95% of the people on the internet are American, Canadian, British, Australian, West European, and to a lesser extent Asian. Canada does not make that list because it's a third world country.

I know I have a sick sense of humor. And if there is no stereotype of Canada being an underdeveloped country then where did the two idiots in that video get the notions that Canada is full of dogsledders, and that the entire west half of Canada is archaic?

Necessary course of action? It's stupid in any terms


Hmm...
let's see:
1. Superiority complex
2. Racist
3. Nihlistic
4. Likes upsetting other people
What a wonderful person you are. Do you also like to push over old people and laugh at them, or egg people's houses and laugh when they're upset?


Free speech doesn't mean they can't stop broadcasting her opinions. If I wanted to go to a news station and have them say a bunch of opinions I made up, and they don't want to, I can't claim my free speech is being violated.


:/ I know you don't seriously mean that, but I hate it when people say things like that no matter who it's about.

That's not really a sick sense of humor, it's just slightly un PC. It's different from the mean-spirited humor of Cougar because none of the types of jokes you say are based in truth, they are partially laughing at the sterotypes, and they have good intentions.
I'm familiar with that type of joke. My friends and I joke about each others sterotypes too.

There's no stereotype about Canada being cold and underdeveloped?

Do you live under a rock?

No it's not. If I say, "Go and kill Fred." and you go and kill Fred, I'd get slapped with Murder One.



No, they can't. Because suggesting the president be assassinated is apparently looked down upon by the Secret Service for some reason. Also: Free Speech Zones.

At any rate, even if she does have the right to spew her hateful gibberish, it's even more depressing that apparently the market is there that stations will play her.

yeah but... this is fox news! Can you honestly say you watch fox news expecting better than this?

I do all the time. Ann Coulter is an extremist on that news network too.

It is her right to say that. It is not her right to be broadcasted.



I congratulate you on ignoring the majority of my post. Read it again, then change your response. Putting a hit out on someone is not the same as saying that I think someone should kill [person].



I didn't say there would no consequences. Going on TV and saying, "I think we should assassinate the president" is the same as walking into a police station and screaming, "I've got a gun!" You're posing the possibility of a threat to someone who is (at least) locally important, and you will be investigated/arrested/suffer appropriate consequences.

As for the Free Speech Zones? They're not being prevented from exercising their right to free expression. They're merely being kept a distance away from the president. I don't agree with the practice, but no one's rights are being taken away by their implementation and practice.

If we don't kill the terrorists, who will? The U.N.?



Wow, that's quite a list.

Superiority Complex: Perhaps, but I'd call that a natural byproduct of living in the greatest nation ever to grace the planet.

Racist: I find this charge hard to believe. I don't think I've said anything in this post suggesting racism, nor do I harbor any resentment to any certain races.

Now, I may be called a culturist. I believe modern Western culture, specifically the American kind, is superior to the backwards, fascist, woman-beating culture of many totalitarian Middle Eastern regimes.

Nihilistic: I'm not sure I deserve that title either. Please explain.

Likes upsetting other people: True in some cases. I don't like hippies.



Old ladies give me good tips. And I normally like to eat eggs rather than throw them.

By the way, I'll give a hug to the first person who can tell me what the term 'politically correct' comes from. I'll bet many will be pleasantly surprised by the answer!

"It upsets people, which makes me smile"
"I like laughing at countries who aren't America"

You're what's wrong with your country.

Not just his country. He's what's wrong with humanity.

I won't say America is a bad place, but to say it's the greatest nation ever to grace the planet? I think that's hefting the U.S. a bit too high on the pedestal.

So I walk up to a hitman and say, "you know, it would not be a terrible thing if Fred just happened to die. By the way, I would like to invest in your off-broadway production. Here is 50,000 dollars." Not ordering a hit? Or, you can do it without the transfer of money. I'm not saying they're exactly the same situation, but they're not far apart.



Except their rights to Free Speech and Free Assembly, of course...



HINT: there are way to solve problems that do not involve killing. Perhaps this is too subtle a strategy for a fascist such as yourself, however.



