History For Morons (Ann Coulter Edition) - Canada and the Vietnam War

[MsAlchemist2012]

Clever thanks for uploading

[Theobrothers]

@MsAlchemist2012

Thanks. I got sick of the rampant idiocy regarding this topic and decided it needed to be vetted once and for all.

[sooperfukker]

1. Canada let 30,000 of their own people enlist in the US military knowingly, if not even encouraging them to do so.

2. Canada did send official canadian troops in 1973 to enforce the peace treaty.

3. Canadian spies provided intelligence for the US with approvement of the Can gov.

4. Canadian industry provided materials and supplies to the US military.

5. Canada allowed the US to use their facitilites for training and testing.

No matter what light you shine on it: Coulter 1 : Opponent 0

[Theobrothers]

@sooperfukker

1. Canada let? Knowingly? Encouraging? Hahahaa, Mind citing the proof that our government knew or encouraged it?

2. Peace, not war. Coulter was arguing that we sent troops to support the US as allies. Enforcing Peace treaties under the Geneva convention and UN mandates isn't in line with her claims.

3. Cite it please?

4 and 5. Wait, are those troops?

Did you even read the comments section? LOL OH well, what can you expect from a Coulter supporting Fox watching fan.

[sooperfukker]

@Theobrothers Wiggle and weasle as much as you like.

When she said the Canada was a main ally in the vietnam war - 100% correct, it was THE ally in the war.

When she said that Canada sent troops to Vietnam - 100% correct. Inofficially and officially. Doesn't matter if you like what they did there, fact remains: they were there.

You lose - Coulter wins. End of argument, you little leftwing pig.

[Theobrothers]

@sooperfukker

Again, read the comments section before your next response. If you can't argue the premise of this debate then you certainly can't claim victory in your assessment.

Last time I checked selling goods != supporting somebodies war effort.

Again, she never claimed we sent troops as a Neutral Peace observing delegation. Had she, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Funny how you didn't address, with facts, ANY of your claims that you listed so arrogantly.

Still waiting LoL, weak.

[sooperfukker]

@Theobrothers I don't play by the rules which you're trying to manipulate. You're putting words into her mouth to change the meaning of what she said - That won't fly with me, I stick to what she actually said and don't smuggle in what I like to have heard.

The rest is common knowledge, no need for citation. If you insist, you'll surely get the details from what suits you most - wikipedia.

[Theobrothers]

@sooperfukker

That's cool.

I like how you stated, "I can't debate the facts", while still claiming yourself as right. I'm paraphrasing of course as your statement was much more long winded and nonsensical. You have learned well from the Fox school of regressive thought.

Anyhoo, good luck with that form of argumentation. It doesn't work for me but I'm sure among your pals you are considered "the smart one" and looked towards with much reverence.

[EasyEs]

@Theobrothers 1. Yes they did, it was a wink nod type deal for military exchanges of the type that still go on today. A way to appear to be against the war and for it. I knew a man from NFLD who was involved in that capacity. It was encouraged by the officers at the time and facilitated by the DND. If you wanted to go the DND made sure you did and you would see combat. A bit like Jean Chrétien opposed the war in public but deployed the Iroquois to the persian gulf.

[Theobrothers]

@EasyEs

Hey, that's cool that you can claim something and then add words and stuff, but not require yourself to source anything. Unfortunately, many of us who are honest require sourcing.

Anyway, that wasn't Ann's argument, what countries do in secret against the desires of their population is hardly evidence of that populations support or the "official stance" of said government. If shown to be true during that time, the politicians involved would have been in serious legal trouble.

[EasyEs]

@Theobrothers What makes you think I was trying to bolster Ann or what ever she meant to say? The truth (as I can find atm) of the matter is far more complicated but consistant with what governments do. I doubt that the DND at the time was concerned with legal matters, there were already rules, procedures and prescidents set for that type of thing. The military culture of the CAF at the time was at odds with the anti war sentiment of much of the nation so they would have covered their asses.

[Theobrothers]

@EasyEs

I never said you did?

This video and it's corresponding comments section are of historical relevance ONLY insomuch that they counter the claims Ann Coulter made and the defences her idiot acolytes use.

As for the covert acts, again, unless you can provide proof, it isn't something we can discuss, and thus becomes a labor of theory. I of course agree this may be the case, but it really isn't relevant here as "what governments do behind closed doors" is not what is being discussed.

[HappyColouredMarbles]

AHH! Nagernutz is such a troll! You don't win a debate simply by stating the same facts over and over again, and ignoring what is being said by your opponents. He might as well be arguing that the sky isn't blue! Just because you repeated say the same thing over and over again, doesn't make a valid argument.

