a very vulnerable president with weak policies that bother a plurality of Americans winning because the Dems can't get their shit together AGAIN.

    You have to finesse liberal policies in the U.S. because most Americans don't like them.
    You do that by running to the center, by not allowing yourself to be painted as a leftist wacko and having better ideas. Kerry did none of these things and lost, as he richly deserved to.


    ***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
    [ Parent ]

    I see a long list of misconceptions (none / 0) (#194)
    by Perpetual Newbie on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 02:15:17 AM EST

    the short film Move-On put on their web-site comparing Bush to Hitler, basically accusing the ENTIRE BUSH FAMILY of being Nazis?

    Both his grandfathers were Nazis, or at least, they funded Hitler after the US had gone to war with Germany. Of course the sins of the father should not be passed on to the son, and Bush's father served honourably in the Pacific theater, but when Bush runs on "family values", he leaves his family's values open to inspection. Besides, if you're referring to what I think you're referring to, the film was one (actually two) of 1500 independent movies that MoveOn submitted for user review, and both were ranked near the bottom by MoveOn's voters before they removed it after receiving complaints.

    It wasnt a humor piece, it was agitprop.

    Well, yes, that's the point of political propaganda.

    And claiming as some have that it wasn't a move-on MADE film is a weak-assed counter.

    It's the truth. Yeah, what a weak-assed counter the truth is to a lie.

    Like Joe sixpack will believe that or CARE about such a subtle difference.

    On the one hand, you have MoveOn taking an independently-produced film and putting it on its web site for users to review without vetting its content, and on the other you have a claim that MoveOn intentionally produced and ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler (which Bush has done enough to merit anyway). That's about as subtle a difference as the difference between a kick in the nuts and a candy bar.

    I don't like Bush at all, I voted against him in to elections. But GOD DAMMIT he's a sitting president of the United States, and that kind of crap offends me.

    What the hell do you have to be offended about? In the United States people can tell the President to go to hell or say anything they want about him that isn't libelous. If this was the Soviet Socialist States of America, then maybe there would be some foundation for the someone would impugn the honour of your Dear Leader, but in the United States of America, there isn't. Shouldn't the kind of crap Bush pulls that makes a comparison of him to Hitler a valid comparison be offending you more?

    [ Parent ]

    Damned mouse misfire, continuing.. (none / 0) (#195)
    by Perpetual Newbie on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 03:37:48 AM EST

    If it offended me, how the hell do you think people quite a lot to the right of my political sentiments reacted to it?

    Given your stated desire to see the President as an unaffrontable King, I have trouble seeing anyone to the right of your political sentiments.

    In fact, the Republicans used that ad in their own campaign, essentially showing Kerry in bed with what the vast majority of Americans would consider anti-American far-left nutjobs.

    Well, the vast majority of MoveOn considered those ads to be unrepresentative of their viewpoints. So in other words, the Republicans were lying and the media let them get away with that.

    Aside from the enormous problems the Kerry campaign had coming up with a message other than "Bush is bad, vote for me,"

    Health Care for All Americans. It was only the signature note of his entire campaign. Pity you didn't pay enough attention to catch it.

    this kind of thing makes reasonable people who don't see a hell of a lot of difference between the two candidates anyway move away from the fringe left.

    The only way you could not see a hell of a lot of difference between these two candidates is to be blind and deaf. Kerry might be centrist for a Democrat, but Bush is so far off the scale that there hasn't been such a difference in candidates since Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams.

    A mojority of the population is a LOT more comfortable with conservative policies than leftist policies, if they have to choose between the two.

    In polls where the population is asked to choose actual policies and not political catchphrases, they tend to support the liberal-leftist policies over the conservative ones.

    The Republicans successfully painted the Demos with this extremist crap because the Demos took $40 million in funding from Move-On (527 my ass).

    You ever hear of the Islamic Institute? Took money from Hamas and Islamic Jihad and gave it straight to the Bush campaign. Mightn't be much of a deal except for the fact that the head of the Islamic Institute, Grover Norquist, was one of Bush's top advisors before Sep11 and remains one of the leaders of the Republican Party. As Jesus said: Mote in your eye, bitch. Also, the fact that you're upset at the number 527 shows how hard you've been hit by the Republican spin about 527s that they raised when people started condemning the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" for lying.

    Moore also hurt the Demos, and his movie was such addle-pated lying crap, rankly, repudiating him would have been the right thing to do anyway.

    I'm sorry, what part of F9/11 was false? The video footage of Bush sitting in the classroom? The picture of the FAA document showing records of flights leaving the country before commercial flights were allowed in the air again? The footage of the business meeting where corporate heads split up the war profits? Or are you upset at the notion that we should give our soldiers a damned good explanation of why they're fighting before we send them off to die? Did you even see the movie, or are you just channeling Rush Limbaugh and the like who describe the movie as "lies" without pointing out a single falsehood in the movie? There's plenty to criticise in F9/11 and I've done some criticising, but it's not nearly as loose with the facts as Bowling or the Bush administration's own movie "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis".

    I have done a little informal polling among a lot of my rural friends. These people, who are mostly social liberals, ALL expressed disgust with the left over the war, not i over their opposition, but with the disgusting tactics.

    And where is their disgust with the disgusting tactics used to promote the war and slander the opposition?

    For those of us who remember Viet-Nam, one thing we sore was never again were we going to let the far-left spit in the faces of veterans and call them baby killer.

    http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=180076 <-- and so they voted against the guy upset that "Veterans were spat upon, called baby-killers, our uniforms themselves targeted us for ridicule from those who could never understand our pain".

    I don't know when the Demos will figure out that America is fundamentally a much more conservatie place than Europe and always has been. You can't run way off to the left in the primaries and expect to get anywhere in the General election.

    Which is why the Democrats abandoned their leftist candidates Sharpton, Moseley-Braun, and Kucinich, and pushed for centrists like Kerry, Dean, and Edwards.

    To many people, rightly or wrongly, a vote for Kerry was a vote for the fuckers carrying banners saying "We support our troops when they shoot their officers."

    So to hell with what the candidates think and support, they're going to let their decision on who should be President ride on what a pair of fuckers in San Francisco say?

    Kerry never repudiated these wackjobs and it cost him the election.

    Kerry strongly and publicly condemned MoveOn for criticizing Bush, because he wanted the Democrats and all his supporters to run a positive campaign under the assumption that Bush would wallow in the reflection of his own negative attacks while Kerry would rise above it all. Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter tried the same thing, thinking that the American people would recognize they were being nice and honorable people. Kerry never attacked Bush until a couple weeks before the election, and then wouldn't dare find a solid target to hit him on because it might make him look nasty. That is what cost Kerry the election. To this day, Bush has never condemned the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for lying about Kerry's war record or for attacking Kerry, only for being a 527.

    But when people looked at the $87 bill. vote which he made in response to the Dean "cut and run" candidacy, it hurt his credibility badly.

    There were two different versions of the bill under consideration, and Kerry wanted a different version of the bill passed. This is the way Congress works. How does it hurt Kerry's credibility unless you're trying to find a way to turn it into something against Kerry?

    then take all the leftist wild-eyed crap and the vocal support of the Europeans, for whom middle America (The people who will decide the election) have nothing but contempt, it's the kiss of death.

