bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) I understand the curriculum very well. We teach actual science in science class and actual history in history class. Math, Enlgish, Law, all taught using actual facts. Which I approve of I don't think there is anything In the curiculum I don't approve of. Some classes don't involve "actual facts"...they may involve theory, conjecture, philosophy, etc. I'm glad you are not running the schools. That is no even an arguement. Is it not the right of the Islamic fundementalists to do so? They are pretty much identical. The creationists just haven't got around to bombing things yet. Yes...it is their right. Plenty of things have been bombed without the creationists. Most of the American Creationist museums are much larger than the Canadian ones it is a lot larger than 10 to 1. Those were your numbers...not mine. Enjoy your creationist museum today! No, but then I never said I was. Though most of America's policies are based on people in power because of religous nuts. You guys had a slew of great leaders in your founding fathers. Since then no one has come close. Then why focus on just the creationists? So much for facts and objectivity, eh? Edited March 22, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) Some classes don't involve "actual facts"...they may involve theory, conjecture, philosophy, etc. I'm glad you are not running the schools. If your talking science theory you should look up what that means. I can't think of any classes with conjecture and philosophy only shows up when discussing the philosophies of historical figures. All of the classes are taught using actual facts. Yes...it is their right. Plenty of things have been bombed without the creationists. And plenty have been bombed or people killed with creationists. Those were your numbers...not mine. Enjoy your creationist museum today! You to. Then why focus on just the creationists? So much for facts and objectivity, eh? You said I was focusing on just the creationists? They are the most entertaining but there are plenty of other fools out there to laugh at. Edited March 22, 2010 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) If your talking science theory you should look up what that means. I can't think of any classes with conjecture and philosophy only shows up when discussing the philosophies of historical figures. All of the classes are taught using actual facts. I doubt that, but if true, the curriculum is lacking. Abstractions of many kinds are important in the education process. And plenty have been bombed or people killed with creationists. So what...do you think "creationism" in and of itself drives such policies? You said I was focusing on just the creationists? They are the most entertaining but there are plenty of other fools out there to laugh at. And it is just as much fun to laugh at the lack of objectivity if "facts" are so important to you. There is no direct correlation to "creationists" and whatever foreign policy rubs you the wrong way. But the "facts" of applied physics make for a very effective war machine. Edited March 22, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 she is a sycotic raving bitch!!!!!! Ah, gotta love intellectual arguments from liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) Ah, gotta love intellectual arguments from liberals. Because yours are are so multi-faceted? His spelling is a little weak,admittedly Edited March 22, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 WHAT YOUR MOUTH ANNE!!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/ann-coulter-told-to-watch_n_508406.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 "Houle also reminded Coulter of the strong Canadian tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration." I almost* wish I were going to be there tonight. Should be entertaining. *"almost" being the key word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 WHAT YOUR MOUTH ANNE!!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/ann-coulter-told-to-watch_n_508406.html will she self-neuter... or martyr for the cause? Will Shady post bail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 "Houle also reminded Coulter of the strong Canadian tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration." ....except when it's Canadians like Heather Mallick (CBC). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 ....except when it's Canadians like Heather Mallick (CBC). that Mallick has had ongoing, lengthy columns in the New York Times, in the Guardian (UK), in the Globe&Mail... shouldn't deter you from highlighting (presumably) her current... once a month column, at the CBC. I understand that, on occasion, she's been somewhat critical of the U.S., and some of your politicians (Palin in particular). Anything specifically that's caused you to single her out as being... possibly... unrestrained, disrespectful and inconsiderate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Anything specifically that's caused you to single her out as being... possibly... unrestrained, disrespectful and inconsiderate? waldo, you're obviously not a regular Mallick reader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 waldo, you're obviously not a regular Mallick reader. and you're obviously missing the 'international' flavour here... Ms. Mallick's domestic musings wouldn't... shouldn't have come to the attention of the blustering poster from the south. Ergo, short of Bush_Cheney blasting out a random google searching out opinionated, liberal-slanted, controversial labeled writers, he must have formed an opinion over particular writings from Ms. Mallick, one's with a greater likelihood of coming to his attention. I offered suggestion that Ms. Mallick has been somewhat critical of the U.S., and some of it's politicians (Palin in particular)... on that 'international' flavour level, just what degree of Ms. Mallick commentary might cause Bush_Cheney to consider her as being... possibly... unrestrained, disrespectful and inconsiderate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 .... Anything specifically that's caused you to single her out as being... possibly... unrestrained, disrespectful and inconsiderate? Nothing that the CBC apology and editorial policy changes didn't cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbguyca Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Anyways have fun maybe you'll learn what it is to have real conservative values. You mean a hate spewing racist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Freedom of speech is more so in the USA. "Houle also reminded Coulter of the strong Canadian tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration." ....except when it's Canadians like Heather Mallick (CBC). that Mallick has had ongoing, lengthy columns in the New York Times, in the Guardian (UK), in the Globe&Mail... shouldn't deter you from highlighting (presumably) her current... once a month column, at the CBC. I understand that, on occasion, she's been somewhat critical of the U.S., and some of your politicians (Palin in particular). Anything specifically that's caused you to single her out as being... possibly... unrestrained, disrespectful and inconsiderate?Nothing that the CBC apology and editorial policy changes didn't cover. well... of course, it was Ms. Mallick's column on Palin, after all! I vividly recall the Fox News reporter labeling Ms. Mallick a 'pig'... touche! I note your pronouncement on the "freedom of speech being more so in the USA", doesn't seem to mind you attempting to leverage the official CBC reaction