[Theobrothers]

@HappyColouredMarbles

Exactly. Although I wanted someone like him to come here and debate me, as now people can see just how Ann Coulter, Bill O, and Fox News apologists MUST argue. They have no valid path to victory so they do what their idols do. Detract from any real debate and use fallacious argumentation to distract the listeners / watchers from the real important points.

I really wrecked him, lol, was pretty funny.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - I don't hold anything against you my young friend. It's not your fault. You're the product of a liberal public education. You've been indoctrinated and programmed to think backwards. Though I must admit, sometimes you come off as a mental patient. But I digress, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Cool and ok, any proof of all that? No, nothing? Cool.

At any point are you going to argue the premise or are you simply going to continue Ad Hominem attacks, and ignoring the basic premises of this debate?

You say you understand logic, but I am still looking for evidence of that.

[Theobrothers]

You have yet to set up a counter to my premise which clearly shows Coulter was wrong.

Logic problem for you, If;

1. C, proves nothing.

2. B, proves A's statement wrong.

3. A, makes a statement.

Would it be correct to say that: "A made an incorrect statement."

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers -

1. If A goes to Vietnam

2. B says they weren't there because they weren't there for the right reason.

3. Does that mean A was never really there?

If A gets his ass shot off. Does that mean that A wasn't in a combat zone?

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Almost won a debate? I'm not trying to "win" anything. I can't deny history and facts anymore than I could deny that I'm alive. See, I knew all you were trying to do is discredit Ann Coulter and republicans. Concede? Nope, that just isn't going to happen. Canada sent troops to Vietnam.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

The debate isn't about the facts. Hmmm, maybe this is where you are lost. The debate is based upon Ann's premise, that, Canada Sent troops in support of the US AND the War in Vietnam, not simply that, Canada sent troops. My argument is in the comments section, at some point you may want to read and then argue it. LOL

You've already conceded, by continuing to put up no counter premise to my counter premise of Ann's premise.

You are simply stating, "She's right, she's right"

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - LOLLOL!!! Are you 12? Of course Ann Coulter is right. Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Try joining the military sometime. And when you get sent to a combat zone, you can come home and tell everyone that you weren't really there.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

"Try joining the military sometime. And when you get sent to a combat zone, you can come home and tell everyone that you weren't really there."

That's the entire point, when under a peace agreement there is no "combat zone". Do you understand English? I'm serious, do you?

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Oh yes. I understand English very well. You see I was in a combat zone. I have been shot at. Maybe that's what it will take for you to understand that whatever the reason, once you get shot at, politics are insignificant. And the fact that you just don't understand that Canadians were wounded, were killed, is mind boggling.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

I love how you embellished the video to make it more believable. By-the-way, did you make this in kindergarten class? Kind-of hokey.

There were over 40 nations that sent troops to Iraq as part of the multi-national coalition. Most of them didn't take part in combat operations. Does that mean they weren't there?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Has nothing to do with this argument thus it's moot. If you'd like to debate Iraq sometime I'd gladly do so. Fact remains, Ann Coulter, in the context of her speech, and in regards to her claims, was entirely, and factually wrong.

You are welcome to educate yourself through the use of the comments section.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Oh, I get it. The old liberal double standard.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Not at all. Iraq war has nothing to do with this argument. The point of this debate was whether Ann Coulter's comment in the context of which she was speaking, could be verified.

It can't. Proven through the facts found in the comments section.

Iraq has nothing to do with this particular debate thus its fallacious to bring it up.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Where did I embellish to make "it" more believable?

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - You used a hokey little kindergarten video maker using your own arguments and try to pass it off as truth. That doesn't make it true. Your entire argument is nothing more than a ploy to discredit Ann Coulter. But you won't allow the same argument when it applies to the Iraq war.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Sorry you don't like the video, although I can't say I'm surprised. No ploy, fact's are in the comments section. Want to keep making fallacious claims without proof? That's cool, but I tend to try for logic and empirical evidence to support my positions.

I'm sure Ann makes a lot of unproven claims about the Iraq war, and perhaps someday I'll address those, but here is my addressment of her fallacious claims regarding Vietnam and Canada.

Understand?

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Oh, I understand.... I really understand. I understand a double standard when I see one. I guess, by your logic, those 40 coalition countries weren't in Iraq either, since they weren't there in a combat role. Context is everything huh?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Again, we can debate you theories on Iraq elsewhere. If you are here, debating this concept, take a piece from the video, or something from the comments section, and find fault in it. I'll respond. Repeating yourself over and over when the crux of your arguments are, "I see it this way, therefore I'm right" and "I don't need to cite evidence, because I'm right", won't work here, lol. This isn't your page, and you can't block me.