    And how exactly did middle America come to have "nothing but contempt" for the Europeans? A hate campaign waged by the Bush administration with little in fact to back it up. France, for all that's been said about them, is the #2 contributor of military forces in Afghanistan and pledged 10,000 troops to assist in the invasion of Iraq if Iraq used chemical weapons. The war on terror was built upon French intelligence predating US work by a couple years.

    You DONT win elections running to the left, including during the primaries.

    Which is why the Democrats avoided the left and ran to the center.

    And lets face it, who the hell was voting FOR Kerry anyway?

    Yo, right here. Kerry's one of the few people in D.C. I've ever had any respect for.

    It was all against Bush, which doesn't generate the voter turnout that the Rs were able to get.

    When you have one candidate who is 50-50 good and bad, and another candidate who is ten million units of pure unadulterated evil with no redeeming qualities, priorities set in for some people. This did generate the voter turnout for Kerry, it just so happened that Bush generated a bigger turnout from people who honestly believe him when he claims he was chosen by God to lead the country. I'm sorry if your news sources are so corrupt that you haven't heard about anything bad Bush has done or about how his people in the administration and the media have been caught lying to you about every conceivable issue from nukes in Iraq down to the failure rate of condoms, but there are more than enough grievances to make "anybody but Bush" a legitimate choice.



    [ Parent ]
    You're misunderestimating her :P (2.50 / 6) (#53)
    by Kasreyn on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 09:47:50 PM EST

    If she's on a "reputable" (to most people, at least) channel like CNN, then she's not just stuck at the fascist table. She's bringing the fascist message to the nation at large. It's not being kept in the closet. The message is being sold. She gets more airtime than Moore, that makes her almost automatically more effective, and in my opinion, far more dangerous.

    Moore never calls for violent action, just fuzzy-headed activism based on overcooked facts (at least as far as I know). Coulter can't go three sentences without calling for the invasion, cultural annihilation, and forced religious conversion of an innocent sovereign nation. You tell me who's more "dangerous".


    "Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
    We never asked to be born in the first place."

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    [ Parent ]
    Obviously it's not her (1.25 / 4) (#62)
    by jubal3 on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 12:06:16 AM EST

    As wacked as she may be (more like a professional troll in her case) NOONE in a responsible position takes her even a little seriously.

    On the other hand, Moore, the guy who compaares the Jihadis who cut the heads off aid workers with the American Minute Men, gts a box seat at the Demo convention.

    I don't CARE if fascists get their message across. The MESSAGE is BS and really ISN'T going to fly in the U.S. And as I said, NO ONE is listening to Anne Coulter.

    Moore on the other hand, gets a hell of a lot mre play in theatres on the web, and the ENDLESS procession of people talking about his movie on TV.
    And unlike Coulter, his lies aren't clearly outrageous statements that anyone but the looney fringe would largely ignore or at most chuckle at.

    No, Moore dresses his disgusting lies up in a respectable, humanistic veneer. you aren't SUPPOSED to find out that he's a fucking liar.

    I hate them both about equally, but Moore is to me the far more influential, and therefore dangerous.


    ***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
    [ Parent ]

    You are a very angry person (none / 1) (#131)
    by Dr Gonzo on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 11:22:05 PM EST

    Have you considered therapy as an option?

    "I felt the warmth spread across my lap as her bladder let loose." - MichaelCrawford
    [ Parent ]

    Her message is out (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cro Magnon on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 09:30:27 AM EST

    but is anyone listening? I've only heard her once or twice, and I thought she was nuts. And I'm right-wing! If what I heard is typical of her, I doubt that she's anything but a laughingstock.
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    I have this fantasy (none / 0) (#97)
    by minerboy on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 07:08:12 AM EST

    Of a three way with Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin. mmmmmm



    [ Parent ]
    Now that's the kind of response I was looking for! (none / 0) (#100)
    by the scooter king on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 07:15:29 AM EST

    :}


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]

    -1; Trolled by Ann Coulter (2.46 / 15) (#41)
    by kamera on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 05:31:36 PM EST


    "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde

    Ann Coulter (1.40 / 5) (#45)
    by omegadan on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 07:12:44 PM EST

    Ann Coulter is a thug ... Even the neocons we seem to be overun with in the United States hate her. She is a terrible human being and I have personally considered ending her life quite a few times to serve the greater good.

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley

    Nahh.. (2.71 / 7) (#50)
    by Nyarlathotep on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 08:12:50 PM EST

    No one cares about Ann Coulter, unless they are looking for pictures of her naked:
    http://www.bongonews.com/layout3.php?event=999
    And no one will invade Canada any time soon.  Truth is most Americans will never notice anything Canada does.  Most could not point to France on a map, but they feal some vague displeasure in knowing that, if they did go there, no one would be speaking english.

    Now if you Canadians want to have some fun, declare Canada an atheist nation and generally start poopooing religion.  For example, you could add a section on Richard Dawkins theory of memetics, complete with the argument that religion IS a virus, in your public schools.  It won't get you invaded, but you'll get a lot more people like Coulter making the right look like fools.

    Jeff

    Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!

    Farfetched and silly (though accurate history) (1.00 / 7) (#51)
    by morewhine on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 09:04:55 PM EST

    Very militantly left-wing.  -1 for falling off a cliff, with the cliche that "you're going far beyond the bounds of reason, just like the opponent you are against."

    Just because I disagree with Ann Coulter (2.00 / 2) (#78)
    by the scooter king on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 04:52:57 AM EST

    Doesn't make me militant left wing.

    Following someone's line of reasoning to it's illogical conclusion is a form of satire.


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]

    It wasn't about your disagreement with her (none / 1) (#113)
    by morewhine on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 12:01:37 PM EST

    It was about the entire subject of your article, which is very militantly left-wing.  Of course the vast majority of people don't agree with Coulter, and most of them aren't militantly left-wing.  But you are, and you need to read a book entitled "The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics" to get a better understand of what I'm talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    As I've said elsewhere... (none / 0) (#135)
    by the scooter king on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 02:23:19 AM EST

    for a Canadian I'm pretty close to centrist.

    If you'd care to explain to me how my underlying thesis, that you shouldn't attack your allies because you might lose all of them, is militantly left wing, I'd be happy to hear it.

    By the way, how does this article contribute to tyranny, as seems to be the subject of that book?


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]

    Western US attacks Alberta. Roll two. (none / 1) (#52)
    by IHCOYC on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 09:26:55 PM EST

    I figure it's simple. The Greeks had their crack at conquering the world. The Italians had theirs. The Arabs had a go at it, and so did the Mongolians — you'd never have bet your money on the Mongolians, but they did a pretty good job. Then the French tried it. Then the British. Then the Germans.

    So why shouldn't it be our turn?
    --
    Ecce torpet probitas, virtus sepelitur;
    Fit iam parca largitas, parcitas largitur;
    Verum dicit falsitas; veritas mentitur.

    -1; Nationalistic Crap (2.80 / 10) (#54)
    by darklordseth on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 09:54:32 PM EST

    Ann Coulter is a real life troll. Plain and simple.

    She doesn't believe a word she says but as long as it gets the media's attention, it's all A-OK. And by writing articles like this, you're only making it worse for the rest of the world by giving the rabid bitch the attention she craves.

    Ann Coulter is the US version of Muhammed Saeed Al-Sahaf. Except Al-Sahaf lied his panties of for Saddam and Ann Coulter for her own gain. And Al-Sahaf was funnier, too...

    Exactly. Mad props. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Harvey Anderson on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 09:42:03 AM EST

    Every time I see her and think of her audience, visions of attention-mongering pseudo-lesbians in clubs dance through my head.