Justice James Wilson used the term in 1793 in the Chisholm v. Georgia case to distinguish between the United States and the people of the United States (the latter being the politically correct option)

(CITE: http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorp.htm)

I don't see why anyone could care one whit about that useless piece of trivium.

Can you name a better nation that has been consistently great for two hundred years, ever-striving for a state of perfect justice and freedom? Fine, the US is at least the greatest nation currently in existence. We have the most money and bombs.



The spilled blood of my enemies pleases the gods.

I'm also not sure how dead terrorists makes me a fascist. I'm quite a strong proponent of small government, I just also want a government that makes many Islamofascists die.



Some people like learning little pieces of trivium. You apparently cared enough to take the time to look it up.

Oh, and I would give you a hug, but if memory serves, you're from Australia. Australia is miles upon miles away from my chair, and I'm not going over to you to give you a hug. If TV has taught me anything, it's that Australia is full of kangaroos and big knives, and I'm scared of both.

Back to your cave heathen.

No, it's the being an extreme nationalist who blames all the problems in the world on foreigners that makes you a fascist...



Oh, I like trivia. But that was really a trivial piece of trivia.

Sure, assuming the people you're dealing with are reasonable and open to resolving things through diplomacy.

Well, there are people out there who are never going to be friends with America; there's not much to do about that.

But it's the other people, who are only now considering becoming a terrorist or an insurgent or whatever, that America should be "fighting" (bad choice of word) to impress. Torturing prisoners at Guantanamo and turning Iraq to rubble do not help towards these ends. As it is, the more "terrorists" America kills, the more rise to fill their places because of grievances against America. America needs to address these grievances to stem the recruitment of terrorists.

For instance, it's hard to believe that America is trying to set up democracy in the Middle East when it has fought for fifty years to keep its dictatorial allies in power; Iran and Saudia Arabia are what we have today to show for it. Had the USA meddled a bit less with Iran when it was attempting to democratise, it wouldn't have become a theocracy. Short term interests rarely equal long term interests.

I actually like Australia quite a bit. The Brits are might fine, and the Israelis are friggin' awesome. It's not that I hate all foreigners, just the ones that blow up our World Trade Centers. We need those to trade with the world.

And like every good American, I'm not a fan of Chirac either.



Those regimes are lesser evisl compared to other evils we have faced and still face. Now, of course, Iran is proving to be a bigger problem than before. Don't get your panties in a bundle, though. Rest assured that the US Marines will soon be knocking on the Ayatollah's door with M-16s ready to fire.

But that's beside the point. You mention that our killing insurgents in Iraq only helps recruit more terrorists. Chances are, anyone who takes such great offense at the US killing those who oppose democratic elections in Iraq are already worthless goobers, and are already hopelessly leaning towards a life of civilian-slaughtering. That being the case, how 'bout we just flush out the little bastards now while we're there in one fell swoop. We don't want our Marines getting bored.

And let's make this point clear: Sleep deprivation and sitting in uncomfortable positions for extended periods is not torture. If the fellas at Guantamo were really trying to torture prisoners, and that was the best they could come up with, I'd have the whole lot fired and put in someone who knew what they were doing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone torture by any means, but I at least want our troops being efficient in whatever they're doing.

I know that you are just trolling now, Cougar. However, I have a question: why do you think Muslim extremists attacked the World Trade Center towers? As in, what was the motivation that led them to hate us?

I already said. We have the most money and bombs.

If you're looking for a real answer, it's because we're the Great Satan. Meaning we tempt them. Our success mingled with our seemingly moral inferiority, as well as the ever-increasing spread of American culture throughout the world, creates an obstacle in the path of the Islamist status quo. That, of course, being an autocratic and theocratic regime that opresses women and crushes minorities and/or infidels.

Use this illustration. A young man living in a sexually-repressive Islamist culture visits an Internet cafe which curteously provides cubicles so as to allow their patrons more privacy as they pleasure themselves(Such is a common practice in Islamic Internet cafes). The man leaves the cafe refreshed, but then feels guilty for having soiled himself. Who to blame for offering this temptation? America.