to complaints over Mallick's column. By the way, does your USA freedom... the USA freedom you hold out as a testament that allows the hateful, vitriolic spew from Coulter... does that USA freedom include your raised concerns over "restraint, respect and consideration"? Or are those simply attributes you would like to only hold (certain) Canadian writers to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Why do they give her so much attention? The exact same reason they give Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann so much attention. They have an image that, at first glance, generates interest and attention. Then they speak and, subsequently, make the Republicans seem like a bunch of raving lunatics. It's win-win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 ... I note your pronouncement on the "freedom of speech being more so in the USA", doesn't seem to mind you attempting to leverage the official CBC reaction to complaints over Mallick's column. The CBC apology was leveraged by Canadian readers, not I. Ms. Mallick is free to set the standards as low as possible....my "bitch" can easily best yours. By the way, does your USA freedom... the USA freedom you hold out as a testament that allows the hateful, vitriolic spew from Coulter... does that USA freedom include your raised concerns over "restraint, respect and consideration"? Or are those simply attributes you would like to only hold (certain) Canadian writers to? Not at all...stop stepping on your crank waldo and take time to read the posts instead of nesting them. The one line reference to Mallick put to bed any nonsense about Canadian restraint, or a gag order for Coulter. Let the fur fly..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 The exact same reason they give Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann so much attention. They have an image that, at first glance, generates interest and attention. Then they speak and, subsequently, make the Republicans seem like a bunch of raving lunatics. It's win-win. Well, they certainly can sell more tickets than an American wannabe like Mr. Ignatieff. Palin and Bachmann don't have much competition in Canada, where politics is quite dull by comparison. Apparently watching a Republican or Democrat is more interesting than watching paint dry back home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 I have no idea who this Coulter women is . I assume she has a fan base on the right of the body politic . What has me watching Michael Coren Tuesday is the veiled threat from a high up in the Ottawa University in regards to free speech in Canada and that she better watch her step. I mean after all this is Canada and we don`t value free speech as Americans do. Shame on us if this is the feeling of Canadians. When I was a soldier ,my comrades and I, thought ,naively it seems, we were protecting values like free speech. Even if what people say offends me I believe passionately in what was once a Canadian value. I will watch this Gal on Coren and just see why so many on the left are trembling. Especially those running our Universities. The place I thought had open minds and where reasonable debate was so important and encouraged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Though I don't think the letter was necessary, it wasn't really bad. It was simply the truth. There are some things that, by law, can't be said in Canada. There are also some things that are human rights violations. Those things though, are very specific, and not hard to avoid. We can argue about the details of some of them on the human rights side, but the criminal code rules were put in place for a reason. The promotion of genocide is one of the main things it talks about. I don't expect that she will break the law with what she says, even if there is a human rights complaint....which probably won't go anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 ....I will watch this Gal on Coren and just see why so many on the left are trembling. Especially those running our Universities. The place I thought had open minds and where reasonable debate was so important and encouraged. Indeed...but they fear this woman to no end. She is woman...hear her roar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 How 'free' is "free speech"? I mean you let a person say what ever they want and they could end up in a lawsuit here in Canada. We do have laws and since she is/was a lawyer she better know what our laws are. Perhaps the university was just telling her Canada does have laws against hate and she can't what she says in the US and get away with it. As one of the journalist said today, Coulter expiry date is past due in the US, so she coming here to stir the pot. Ignore her she go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) Though I don't think the letter was necessary, it wasn't really bad. It was simply the truth. There are some things that, by law, can't be said in Canada. There are also some things that are human rights violations. Those things though, are very specific, and not hard to avoid. We can argue about the details of some of them on the human rights side, but the criminal code rules were put in place for a reason. The promotion of genocide is one of the main things it talks about. I don't expect that she will break the law with what she says, even if there is a human rights complaint....which probably won't go anywhere. How many speakers from foreign lands who are invited to speak in Canada at our places of higher learning are issued a letter about restrictions on free speech? I believe in the right to offend! I believe that if I am offended I can walk away,challenge opinions,write letters condemning , or support a reasonable movement counter to what has offended me. But never should free speech be curbed. Edited March 23, 2010 by Muddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) How 'free' is "free speech"? I mean you let a person say what ever they want and they could end up in a lawsuit here in Canada. We do have laws and since she is/was a lawyer she better know what our laws are. She is not going to practice law in Canada...it is a paid appearance. I guess Canada would need to lock up Lenny Bruce or Richard Pryor too if they went on tour. It's a wonder foreign films can even get screened under such retarded hate speech laws. Perhaps the university was just telling her Canada does have laws against hate and she can't what she says in the US and get away with it. As one of the journalist said today, Coulter expiry date is past due in the US, so she coming here to stir the pot. Ignore her she go away. She was invited by Canadians to force the issue on campus censorship by lefties...brilliant idea. Edited March 23, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) How many speakers from foreign lands who are invited to speak in Canada at our places of higher learning are issued a letter about restrictions on free speech? I believe in the right to offend! I believe that if I am offended I can walk away,challenge opinions,write letters condemning , or support a reasonable movement counter tp what has offended me. But never should free speech be curbed. Well, that's simply not the way things work here or in most countries. Free speech only exists within the confines of section 1 of the Charter. Free speech is not unlimited, nor was it even intended to be. People cannot incite or discriminate based on certain identifiable characteristics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada Edited March 23, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.