    [ Parent ]
    Personally, I found Ari Fleischer funnier... [nt] (none / 1) (#155)
    by israfil on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 12:52:50 PM EST


    i. - this sig provided by /dev/arandom and an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards.
    [ Parent ]
    Substantiation? (none / 0) (#191)
    by AME on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:31:18 PM EST

    She doesn't believe a word she says

    I'm not sure how you conclude this with so much certainty. Just because you disagree with someone's political philosophy doesn't mean that they must be lying.

    Ann Coulter certainly says some things because she thinks it a humorous spin on some point she's trying to make. But that's a long way from her actually being a liberal in real life who pretends to be a far-right conservative for raitings.

    It is possible to be a conservative and to actually beleive it. Really.

    So unless you can present some hard evidence of Ms. Coulter's habit of lying about what she really believes, then *you* are the real-life troll. Plain and simple.



    [ Parent ]

    Not a troll, dangerous. (none / 0) (#192)
    by TrickyNik on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 03:07:32 PM EST

    This woman should not be discounted as a simple troll. She is listened to by a large portion of this country, and many people agree with some of her assertions. Ann Coulter is dangerous. She talks this crazy stuff, but the sad thing is that people are actually listening. You have to realize that this is the true problem, she is preaching to her choir, people all across America. No one listens to a troll. As long as she is out there talking and people are listening and believing, America will continue to have idiots out there parroting her

    [ Parent ]
    congratulations, you have flunked an iq test (1.44 / 9) (#67)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 01:58:29 AM EST

    there is a difference between actually believing something and playing to an audience

    why do you think bill maher and anne coulter are friends? because alone, they are worthless, but played against each other, in a form of ideological street theatre where they act in stereotypical rolls, they get the emotions flowing of the idiots who fall for them, and therefore create a raison d' entre, a way to sell books and television time

    that they should be friends makes perfect sense: they both benefit, neither loses, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: bill maher incenses retarded right wingers, anne coulter incenses retarded left wingers... while in reality, both are completely useless for any other purpose, except entertainment for the retards

    are you familiar with the idea of creating lowest common denominator moronic entetainment in order to keep the masses occupied and therefore diverting their attention from real issues?

    welcome to your identity: suitably distracted retard from the left

    i mean this really is political theatre 101 here folks

    an intelligent liberal perceives what anne coulter is, figures out the best way to deal with her is to simply discard her from consideration since she is just a windbag distraction, and never gives her a second thought ever again

    only a genuinely low intelligence person finds her compelling, because her ideas are aimed at inflaming the emotions of the dullest of persons

    additionally a real right winger simply laughs at anne coulter: they know she is a joke, they see she is simply a pantomime of what they really believe

    so the only people who actually feel threatened by her are those who 1. are on the left, and 2. are of low intelligence

    she's not a threat, she's a silly scarecrow (and actually looks like one too, complete with straw for hair)

    so, in conclusion, you stupid fool:

    do you feel threatened by anne coulter?

    congratulations, you've just flunked an iq test

    ps: the real reason canada has nothing to worry about is because invading canada just isn't worth the bother, canada just doesn't matter (snicker)

    now if that comment makes you angry, consider your idiothood complete: knowing the difference between something that is a real threat and something that is a windbag joke is called intelligence, and your story suitably demonstrates only one thing- that you have none

    additionally, the same judgment of stupidity applies to everyone who votes this story up, i might add, because that seems to indicate that they find this story compelling... unless they are voting it up simply because they love to see retards freaking out and that is entertaining to them and they don't care if kuro5hin itself suffers for them letting retards like the author of this story taking over the joint

    have a nice day, morons


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    Do you honestly think I was serious.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by the scooter king on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 03:02:00 AM EST

    when I wrote this? YHBT HAND
    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]
    sounds like embarassed backpeddling (none / 1) (#72)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 03:41:44 AM EST

    if i saw a "humor" tag up top i might believe you

    but as it is, it's in the op ed, politics section


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    It was much more fun this way (nt) (none / 0) (#76)
    by the scooter king on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 04:01:45 AM EST


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]
    that's called... (1.50 / 2) (#81)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 05:13:18 AM EST

    justification after the fact

    i'm sure that if you smeared dog shit in your hair and people started laughing at you, you would turn around and try to save face by telling me that you smeared dog shit in your hair on purpose to make people laugh

    but what you don't know is that to say that makes you an even bigger imbecile (snicker)

    so please, tell us how you planned this fun all along, dear village idiot

    LOL


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    My dear Circle (none / 0) (#83)
    by the scooter king on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 05:39:39 AM EST

    Have you never heard of satire?


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]

    have you ever heard of the humor section? (none / 0) (#85)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 05:45:50 AM EST

    when i want to drive a car, i sit in a car

    when i want to ride a horse, i sit on a horse

    but i don't tell people i want to ride a horse, then go sit in a car

    so by not marking your story as humor, does that make you a retard on purpose, or by accident? (snicker)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know (none / 0) (#86)
    by the scooter king on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 05:57:36 AM EST

    Why are you one?
    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]
    very nice, village idiot! ;-) (1.00 / 3) (#87)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 05:59:34 AM EST

    "i know you are but what am i"

    the tried and true defense of 7 year olds everywhere!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Congratulations. You win. (none / 1) (#88)
    by the scooter king on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 06:01:01 AM EST

    Go and tell all your schoolchums.
    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]
    poor scooter (none / 0) (#89)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 06:03:39 AM EST

    just remember, i'm not evil, i'm mean

    it's a big bad world out there, and you need to toughen up


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    If you prick me, (3.00 / 2) (#91)
    by the scooter king on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 06:13:20 AM EST

    Do I not bleed?

    (sniff)


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]

    LOL (none / 0) (#95)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 06:43:34 AM EST

    ok dude, NOW you are in the humor business ;-)

    one love


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Unfair comparison to Bill Maher. (none / 1) (#71)
    by kamera on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 03:37:45 AM EST

    If Bill Maher is actually the Ann Coulter of the left, I'll take that as a compliment.

    If you have seen Maher's show, which I will assume you have because you know that he considers that "fascist party doll" his friend, his comments are serious, and often intelligent, wrapped up in satire. Sure, he's made an idiot out of himself on issues like religion and vaccinations. He's a true contrarian, and that gets the best of him sometimes. But, mostly he mediates surprisingly intelligent discussions compared to the rest of political commentary on TV.

    I personally think he's friends with Ann Coulter because he does pass the IQ test. He's smart enough to see Ann Coulter for what she really is, not what she presents in her public persona. Of course he can't say that on his show, thus giving away that it's all a sham, but he knows it.

    Anyway, if you can't see that Maher has some merit to many of his comments, you aren't listening close enough. The reverse is true for Coulter: if you can see merit in more than a few of her comments, you aren't listening close enough. Maher's arguments are often well reasoned, clever, humorous, and most importantly, candidly truthful. Partly the reason many right wingers hate him.