Basically, they feel they're superior because their governments enforce their brand of morality while Western culture is far more free-willed and easy-going comparatively. We engage in free love, drink much, eat much, and still achieve success despite these offenses in the eyes of God.

There's also, of course, the matter of us being infidels that need to be crushed under the boot of Allah, or some nonsense like that. They once had success in 'converting' the nations of the world. Then the Moops ran into a bit of a problem in medieval France and Spain, and apparently they're still a little bitter. Now they're relegated to a nasty little desert while the rest of the world revels in heresy.

I suppose they've got a lot to be angry about. But I still think they're goobers.

You're right. They're not the same. Thus, they are different situations regardless of how minute the differences may be.



They are not being dispersed. They are not being silenced. They're being put of the eyes of the president. I don't agree with this practice, but, if you follow the word (and not the spirit, which, in this case, I believe the spirit should be followed) of the Constitution, their rights have not been violated.

Wait, why the **** are Israelies "friggin' awesome?" Israelies and Palestinians are both guilty of mass murder...

Israelies are guilty of mass murder now, are they? That's a new one.

I dissagree with Ann Coulter's suggestion of killing muslum leaders and converting them by force. That's just what's going on in the Middle East now, and we'd be right back where we started. Conversion by force is stupid. The Middle East is a mess though. One solution would be to cut them off from the rest of the world, and let them fight it out. With any luck they'd kill each other off and we'd be done with the problem. <-- For those of you who are too dence to notice this is an indication of scarcasm

1. Empire of Rome
2. Ghengis Kahn's Empire
3. Egyptian Empire

Any of those, no matter what time you look at it, would overrun America nowadays easily. You could have all the bombs you want, but those Empires are 100 times greater than America could ever wish to be.


Oh wow, you've got the most money and bombs.... You're the greatest.... Hey, since you're so good I've got a couple ideas for you

1. Why not use that money for helping people in poverty, children in third world countries that are now dying daily due to starvation, some countries because of what America did to it in the past (Vietnam, some parts of Africa)

Why not put that nice money towards rebuilding the many places you've helped destroy. Or even if you haven't helped destroy them, do what a country so great as you claim yours to be should do, HELP OTHERS. If you can afford to spend money on wars, you can spend the money on more important things. Read my sig.

2. Why not stop threatening the world with your "OH WEVE GOT DA BOMBSSS" bullcrap. America isnt the only country that has bombs, and there's other countries that would pretty much take America on in a good fight (Russia), so don't think you're the cats *** yet. Every time an argument comes up against America or a threat, theres always the response "LOOK AT OUR BOMBS. WE GOT DA BOMBS" so dont mess with us.

America is going to be the end of the world. Especially if you're claiming you've got all this power that you cannot seem to share.

Holy ****. The ignorance in this thread is so thick I could beat you all in the head with it.

Those empires were powerful only because they spent all their resources conquering other countries. We could rule the world if we did that. Why? Most countries don't spend many resources on conquering. Why? No one wants to rule a huge nuclear dessert. We got powerful even though we didn’t get our power from crushing other nations. They did. That’s not to say the US doesn’t have it’s problems…

In other news, Roach wins.

I'm curious as to what leads you to this conclusion. Granted, Rome, Greece, and Egypt were great intellectual sources, but America hasn't stagnated in any way on intellectual and technological development, and we've taken humanity to areas of scientific research that none of those empires could possibly hope to have achieved in their lifespan.

In addition, of all examples, Genghis Kahn? An empire built solely out of rape, pillage, and invasion? If you're going to compare the U.S. to Genghis using the Native Americans' treatment, you should also keep in mind that we have discontinued the subjugation of Native Americans for at least three decades now (ending with some rather upsetting "final solution" schemes the government tried).