Logic prevails son. LOL

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Oh I love it! Unbelievable. When someone uses your argument against you, all of a sudden, it's different. It's not the same. So why don't you just man up and admit, it isn't whether Canada sent troops to Vietnam (which at least you admit), it's about hating Ann Coulter. But stick to your double standard if it brings you personal satisfaction.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Again, until you cite something, anything, there is no debate. You are setting up strawman arguments. I'm not wasting my time, I put time into defeating illogical bullshit, the video and comments section dissect in full the fallacious claims you guys make.

What double standard. Citations man, seriously, do you understand how to debate. You claiming something doesn't make it true. This ain't Fox News.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - By now we've both cited all that can be cited. The issue boils down to perception. You make one argument about Canadians in Vietnam, the reasons why they were there, but then when the exact same argument is made about Iraq, somehow, it's different. Canada sent troops to Vietnam, you admit that. You're problem is the reason they were sent. But when 40 countries sent troops to Iraq in a non-combat role, all of a sudden it's different. Absurd.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Well I'm glad you see it that way. For if you have cited all you can, and I have destroyed from a logical standpoint all those citations in my comments section, well then I guess you must admit defeat.

Thanks for playing "I should understand logic and context before debating".

Join us next time when we debate the Iraq war.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Ha ha ha! No. You don't win a debate by telling your opponent that he's wrong and you're right. Not that this is a debate anyway. Very juvenile of you. As a matter of fact, logic and reason has so far not entered the dialog from your point of view. I'm still laughing. Come on, stop taking the child's way out. If you can't hang, just say so. The entire dialog started by you leftists denying that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. When you couldn't win that one, you change the subject.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

This isn't a debate now? LOL

Very juvenile of me to point out that claims of being right without evidence are merely claims and in no way prove victory on a particular subject? Hmmm...

The dialog was started by her claim. End Point.

I proved her claim wrong and I did my research prior to making my argument. Again, you claiming I can't hang in no way proves I can't. Look at your comments, it's claim, claim, and claim, with zero evidence to support it.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Nope, it's never been a debate. Your view is like debating whether or not the sky is blue or not. Proof... and you even admitted it (I can point you to your own comments), were Canadian troops in Vietnam? Of course, and that's all Ann Coulter is saying. Now you've lost the argument from the start, so you try to argue that yes, they were there, but they were sent there for a different reason... and that makes it somehow different.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Ok, so are you stating the sky, seen through our eyes would not be determined blue? See that's Ann's argument, she is stating it is not blue, lol, I just pointed out that it is.

Her claim wasn't simply that "troops were in Vietnam", she was claiming that we had troops their, as the USA's loyal friend to support the war effort. That is the full extent of her claim, I have it cited, argue it.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - ROFLMAO!!! You have no shame! Taking my analogy and trying to reverse it. You're really getting desperate now. No surprise though, since you've done it all along. Sending troops to Vietnam, even in a non combat role, isn't supporting the United States and the UN? Who were they supporting? The North Vietnamese?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

That's done in debates all the time. Your analogy was poorly used, I used it where it should have been placed. I must be desperate, lol...

They were supporting No one actually, see had you actually done some homework, you know look at all the evidence I compiled prior to going on this useless rant, you'd see you have no argument.

See, you are so hell bent on winning that you could care less about the truth. I feel sorry for you.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Mission Mandate:

"To provide a neutral party to investigate compliance and to conduct monitor the enforcement of the terms of the Paris Peace Agreement"

Mission Mandate:

"To implement the terms of the three Geneva Agreements"

You see, they were there only when the peace was supposed to be occurring and only to act as a neutral party, no sides, and only then to observe.

You seriously can't see this?? LOL

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Thanks for admitting, yet again, that Canada did send troops to Vietnam! Enforcing the Paris Peace agreement, or not, they were there. They were wounded. They were KIA against hostile forces. Canadians died there. You seriously can't see this??

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Ok, I guess I will simply ask. Do you actually want to discuss if she is right or not?

If not, say so, and we can both move on because I'm seriously bored of this unintelligible banter.

If you do, then the very crux of the argument is in your agreement or dismissal of my assessment of Ann's comments.