    "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]

    bill maher is playing a game (none / 0) (#73)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 03:52:04 AM EST

    it's called political theatre, and he is using and is being used by ann coulter just as much as the reverse: they both benefit... your pov seems to suggest he benefits while she does not... really?

    sure, he may actually be smarter than her in real life, but on the stage, because of the role each is playing, true intelligence is confined by entertainment value

    so to think that the purpose of his game is any nobler or somehow comes out ahead of her game simply reveals a bias on your part

    they are both buffoons, it's a big act meant to push buttons

    so enjoy your entertainment, but don't read into it much beyond a laugh, or you run the risk of painting yourself as easily duped

    note: i am not discounting the value of a good hearty laugh, i enjoy it as much as you do, but i AM discounting the value of seeing more in the diversion than there really is


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    its not just a game. (none / 0) (#77)
    by kamera on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 04:25:27 AM EST

    Serious political discourse does occur on his show. I watch it mostly for the laughs, but is there not a lot of truth in humor? I've long considered satire one of the greatest democratic institutions. Pointing out the absurdity in the political system may be hilarious, but it's also important. And quite frankly, our political system is currently plagued with absurdity.

    I think the primary distinction is that Maher is a satirist, Coulter is a troll. There really is a difference. And when he's not being satirical, he's usually entering into legitimate, and relatively intelligent, political discourse. He's not always playing a game.

    So thinking the right-wing troll is on equal par with the Left-wing satirist simply reveals the bias on your part.

    "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]

    how am i biased? (none / 0) (#79)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 05:07:38 AM EST

    you are the elevating one side over another... and i'm the one whose biased? how does that work?

    they are both entertainers, and a good laugh is a good laugh

    believe me, i don't like coulter in the least, but i know enough about bias to understand that one man's troll is another man's satirist

    if i ran into some right wing jerkoff who insisted coulter was a satirist and maher was a troll, i would look at him as simply the mirror image of you

    dude, wake up, balance in all things, neither a right wing nor left wing jerk off be

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you know what satire is? (none / 0) (#82)
    by kamera on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 05:19:59 AM EST

    No one would ever call Coulter a satirist, including herself. This isn't some terrorist/freedom fighter deal. They do two very distinct things. You are biased because you can't see that Maher employs reason in his arguments and actually believes them-- regardless of whether you agree with them. Coulter, on the other hand, does not do either. There is no way anyone who has seen his show would believe that he is simply baiting his guests all the time.

    But then again, I'm half expecting a YHBT after this post. If so, I'd have to admit, its a damn clever and ironic trolling.

    "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]

    it's not a yhbt (none / 1) (#84)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 05:40:58 AM EST

    let me parse what you just said:

    1. coulter- not a satirst
    maher- satirist

    2. coulter-does not employ reason
    maher-employs reason

    3. coulter- does not believe what she says
    maher- believes what he says

    you are right on 1, but 2 and 3 you are wrong

    i think your problem is that you see that humor can be used as a tool of enlightment, but that somehow, if you don't try to use humor, you must not be trying to enlighten people... that's a logical fallacy

    sure, maher might be trying to convince people of his pov with a velvet glove, and coulter tries to sway people with a plumber's wrench, and you can dis her on her choice of tool: blunt force trauma, and respect maher for his choice of weapons: a rapier wit

    but you haven't shown anything except that you not only have a left wing bias, but that you also have a bias on rhetorical tactics

    dude: either bias is not bad in and of themselves

    so: just admit to your bias! lol

    left over right, cool humor over snarling intimdation... who's going to tell you are wrong for making those judgments?

    so just admit you have a bias, and move on, it's not that big a deal, unless you continue to insist that you are not biased

    no, you can't say that, and when you try to do that, that's when you lose

    so just stop saying you are not biased, recognize you are, and be proud of it

    but you ARE biased... really

    and this is such a silly discussion we are having: it's political theatre, and you lose when you take it too seriously

    i don't take maher or coulter seriously, but i do take seriously the fact that you think you can have it both ways

    no: you can't insist you are unbiased when you obviously are

    but there's no shame in admitting that, so just sing your mea culpa and move on

    jeez ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    ...this is hopeless. (none / 0) (#92)
    by kamera on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 06:18:21 AM EST

    This isn't about bias; I am fully aware that anyone with an opinions and values is biased. But its not because of my liberal/libertarian bias that I raise Maher up over Coulter, or find any merit in his arguments.

    But, you probably haven't watched the show, because 2 and 3 are true. Maher is serious most of the time. He's not always joking. Here is an example: MAHER: I think everyone knows the story. And it struck me that Ashlee Simpson is a lot like George Bush--[laughter]--because she wouldn't even-- COULTER: [overlapping] I'm dying to hear this. MAHER: [overlapping]--really be in the big leagues if it wasn't for family connections, and she's in way over her head. [applause] And she doesn't know what to do. And she blamed her band. So I'm just wondering if it struck you the same way. COULTER: I think John Kerry is the one who is in the position he's in because of family connections. It just happens to be his rich wife. MAHER: Oh, come on. BELZER: He was a Senator before he met his wife. COULTER: It's certainly more true than Bush. [audience reacts in disbelief] MAHER: But John Kerry married Teresa Heinz Kerry after he was a Senator, after he had established himself. [applause] COULTER: He also funded his campaign with her money. BELZER: Wow. MAHER: Okay, all right. COULTER: That's a fact. I don't think its an unfair bias to say that Bush owes a lot more to his family status than Kerry. It damn near unreasonable to claim that Kerry is simply a prominent senator because of his family. Her comments are absurd; his comments are reasonable. And I say that as a fan of neither Kerry or Bush. Also, if you look closely, Maher doesn't fall for her obvious trolling by moving on, eventhough the crowd falls for it. All rhetorical stylings aside, Maher's content is far superior and accurate. That's what I'm judging him on.

    i think your problem is that you see that humor can be used as a tool of enlightment, but that somehow, if you don't try to use humor, you must not be trying to enlighten people... that's a logical fallacy What? When talking about humour, my point was that it was an essential part of satire that Coulter lacks. This was to reinforce my distinction between Coulter being a troll and Maher a satirist. I continually pointed to Maher's being reasonable in his comments when he wasn't joking.

    I do not,however, see trolling as a potent tool for enlightenment. It's sole intention is to get a laugh by bringing down the conversation to the lowest level possible. I'm not quite sure how you could think that I thought that the only way to enlighten someone is through humor. That is a giant twist from what I actually was claiming. Even Coulter would have trouble holding a crazy position like that, so why would I as serious individual?

    Trolling and satire are two different things. There is little to no value in trolling, but much can come out of satire. This doesn't mean that every satirist is somehow a shining beam of enlightenment. (I point to Jeneane Garofolo and to a slightly lesser extent, Al Franken) But, a politician is a more honorable profession than than trolling, yet some politicians are smucks and others are meritorious.

    "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]

    last comment reformatted. (none / 0) (#93)
    by kamera on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 06:20:03 AM EST

    This isn't about bias; I am fully aware that anyone with an opinions and values is biased. But its not because of my liberal/libertarian bias that I raise Maher up over Coulter, or find any merit in his arguments.

    But, you probably haven't watched the show, because 2 and 3 are true. Maher is serious most of the time. He's not always joking. Here is an example: MAHER: I think everyone knows the story. And it struck me that Ashlee Simpson is a lot like George Bush--[laughter]--because she wouldn't even--

    COULTER: [overlapping] I'm dying to hear this.

    MAHER: [overlapping]--really be in the big leagues if it wasn't for family connections, and she's in way over her head. [applause] And she doesn't know what to do. And she blamed her band. So I'm just wondering if it struck you the same way.

    COULTER: I think John Kerry is the one who is in the position he's in because of family connections. It just happens to be his rich wife.

    MAHER: Oh, come on.

    BELZER: He was a Senator before he met his wife.

