Ann Coulter (Theres Something Wrong With Her) Rewrites History.

What conservatives don't see is that this woman doesn't advocate democracy. She advocates the suppression of dissent (isn't saying liberals are on the side of "treason" taking the first step down that slippery slope?), as well as American imperial rule over the world. Where's the democracy in that?

Kinda reminds me of other people sixty years ago who advocated the suppression of dissenters and the domination of the world by their country...

Djohn...s'ppose its okay to get the bj, as long as you don't get caught with your pants down, eh?

I dunno...I'd rather a prez that gets a bj from time to time than one who goes to war unnecessarily from time to time!!!:

Originally posted by AceOfBase
O'reilly was commenting on it earlier and said the CBC was wrong and that they aren't too concrened with facts over at the CBC.

I'l have to watch the repeat of O'Reilley later tonight to see exactly what he said.[edit on 28-1-2005 by AceOfBase]

O'Reilly is full of crap. The fifth estate is a well respected investigative journalism program that's been on for 30 years. They check their facts and resources before airing anything.

From the clip I saw on the National O'Reilly was all up in arms because CBC is funded in part by the government of Canada and that government money was being used to "attack" the US. Little does he know that CBC points the finger plenty @ the Canadian government too on different subjects.

What a goof! And a bully too. Apparently Fox is now available on digital cable here...but I wouldn't spend a penny extra for it. Barely watch CNN as it is and it is far less insulting.

Let us know what BS he spews, Ace.

Did you know that O'Reilly wrote a novel? I saw it today in a book store and was tempted to burn the thing even though it wasn't a political book.......Now wish I had burned it in order to deny someone the luxury of embracing ignorance.

For all of those who have Fox News, they're about to show the CBC segment on O'Reilly as soon as they come back from commercial.

ANN COULTER......................................................ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!She is a lion in a bottle slowly floating out to sea, forever to wonder amoungst the oil spills, dead fish, mermaids, and blackened birds that she helped create.

It was on O'Reilly tonight and there's web sites devoted to it...

Here's one:

Canada was not officially involved in the Vietnam War, though thousands of Canadians did volunteer to serve there, and many of them died there. 

bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net...

Many more Canadians fought and died in Vietnam than the numbers of U.S. cowards who fled to Canada, yet the government of Canada seems to prefer to praise our traitors than Canadian heroes...

[edit on 1/28/2005 by djohnsto77]

[edit on 1/28/2005 by djohnsto77]

That still doesn't mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam.

After all, there were a few Americans working with the Taleban. Yet it can't be said that America militarity supported the Taleban.

Yes they did. But they were not sent by the government of Canada. Canada as a whole did not condone the war. Those guys volunteered with the U.S. army on their own and did not represent Canadian involvement.

The Canadians who fought in Vietnam were in the US army. They volunteered by crossing the border and joining up. The Canadian army was not involved.

That's the distinction Ms. Coulter should have made, to avoid looking uninformed.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
I swear, her and Micheal Moore should be nutered before they have kids together.

Especially if they got his looks and her brains!

Originally posted by Duzey
The Canadians who fought in Vietnam were in the US army. They volunteered by crossing the border and joining up. The Canadian army was not involved.

That's the distinction Ms. Coulter should have made, to avoid looking uninformed.

I agree, but don't you think the Canadian government should honor their service and sacrifice rather than praising the coward traitors who fled the U.S. to avoid their service?

Originally posted by Duzey
That's the distinction Ms. Coulter should have made, to avoid looking uninformed.

Sweetie...looking uninformed is what she does best, eh!!! She makes a pretty good buck at it too as it seems because she has quite the following of people more uninformed than she is!

Originally posted by eaglewingz

Originally posted by Kidfinger
I swear, her and Micheal Moore should be nutered before they have kids together.

Especially if they got his looks and her brains!

That was the best witty response I have seen here at ATS thus far. Cheers to you, pal. I LMAO! ME ------>

I know if this were a Micheal Moore all of the liberals in this topic would either be silent, or trying to defend him by showing the same statistic that has been brought up in this topic multiple times. Ann Coulter wasn't wrong entirely.

It's great to see that this has expanded to attacking others, as well. O'Reilly had every right to say something about CBS. From what I've seen, the report was pretty dumb. They're depicting Al Franken as some kind of American hero who is just trying to help his country, but being bullied by the big bad conservatives (even though liberals control the overwhelming majority of the media). Meanwhile O'Reilly is a big meanie who is shown yelling.

Yea...that's real great journalism.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
O'Reilly himself didn't say it, but the woman he had on.

You're right.
I just watched it again.

The woman was Rachel Marsden.
I typed up a rough transcript of it below:
----------------------------------------------------
Marsden:
Do you know what the most offensive lie was in that piece the other day Bill?
The fact that the CBC had the nerve to say, to broadcast to Canadians, that there were no Canadian troops serving in Vietnam during the Vietnam war.
For their information there were 10,000 Canadian soldiers in that war, 400 of whom died on those killing fields alongside their American cousins.
And according to the CBC they don't even exist, it's disgusting.

O'Reilly:
Don't confuse them with actual journalism. Don't do that.

Marsden:
No, and according to them as well, And also according to them in that documentary, Saddam Hussein never had Weapons of Mass Destruction even though the United States has found two tons of enriched uranium and artillery with Sarin nerve gas.

O'Reilly:
Well we don't want to shake them up into actually being honest.
We feel bad that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been hi-jacked by dishonest people.

djohnston - If I were the Canadian government, I'd neither honor the sacrifice of Canadian soldiers who went to fight for the U.S., nor praise those Americans who came here to avoid fighting. It's a sticky issue - and a foreign one.

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning

Originally posted by Duzey
That's the distinction Ms. Coulter should have made, to avoid looking uninformed.

Sweetie...looking uninformed is what she does best, eh!!! She makes a pretty good buck at it too as it seems because she has quite the following of people more uninformed than she is!

The blind leading the blind, ya might say,

That's a real tough one. While I do think that the Canadian men deserved to be honoured for their courage and standing up for what they believe in, I also believe that the US citizens who came up here deserve acknowledgement also. Before you go, what !?!?!, hear me out.

Canada allows refugees from many countries based on things such as imposed military service. If you remember, in another discussion we had, it was a Syrian man we had granted citizenship to. If we turn one group away just because they are American what does that say about us?

While you don't agree with them, I think for anyone to leave the country they were born in, forever, is a very big decision not to be taken lightly. Obviously, it is something they felt very strongly about, and they stood up for what they believed in. In my experience, that takes some courage. If I were American, I would more upset at the wealthy who enrolled their kids in university. Just my opinion, though.

Another different perspective, in a way, those Canadians deserted their country. Our government chose not to send the army, so they deserted and joined the US army.

I think they are equal. But thanks for making me really think about this

And actually, I correct my last post - not Canadian soldiers (bound to Canada involvement by oath) but Canadian volunteers in the U.S. Army.

As for what Marsden and O'Reilly said... it's just splitting words to look good. Canadians citizens chose to fight with the U.S. Army in Vietnam, and they're blaming Canada for not recognizing it. Well, would America recognize, for example, Americans fighting with Fidel Castro's barbudos in 1958?