Vietnam wasn't helped by the North Vietnamese invading South Vietnam, nor was South Vietnam helped by the French bailing out, or establishing their presence there in the first place. As for Africa, we got our noses bloodied in Somalia, and if any countries in the U.N. would like to propose a joint effort to alleviate the suffering of these countries, I doubt the U.S. would be opposed to such a measure; however, as one nation, the U.S. can not solve all the problems of the world.



We ****ed up Afghanistan and Iraq. We're trying to establish a government constructed by the will of the people and fix what we screwed up.



We put the Taliban and Saddam in power; we're taking them out of power and putting into place governments elected by the people of these nations (trying to, at least). People like Hussein and the Taliban, however, would never have gone peacefully or changed their ways without forceful reinforcement.



I was under the impression that Russia hadn't been anything of a significant military threat since the fall of the Soviet Union, or, at least, there are other nations stronger than Russia.



I'm sure that's what they said about the Roman Empire and Egyptian Empire.

No kidding. Russia's military is nearly bankrupt. They get funding from people who pay them to shoot AK-47s and fly in Migs. China is the one nation on this planet that would be a military threat to the US at this point in time.

Romans and Egyptians didn't have nukes

What? Have you ever seen an American history book? It took almost two hundred years (1776 to the mid 1950s) for a civil rights movement to begin in the south. As cliche an argument as it is, it still holds water to point out that the framers of the constitution lived in a world of slavery, and they didn't do a thing to fix it. Western European nations were able to end slavery within their own boundaries with efficiency; certainly it didn't require a civil war to end the institution.



That's fantastic. Good for America! We have the greediest upper class, and the most nuclear capacity to destroy the earth.

Maybe if you looked at the standard of living, you'd see that the HDI (Human Development Index), which rates nations on many factors (such as literacy, access to clean drinking water, access to medicine, etc) you'd see that it is infact Canada who has the highest rating, with France coming in second. Infact, America comes in fourth.

Man, I wish I wasn't too tired to argue all your points.

All I have to say is this--greediest upper class? Please. Anyone upper class (business owners (lucrative ones), ceos, etc) is greedy. Americans just have more of a chance to get money.

Also--European nations had been around for hundreds to thousands of years. I'd say we could've done better, but for a starting off nation to end slavery and oppression laws and become a world power in 200 years is not that damn bad.

OMG USA uses maph4x.

omgyes

Pride goeth before the fall..


Actually, Russia has more nuclear warheads than the United States. And China's rapidly growing economy will shortly surpass our own.

Oh yeah, and most of Europe has a higher standard of living, too. And more freedoms. And the entire world doesn't hate them.



LOL DOOD THEY HATE US BECUZ OF OUR FREEDOM!1111


Agreed.

The majority of Southerners had, at most, one or two slaves, if they had any at all. Those that had entire plantations were few. The Union didn't go to war to free the slaves, and the majority of Southerners didn't cecede and go to war to keep their slaves.



Something tells me that, when it comes to percentages of incoming immigrants, America has a larger percentage of the poor coming in than Canada and France. That, despite this, we maintain a 4th place, I think says something.

We aren't doing well comparitively with education or poverty rates either

Right, when people left England for the new world in the 17th century, they didn't bring any of their traditions or culture.

Its not like American society began in 1776 when independence was declared. It began when the first Europeans began to live in North America, and thats looking at it Euro-centrically. Well before the revolutionary war, a culture was created, and it was built on that of Western Europe.

Its not like when Europeans came to the Americas, they had to start from the stone age.

Yeah but gonig from a well unified and compact society with a leader, to a loose, hesitant, experimental society with no CERTAIN leader....kinda messes with things. It takes time for people to get used to the idea of them living in a free(er) society, and then to produce technological leaps. It started ~1650 when people started fleeing to America, (though you could argue that Jamestown started America, I prefer to think of it as just another experimental colony), and compared to the rest of the world, our nation is young. Really, really young.

Drygear--I find that education in this country is almost entirely optional. It's up to the kids if they want to learn or not--you can't force them, but the option is ALWAYS there. Poverty is pretty much the same, too (though there are instances in larger cities where it's much harder to overcome than in other instances...and stuff)