    COULTER: It's certainly more true than Bush. [audience reacts in disbelief]

    MAHER: But John Kerry married Teresa Heinz Kerry after he was a Senator, after he had established himself. [applause]

    COULTER: He also funded his campaign with her money.

    BELZER: Wow.

    MAHER: Okay, all right.

    COULTER: That's a fact.

    I don't think its an unfair bias to say that Bush owes a lot more to his family status than Kerry. It damn near unreasonable to claim that Kerry is simply a prominent senator because of his family. Her comments are absurd; his comments are reasonable. And I say that as a fan of neither Kerry or Bush. Also, if you look closely, Maher doesn't fall for her obvious trolling by moving on, eventhough the crowd falls for it. All rhetorical stylings aside, Maher's content is far superior and accurate. That's what I'm judging him on.

    i think your problem is that you see that humor can be used as a tool of enlightment, but that somehow, if you don't try to use humor, you must not be trying to enlighten people... that's a logical fallacy

    What? When talking about humour, my point was that it was an essential part of satire that Coulter lacks. This was to reinforce my distinction between Coulter being a troll and Maher a satirist. I continually pointed to Maher's being reasonable in his comments when he wasn't joking.

    I do not,however, see trolling as a potent tool for enlightenment. It's sole intention is to get a laugh by bringing down the conversation to the lowest level possible. I'm not quite sure how you could think that I thought that the only way to enlighten someone is through humor. That is a giant twist from what I actually was claiming. Even Coulter would have trouble holding a crazy position like that, so why would I as serious individual?

    Trolling and satire are two different things. There is little to no value in trolling, but much can come out of satire. This doesn't mean that every satirist is somehow a shining beam of enlightenment. (I point to Jeneane Garofolo and to a slightly lesser extent, Al Franken) But, a politician is a more honorable profession than than trolling, yet some politicians are smucks and others are meritorious.

    "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]

    oh my god man (none / 0) (#96)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 06:52:59 AM EST

    blunt force trauma versus rapier wit

    left versus right

    we understand these concepts very well, thank you for the object lesson anyways ;-P

    meanwhile, you have done nothing but reinforce my points: you have a bias for maher's rhetorical method, and a bias for his ideology

    neither is bad thing!

    but you can't go on with these biases and also state that you have no bias

    are we clear on that point?

    i don't like rush limbaugh

    but neither do i like al franken

    because i don't like ideological whores, on either side of the spectrum

    meanwhile, you like the ideological whores from the left, and you don't like the ideological whores from the right, we understand that, you've made that very clear

    but if you attempt to paint your left-leaning preference for the lefty whores as somehow virtuous in and of itself, you lose

    just admit you are left-leaning, and stop trying to argue that your position is not a bias- you lose nothing by doing that, but you certainly lose if you think you have no bias

    neither the left nor the right enjoy a monopoly on virtue, and neither enjoy a monopoly on sleeze either

    get it right


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I had already admitted my bias. (none / 0) (#98)
    by kamera on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 07:10:38 AM EST

    But again, bias isn't the only important thing in discussion. If you reduce everything to bias, the discourse becomes pointless. If someone on the left says, it would be good for america to invade canada, mexico and, France because it would help our economy, and the someone on the right says, no that it would actually hurt the economy, it's not biased to look at the evidence and see that the Right is almost correct on this. It would almost certaintly hurt our economy as well as much more.

    There is a difference between being reasonable and unreasonable. And I have decided to put you in the latter category with Ann. Go ahead, call my bias towards reason in dicussion.

    Plus, you seem not to either read or bother to understand what I am saying. And I assume that holds true for when you watched Bill Maher.

    Have the last word, but I'm done.

    "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]

    ok, i'll have the last word then (none / 1) (#102)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 08:08:44 AM EST

    if the left said something dumb, while the right said something smart, as in your little example, then obviously the right would be correct, and visa versa

    however, common sense weeds out all of the bullshit trivial examples like yours, so your illustration is pointless: your little example never happens in real life, because we are not talking about obvious choices on issues, we are talking about complex issues that the left and right diverge on that can be argued extensively to no certain conclusion, with reasonable arguments from both sides

    and those are the only issues that matter, and the only issues that the left and right talk about, because they are the only issues of importance that a big difference exists on that makes it worthwhile to talk about... all other issues cease to be issues about which the left and right disagree on, or even talk about

    issues like abortion, iraq, gay marriage, capital punishment, gun control, the war on drugs, etc... reason has nothing to do with these subjects, mostly deeply rooted assumptions of human nature do, but since these feelings are so deeply rooted, they feel like reason to the contestants on either end of the ideological spectrum, when they really are not

    thus your insistence on your "bias towards reason" when all that is really happening is that your definition of "reason" doesn't hold water... life isn't static: in life, complex issues with massive implications can have radically different interpretations, none of which is actually "reasonable" compared to the next, because some things about human nature are not written in stone, they are instead emergent phenomenona based on the cooperative or uncooperative behavior of different human beings

    and the perception of "the best thing to do" actually effects the outcome more than any mythological "best thing to do" that exists in some sort of vacuum of human behavior, as if human beings were not actors who didn't change their behavior because of the behavior of others

    thus the right is not correct, nor is the left correct, on any of the issues that the left and right talk to each other about... instead, whoever holds sway usually dictates the outcome, and that outcome of course feeds back into the argument about whether or not that was the best thing to do: "i told you so! that was the best course of action to take from the beginning!"

    bullshit: taking that course of action effected the outcome so that it appeared to be correct all along, when this is really nothing more than hindsight seeing decisions as utterly wrong or utterly right, when at the actual time of the choice, everything was fuzzy, the outcome unclear, no matter how much time someone sat down and thought or talked about something

    you might be one of those brittle souls who thinks certain things about human behavior are written in stone when they are not... the scariest thing about life is how much of it is really uncertain, and how much our perception of what is real actually makes something real or not

    so you do not have "reason" on your side, you have self-fulfilling prophecy about your beliefs... just as those on the right do

    and thus we have the struggle that defines our existence, and always defined human existence, and always will

    and then it's funny that you say i can't understand you, when it is obviously you who is willfully blind to the point i am making clearly and from different directions across a number of posts in this thread... i understand you completely, it is you who are blind to what i am saying

    but, as a centrist, i would expect a kiss off from a committed left or right-leaning person such as yourself in the end

    toodles


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    you assume way too much. (none / 0) (#124)
    by kamera on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 06:27:14 PM EST

    ugh... you brought me back in.

    I'm and neither committed to the left or right and never have been. I am equally critical of both sides and hold views from each side. Anyway, calling yourself centrist is as vague a label as left and right. As vague as those labels are, they can be useful in giving a general view of where someone stands politically. But to read too far into them is assuming way too much, especially when dealing with a soul like me.

    Reason itself is not self-sufficient in the realm of politics or in any realm for that matter. Unless it is a priori, reason relies on either induction or values. If I hold an ideal or value, then reason becomes important in seeing its fruition. I can hold values, say democratic ideals of freedom, choice, and participation, and invade an unwilling Middle Eastern country and lessen the approximation of those ideals around the world. Thus, regardless of my bias towards these values, I fucked up.

    Now, courses of action are largely determined by who is in charge, but the outcome isn't simply a power game. Science, hard or social, is a field of prediction. There is no certainty in the future. When Bush decides to invade Iraq with the stated goals of removing wmd's, a haven for terrorism, and bring democracy within a year. I can look at the situation and use my predictive capabilities based on the evidence and other case studies to say that none of that has much of a chance of working out. Thus, my prediction would be mostly accurate, even if I held the same ideals and goals of the President. (at least the democracy thing is looking that way).