Coulter is M

1. M stated premise X.

2. N attacks premise X with counter premise Y.

3. O attacks premise Y with counter premise Z.

If you have no counter you cannot defend X.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Are you serious? Look,I know you're young and idealistic and you like to draw little "spore creatures". When I was young I liked to get out my coloring book and color pictures (I stayed in the lines too). Why don't you go draw some more pictures? Use paper this time so mommy can put them on the refrigerator. Jeez... M+X-Y>O, ROFLMAO!!!

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Is that your argument?

"Are you serious"

"you play games"

"I don't understand Logic, Premises nor Algebraic Expressions"

"Are you 12?"

"Ad Hominem attacks"

Ok then, well I tried.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers

1- Are you serious?

2- I never said you play games

3- I never said I don't understand logic, premises or algebraic expressions

4- Are you 12?

? - This is a question mark. It means I'm asking a question. But maybe you're not that far in school yet. I'm just saying. Asking questions is not an ad hominem attack. You're really desperate now. But since you want to go. Have a nice life. When you get older and a little more experienced, you may make a fine citizen.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

I'm obviously serious.

Spore is a game, making creatures in spore is "playing".

You implied as much by in no way discussing it and instead devolving your comments into two rant style Ad Hominem pieces.

What does my age have to do with my premise being correct?

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - ha ha! When you grow up, you'll understand. 1st Corinthians 13:11

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

"1st Corinthians 13:11"

Ya I saw Hackers too.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Hackers? It's a bible verse, which in this case hits the nail on the head. It just comes with experience. I don't need to watch movies to get my talking points.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Yep it sure is, and it was used in the movie Hackers. Never said you did, but you definitely need to get them somewhere, as you are unable to gain them on your own.

Simple, do you understand logic?

Do you understand my argument?

If so to both, why have you yet to define your counter to my argument?

This isn't hard man, this is THE most basic point of a debate, it only gets more complex from here. If you can't think your way through this then we can never have a true debate.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Again, you seem to think that I'm going to give up and go away? Not a chance. Write it down so you don't forget. There is no debate. Either Canada sent troops to Vietnam or they didn't. They obviously did. The medals were awarded, but again, you attack the reason as if for some strange reason Canada just awarded them for the fun of it and for no reason whatsoever. Insane. Your entire argument is the reason Canada sent troops, and I'm saying what difference does it make?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

"Either Canada sent troops to Vietnam or they didn't." is what we call a strawman.

That is and has never been the premise of this debate.

Again, quote my counter premise to Ann's, then make your counter to mine. If you can't do that then you are admitting defeat.

Here, I'll help, Wiki search these terms; Counterargument, Rebuttal, Inference objection.

You might want to also check out sites like; theskepticsguide(dot)org/resou­­rces/logicalfallacies(dot)asp­x

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Yes, I understand logic and yes, I understand your argument, which isn't an argument at all. You're intent on discrediting not only Ann Coulter, but you also immaturely drag Fox News and Bill O'Reilly into a disagreement over the reason why Canada sent troops to Vietnam. As if that somehow makes you more credible. Well, it doesn't. It just makes you look like a child throwing a temper tantrum. Why not just sit on the floor and hold your breath until you turn purple?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Is there proof you understand logic forthcoming? Cause you sure as hell haven't shown you do.

"You're intent on discrediting not only Ann Coulter, but you also immaturely drag Fox News and Bill O'Reilly into a disagreement over the reason why Canada sent troops to Vietnam."

This isn't my premise. It's REALLY easy bro, look... in the comments section... my premise is right there.

Again, Ad Hom is fallacious. Why continue using it? LOL Do you know what a fallacy is?

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Try to stay on subject here. Concentrate. You're going off on tangents. Do I need to remind you what the subject is again? You're trying to discredit me (that's ok, as an adult I can take it), but you're trying to drag others into the dialog that don't have any bearing on the subject. Wait, you don't do drugs do you?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Any tangent is simply in response to your comments, I have no use for tangents, as I've proven my proposition, it's up to you to knock it down. If you can't you have lost the debate.

No, no, I'm discrediting your position, well truthfully, you are doing it mostly on your own.

To discredit you I would need to start attacking you, as you are me, you know, through Ad Hom attacks like; "Wait, you don't do drugs do you?" and "sometimes you come off as a mental patient"

See now?

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Well I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have a grasp for simple English. Here, let me show you: "Wait, you don't do drugs do you? See, that is a question. Once again the "?" symbol denotes a question, not a statement. "Sometimes you come off as a mental patient", is a statement of my perception of your logic. Now, if I say "You're a mental patient", that would be name calling or an attack. Are we clear now?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

You are seriously questioning my understanding and use of English? Especially in comparison to yours?