    So of course it takes hindsight to see whether somethign is right or wrong, that's the whole deal with prediction and science. Sure, the winner writes the history book and revisionist history counters that, but interpretations of events can be more or less accurate. If we never find WMD's, or see a democracy within the next 50 years in Iraq, no respectable historian would argue to the contrary. And if they did, they would be almost certaintly wrong and not worth much consideration.

    Reason is on everyone's side if they choose to employ it. No matter the ideal, reason helps bring it fruition. That does not mean that everyone employs it or does so correctly. Ann Coulter purposely ignores reason and instead riles up emotions; Maher actually employs reason in his arguments regardless of whether his smug, arrogant nature pisses people off.

    I'm aware of the uncertainty in everything. Anything I do is a prediction or an interpretation. But to discredit my prediction or interpretation entirely becuase it is slightly off, even the best preditictions are, just inhibits discussion and action. Let's not let our uncertainty cripple us. We know its there; like the stock market, account for uncertainty when taking action, but still act.

    "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]

    One problem.. (none / 1) (#172)
    by Kwil on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 09:26:01 PM EST

    ..it seems they don't bar the retards from voting.

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


    [ Parent ]
    -1 YHBT HAND. (2.14 / 7) (#69)
    by Wallas A Hockpock on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 02:35:53 AM EST

      I am to the right of Attila the Hun. If I see Ann Coulter on TV I change the channel. The skanky ho is over the top. No serious conservative considers her worth listening to or reading. She is a fucking truthless gas bag of a troll. She is so over the top she makes homophobes like Pat Buchanan look sane and I wouldn't watch his fat fascist ass either.

      Your reaction to Coulter deserves a YHBT HAND from her.

      A huge number of US citizens would leave for Canada the second anyone threatened to attack you, even the USA. Plenty of them are conservatives like me. I would be one of them. Do you have any idea of the actual number of Canadians living in the US? My Fed Ex guy is Canadian. My girl friend in high school was Canadian. There are Canadians living all over here. If you haven't noticed regardless of WTF our governments do we seem to get along pretty well as people.

    (3) Do you know about The North American Missle command? Thats those guys with the nukes. Did you know that it is lead by US and Canadans military guys. Yes in a pure sense the Canadians don't have nukes. They don't need them they can borrow them if they need them. Any attack on the US or Canada is considered an attack on both. It's by treaty. Quit listening to knuckle heads.

    You need to relax and ignore the popular press and TV. You have got so full of some lefty anti-us crap you have forgot who your closest friend really is. It's the US.

    Dude, chill. (none / 1) (#75)
    by the scooter king on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 03:59:15 AM EST

    I'm not as think as you rabid I am.

    I have a pretty good idea of how many Canadians live in the US, as people I know living there include family, high school friends, and being a comedian, a number of current and former collegues.

    Tucker Carlson (he was on the second part of that video) and Ms. Coulter notwithstanding, I get along fine with Americans. And I'm well aware of the treaties involved.

    If the schoolyard bully continues to make threats that he knows he can't carry out, and the threatee knows it, and everyone else knows it, then he ceases being a credible bully and becomes merely a blowhard.

    Nightcrawlers can't stand the light of day, but will cheerfully burrow through the earth all night long. Yank them out into the sunlight and they wither and die. Usually they're beneficial to the earth, but every now and then they'll throw up a mound of bullshit that can get huge if left unchecked.

    Then you need a power rake.

    BTW, for a Canadian, I'm pretty centrist.


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]

    "I'm not as think as you rabid I am." (2.00 / 2) (#128)
    by BJH on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 08:35:51 PM EST

    Yoda confused very you are?
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]
    -1, somehow us-centric .. and confused /nt (2.33 / 3) (#80)
    by dasnake on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 05:08:38 AM EST


    Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
    mi ritrovai per un selva oscura
    che` la dritta via era smarrita.
    Dante, Divina Commedia, Inferno, I, 1
    "The Wisdom of Ann Coulter" (link) (3.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Markusd on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 07:12:12 AM EST

    The Wisdom of Ann Coulter

    heh (none / 0) (#101)
    by karb on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 07:19:02 AM EST

    You elected your Ann Coulter.
    --
    Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
    Man's got a point (none / 1) (#153)
    by israfil on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 12:39:36 PM EST

    ... the tendancy of several Canadian politicians to spout anti-american vitriol is rather disturbing, speaking as a Canadian.  It scarcely excuses Ms. Coulter, however, either from her anti-Canadian vitriol, nor from her anti-intellectual, lowest-common-denominator pandering to the worst traits of human psyche in efforts to score political points against her bogeyman "the left."  

    Funny, I always thought it was the meek that Jesus said would inherit the earth, not the arrogant and the smug.  Could just be my translation... <sigh>
    -
    i. - this sig provided by /dev/arandom and an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards.
    [ Parent ]

    hi get a life (1.06 / 16) (#132)
    by Your Moms Cock on Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 11:50:37 PM EST

    -1 dump it


    --
    Mountain Dew cans. Cat hair. Comic book posters. Living with the folks. Are these our future leaders, our intellectual supermen?

    Rest of the world, please ignore them. (3.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Bob Finklestein on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:58:56 AM EST

    I use a few choice words to describe Ann Coulter, but none of them are appropriate for a public forum. That video started out funny, and quickly turned my stomach. The arrogance that the United States "allows" Canada to exist boggles my mind. As an American, I am appalled that this is the way we are broadcast to the rest of the world. To hear Ann Coulter say things like that doesn't surprise me, I can't even look at her face without wanting to spit. But Tucker Carlson, a person who I can watch on TV and whose opinion I can at least respect, if not always (or barely ever) agree with, to say those things that border on racism (most Canadians dogsled all day? Give me a break.) was surprising and even more sickening. I really hope that people worldwide realize that Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, and the rest of them don't speak for all of us. (And, as a blue-stater, both in my home state and my school's state, I was deeply offended when Coulter called us the "worst of Americans".)

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptainZapp on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:44:10 AM EST

    For what it's worth:

    The rest of the world thinks that Ms. Coulter is a pee brained, annorexic, blonde bimbo.

    Even though there seems a trend to rah!rah! "patriotism" since the "war on terror" started we are fully aware that not all of you voted for Bush, listen to Rush Limbaugh like he's the Messiah, or hang onto every word of pee brained, annorexic, blonde bimbos.

    [ Parent ]

    Pin-up (3.00 / 6) (#137)
    by jotango on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:19:07 AM EST

    Speaking from a foreign country: Isn't Ann Coulter a conservative Barbie doll? I really liked some of the pictures on her website:

    sophisticated ann

    trailer trash ann

    career ann

    and my favourite:

    travelling ann in Berlin!

    no way... (none / 1) (#169)
    by Run4YourLives on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:16:35 PM EST

    barbies are smarter.

    I'm talking the actual little bits of plastic here.

    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
    [ Parent ]

    What is this crap... (1.08 / 12) (#139)
    by VandalMan on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 07:05:12 AM EST

    Truth is America could take your weak ass country anytime they wanted to. What is this, some kind of threat? America is the most powerful country in the world. The rest of the world knows it. You might get the help of another country maybe two. Most would not be foolish enough to face our might and vengeance. We don't take Canada because America is a moral decent country.

    Just because we could swat you like a fly doesn't mean we want to or will. If we wanted to we would. Truth is, you should be thankful to have America as an allie. You don't do shit for us. Don't piss us off. You should be thankful to share this continent with us.

    Come on kid, do you think France, notoriously stupid and cowardly would go to war with the most powerful military ever just because the white house changed the name of their fries? I don't think so, you are so damn delusional. Not to many countries are ready to jump at the chance to start dropping nukes, cause if its a war with nukes, US would still when.

    SAD BUT TRUE! - VandalMan

    Why do you hate our freedom? (nt) (none / 1) (#140)
    by the scooter king on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 07:57:15 AM EST


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]
    You're the one... (none / 1) (#142)
    by VandalMan on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:29:52 AM EST

    Who hates freedom. Or completly lack respect for it.

    SAD BUT TRUE! - VandalMan
    [ Parent ]
    We'resosorrymrunclesam (none / 0) (#144)
    by the scooter king on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:39:13 AM EST

    wepromisenottohatefreedomagainjustdontkillus
    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]
    We don't hate your freedom (none / 0) (#182)
    by rodentboy on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 01:55:31 PM EST

    You don't have any freedom left for anyone to hate.



    [ Parent ]
    More cognizant answer (none / 1) (#143)
    by the scooter king on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:35:57 AM EST

    After my flippant response to this previously (and with appologies to The Black Ness Monster) I thought you deserved better than that.

    I am not, in any way, suggesting the US couldn't just roll right over us. You have the power to stomp the crap out of any one of ninety percent of the world's nations without breaking a sweat, using just your regular, volunteer army.

    The thing is, your regular, volunteer army is bogged down right now in a quagmire liberation effort on the other side of the world. So's your national guard.

    As for Canada not doing shit for you, who's currently with you in Afghanistan as peacekeepers? (Even after an American pilot accidentally dropped bombs on them during a training exercise, killing 4, and watching your hockey and basketball fans booing our national anthem 3 times in the next week.) Who's sending 500 (ie half) of the thousand or so election observers to Ukraine? (hint: it ain't Poland)

    Listen. You are powerful. But there's only one of you. If a crowd of Grade Ones decides to take down a Grade Five, eventually they'll probably succeed. And if you think that anyone can "win" a nuclear war, then 50 years of history must be lost on you.

    And no, this is not a threat. There's really no way we could threaten you, short of calling home all of our entertainers in your employ. What this is is us askin', would it kill you to be nice?


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]

    Yep, best troll since ages. (none / 0) (#146)
    by triptolemeus on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 09:38:46 AM EST

    Thanks for this one, for a short moment I even fell for it. Good work! 10 Points.

    [ Parent ]
    im sorry (1.33 / 3) (#150)
    by VandalMan on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 11:55:52 AM EST

    I do not except your come on, I don't want to be part of your wankfest. go fuck yourself or a fellow k5 nerd, try rusty on for sise, i hear he is tight.

    You fell for it because you are stupid, not because i am particularly skilled. Ask anyone.

    SAD BUT TRUE! - VandalMan
    [ Parent ]

    moralizing != moral (n/t) (none / 0) (#154)
    by smithmc on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 12:50:36 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Keep this in mind (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cro Magnon on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 09:41:15 AM EST

    In WW2, Germany was kicking Russia's butt. Then winter started, the German equipment (and the Germans themselves) froze, and the Russians kicked their butts. Canada, like Russia, is too cold to conquer.
    Information wants to be beer.
    You're oversimplifying (none / 0) (#152)
    by skim123 on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 12:36:27 PM EST

    Germany was ill-prepared for the cold, as they expected the Eastern front battles to be wrapped up prior to the cold weather. Also, that year's particular winter was one of the coldest in the history of Mother Russia. Finally, the technology used back then was, well, technology that's 75 years out of date, now! For example, they didn't have gortex back then.

    Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
    PT Barnum


    [ Parent ]
    haha... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Run4YourLives on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:14:30 PM EST

    that reminds me of this time when I was stationed in Calgary, (1 PPCLI) and we worked with the 101st airborne from Kentucky.

    They called the exercise at -30 C because it was too cold for them...It was considered dangerous.

    We thought it was routine.

    Just sayin' that's all.

    BTW, gortex doesn't do dick past -10 C. It certainly doens't provide warmth, ever.

    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
    [ Parent ]

    Please help us (none / 0) (#149)
    by mike3k on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 10:09:04 AM EST

    Please Canada, help liberate the U.S. from our Christian Taliban occupiers.

    Missing link (none / 1) (#156)
    by CYwolf on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 01:07:16 PM EST

    Okay, so this plan might be a little out of date, but it's got to be more than they had going into Iraq.

    American Invasion Plan of Canada: Wow, cool (none / 0) (#158)
    by Gord ca on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 02:39:07 PM EST

    I've heard of this document, but I've never read it. I don't live in Halifax, but what's apparently the 'Ontario Peninsula'. I didn't know I lived on a peninsula! Oh wait, I do. Kinda. The land:water ratio is a little messed up for a peninsula.

    While the report doesn't mention it, I'm sure somebody appreciated the futility of the document: If the US tried to invade Canada, manoevering Canadian territory would be the least of its problems.

    And I disagree with your snide comments on Iraq: It appears to me that the invasion went well militarily, very well planned. It's the 'hearts and minds' objective that's been a dismal failure. Subsequently the occupation hasn't gone well.

    If I'm attacking your idea, it's probably because I like it
    [ Parent ]

    You're right (none / 0) (#162)
    by CYwolf on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:47:34 PM EST

    My Iraq comment was inaccurate. What really bothers me about the whole thing is that they had a complete post-war plan and decided to ignore it. Well, that and their fabricated justifications for starting the war in the first place.

    I'm in Ottawa, probably also a part of this so-called Ontario Peninsula. I suspect it's a more strategic target now than it was in 1935.

    I think I've figured out the purpose of the gun registry: it's a short-list for draftees!

    [ Parent ]

    Invading Canada (none / 0) (#184)
    by tlewis615 on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 07:41:44 PM EST

    Seriously, this document was probably a response to some tension between Great Britain and the US in the 1920's over naval supremacy. Both nations were in an arms race, building dreadnought battleships at break neck speed. It threatened to bankrupt the UK and it was ended by the Washington Naval Treaty. For a while though people thought there might be an Anglo-American naval war in th Atlantic.

    [ Parent ]
    It isn't just size (none / 0) (#161)
    by jolly st nick on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 03:41:33 PM EST

    it's distribution.

    You might have guessed that holding territory has something to do with size. You can't be everywhere, and Iraq is comparatively tiny. It's still not that easy there, is it? It was pretty hard to find Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan too, eh? Most of our country is like that.

    Well, what if we concentrated on region within 100 miles of the US border? We'd get Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Calgary. If we stretched a bit we could get Edmonton. That would be a goodly fraction of the population.

    Alternatively, we could ignore the population and go for resources and geopolitical clout. Basically grab Alberta, the maritmes, BC, and the entire Canadian Arctic. Leave the major population centers independent but landlocked and resource poor.

    This is why (none / 0) (#187)
    by levesque on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 11:11:34 AM EST

    there are terrorists.

    You can't just "occupy" and expect people to happily convert to being your economic collateral zombies.



    [ Parent ]

    Imperialism in a media age isn't for wussies (none / 1) (#188)
    by jolly st nick on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 11:32:06 AM EST

    Where being a wuss is defined as having either:
    (1) a vestigal sense of moral conscience
     or
    (2) a rudimentary capacity for compassion.

    People who have either and toy with the idea of being an imperial power are fools.

    [ Parent ]

    There is a difference.... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Cervantes on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:55:02 PM EST

    There is a big difference.

    In Iraq, there is the core resistance, plus some people who think that the US presence is either good or inevitable.

    In Canada, every man, woman and child who could pick up a rock would be fighting. We may have a small military, but we have wide open spaces, inhospitable weather, and a fiercly proud people. It'd be Germany  vs Russia all over again... right down to "1 gun for every 2 people". :)


    Except that the vast majority of you (none / 0) (#165)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:37:05 PM EST

    live along the border with the US.

    You could never resist us. We'd just march up there and steal your, er, cheap pharmacuticals! Yeah, that's it. We'll teach you to medicate our seniors. Ha!

    A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it is insane. - Obscure Chinese Proverb
    [ Parent ]

    Pfah.. (none / 1) (#173)
    by Kwil on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 09:33:42 PM EST

    ..I've said it before and I'll say it again.

    American forces would fall within days to the twin attacks of decent beer and boobs on free TV.

    About the only thing an invasion would accomplish is increasing our population when your guys realized what we've got up here.

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


    [ Parent ]
    Wait wait wait... (none / 1) (#174)
    by djp928 on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 09:58:41 PM EST

    Boobs on free TV? I don't pay extra for boobs? We're talking over-the-air boobs here?

    Maybe I've been too harsh on you Canadians...

    -- Dave

    [ Parent ]

    Yep. Even on Public Television (none / 1) (#178)
    by the scooter king on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 11:36:18 PM EST

    On the CBC, on plenty of local Channels...

    If you're ever in Toronto on a Friday night there's 'Baby Blue Movies' on CityTV. Softcore. Been doing that since the 70's


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]

    Bad assumptions. (none / 0) (#177)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 11:29:39 PM EST

    1. Most Americans wouldn't know good beer if you poured on their heads.
    2. We're planning to let women join our combat units any day now - so while your boobs on free TV might distract our manly American studs, they will only serve to enrage our bezerker hordes of feminazis.


    A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it is insane. - Obscure Chinese Proverb
    [ Parent ]
    That's amazing. (none / 1) (#166)
    by J T MacLeod on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:50:09 PM EST

    Did it hurt when you had your sense of humor removed?  

    Brilliant! (none / 0) (#167)
    by qu1j0t3 on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 06:51:40 PM EST

    I love it. Ann doesn't deserve such a well reasoned response. A good bitchslapping and a long spell of unemployment is better than she deserves.

    Re: Brilliant (none / 0) (#185)
    by rpresser on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 10:49:00 AM EST

    Preferably, a long spell of unemployment spent without a working liver or health insurance.  With bamboo shoots jammed under her toenails. Yeah.
    ------------
    "In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
    [ Parent ]
    How you could do this story.. (none / 1) (#175)
    by Kwil on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 10:00:59 PM EST

    ..without this link is beyond me.

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


    Shh!!! It's a secret! (nt) (none / 0) (#179)
    by the scooter king on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 01:07:09 AM EST


    The secret is not to try and bend the .sig. The secret is that there is no .sig.
    [ Parent ]
    America would never win (none / 1) (#180)
    by nanobug on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 04:16:56 AM EST

    We may be Jesusland, but Canada has God (Alanis Morrisette) on their side.


    Instead of starting a war... (none / 0) (#189)
    by fsk on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 01:33:41 PM EST

    If we (the Americans) can get her over to your side of the border would be willing to make sure she doesn't come back?

    -----
    When punk rock is outlawed, only outlaws will have punk rock.

    Oh right, invade Canada ... (none / 0) (#196)
    by EphraimT on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 03:05:11 AM EST

    ... yes sirree Bob! Whee-haw! Whoop ass on caribou, mosquitos and frogs (the hopping kind)! Hell, most Canadians are so laid back they'd not even look up from their curling to notice that out troops were dying of boredom. Sure, sure, sure - talk about your quagmire! It would take twenty years to figure out that there was no insurrection brewing in secret, but that all of Saskatchewan really was asleep. Quebec? That would be the trouble spot what with everybody getting all pissy about our lousy french and bitch slapping their poodles in frustration and such. Yeah, right ... invade Canada! HA!

    The United States flag is on the Moon ... (none / 0) (#197)
    by k24anson on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 11:33:08 AM EST

    ... and some right-wingers would dare boast that we could, should we choose to do so, put another star on Old Glory to declare to Canadians and the world that we "own" it. (Think of myself giving Ann standing there next to me a kiss on her forehead and putting an arm around her shoulder after saying that last sentence, and now turning back to this here audience and to continue speaking.)
    Maybe though we should just design another flag to fly beside The Stars and Stripes, this second flag to picture how some people in the world do things that make a nation proud and safer for tomorrow. You know, some people do things that other, future generations will read about and say, "Those guys were cool." And everyone tomorrow just forget whatever the Canadian flag looked like back then, or even how it looks today ..., ok? The Canadian flag doesn't really represent anything significant, or anything important except maybe the passive and mediocre mind set of the majority of people there.

    The generation of liberals today, the scooter king included, will associate and collaborate, identify with the nobodies in their midst. Five hundred years from today no one reads about or benefits from these past lives, the demeanors of mediocrity and passivity. They drifted, floated, wandered all through life without a sense of direction, purpose or real meaning in life. Future generations in the Middle East will thank SOME OF US for what we're doing, and are going to do worse (maybe ...) over there. And the "I Hate Bush" losers of history will be written about as the weak and ineffectual individuals found throughout all of history.

    Half the population of the United States after 9/11 have a mentality that wants to punk and puss out in efforts to a looming lethal threat. Their words and actions are self-destructive, and they would end up getting themselves killed and the nation, culture destroyed in time if George Bush et al. types didn't take the steering wheel in hand. So many people are such saps and suckers they cannot identify much less take the appropriate course of actions to a lethal threat. For the educational systems of the Western world to have so many people with a "normal" suicidal frame of mind to what should be obvious leaves me to put the blame for it all on the educational system itself. You know, like more bowling courses at Columbine, please! We need even more boys to grow up with the mentality of sissies as they walk around as adults in the world.
    KLH
    NYC

    Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.

    I'm glad to see the clowns have left the stage (none / 0) (#198)
    by k24anson on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 04:04:59 PM EST

    I did not want to come back to this dialog a week later
    and find the verbal brutalization of my friend Ann there had not ended,
    ... that my last post had not completely silenced and crushed it all.

    Ha Ha Ha!

    Now all of you get back to work, and just keep paying your taxes ..., damn it!

    *-*

    Mergatroid wil live ...!
    KLH
    NYC

    Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.
    [ Parent ]

    You tried, (none / 0) (#199)
    by DominantParadigm on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 03:14:01 PM EST

    Biatch.

    Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


    [ Parent ]
    a malcontent survived my scorching? (none / 0) (#200)
    by k24anson on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 12:45:09 PM EST

    I don't want another "peep" out of any of you! None. Silence.

    This thread is for all practical purposes, "squashed."

    Ha ha ha ...! Nice.
    KLH
    NYC

    Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.
    [ Parent ]

    Hey Ann, Just Try It! | 201 comments (168 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!