Are you a comedian?

Wiki; Complex Question

You aren't wrong that stating directly would make it an attack, but you are in no way correct that implying it through a question is not the same.

You have no grounds to believe I'm a drug user or a mental patient, thus, you are using what's called "Implication by question".

Anyway, you are boring me greatly, good luck in life, lol

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - "Are you a comedian"? The pot calling the kettle black. You don't seem to have a problem exhibiting what you criticize me for. Ironic, isn't it? Thanks for leaving. If you come up with anything else, let me know. I've been very successful in life. One of those terrible capitalist pigs that you leftists hate so much. Self made, relatively wealthy, gun loving and God fearing. All rolled into one package. Take care dude.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

No, no, I was being satirical AND ironical. I like people who attempt to challenge my use of the English language.

Let me sum up your position from your past comments;

"You are young, badly educated, a possible drug user and mental patient"

"I am rich, successful, and I did it alone, cause I'm a big strong man"

Now here is mine.

Coulter's premise is flawed, proven by A, B, C, X, Y and Z.

Good luck debating anyone in a public forum. lol.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Yawn. Are you back again? Your first line sums it up. "Satirical and ironical"? Ironical? Really? Think about it. Also, look up the definition of insanity. Repeating the same things over and over hoping for a different result. It fits you.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

I won't allow you to spam my comments section further, either put up a valid counter to the premise that has been provided or stop responding and concede defeat. Repetition of your opinions regarding my character is not a valid topic of discussion and even if it where you have provided no evidence of those claims either.

You have proven to anyone who reads this discussion exactly what I was hoping. That you have no desire to argue the facts, only derail a real conversation.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Well, you've been intent on "winning" this so-called debate. Now that you know that I simply won't concede, go ahead and block me. The truth is the truth and I won't allow the truth to be denied simply because of your leftist hate of it. Actually, I'm surprised that you haven't already, since that's the leftist way of denying truth. Block me and move on to the next victim of your harassment.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

You have yet, since being on this page, to argue using a clear and concise premise. You have refused to admit what the premises of this debate are and have continued to minimize the argument to Ad Hominem attacks, definitions of my political views and claims of your superiority, all without proof mind you.

You have proven what I desired, that you are essentially a wind bag, full of hot air, and empty of substance.

Good luck as I said, with that debate style, you'll need it.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Also, simply look up Ironical, I think you don't know the definition nor do you understand it's usage. Especially in light of the fact that I specified satirical beside it.

Anyway, Premise please or concede.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - While I'm looking up "ironical", you should look up "Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder". You're like a broken record, continuing to ask the same questions over and over again, somehow hoping that I'll tire of your obsession and concede so you can have something to brag about to all your little leftist cohorts. It ain't gonna happen Skippy.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

I may be obsessive about the truth, but I hardly see this as a flaw. You don't want to debate the particulars of Coulter's claims because you know, that it's incorrect from the outset and is easily shown as such.

Attack the premise, not the person. Simple logic. I'm sorry you have yet to learn this.

Concession by refrenation. You do not need to admit you concede as you already have by your actions.

Braggart, I am not.

The truth? I have proven my point and without contestation.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - I don't need to call you names. I have no reason to do that. See I'm an adult. Now, when you drag Fox News and Bill O'Reilly into the dialog, that's pretty immature. And again, I don't hold it against you. You're just displaying how you've been programmed to interact. You're clearly frustrated and desperate. That coupled with your obvious youth is understandable. And why is Fox News a problem? It's only THE largest, most watched news network in the world, night or day.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Ad Hominem

"Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain."

You, by asking if I'm 12, which is fairly obvious I'm not, are attacking my experience and knowledge and this is shown clearly by your other statements, such as,

"When you get older and a little more experienced, you may make a fine citizen."

and

"When I was young I liked to get out my coloring book and color pictures (I stayed in the lines too)."

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Dude, I don't know how old you are. You do look very young. As far as I'm concerned, you could very well be 12. Your picture that you posted (narcissistic and dangerous posting personal information by the way), looks as if you haven't even started shaving yet.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

I was 27 when I had that picture taken.

The fact that I shave means I look like I can't grow hair? Ok, I guess that is internally consistent.

I posted the picture when I first made the account, it was merely to show people who I am since I planned at the time to make video's. How is a picture more dangerous and more narcissistic than posting videos?

Anyway, you concede. There is no way you can claim otherwise as you refuse to refute my premise.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Oh, my. You are an endless source of entertainment! I haven't laughed thi shard for a while.

"Anyway, you concede (you learned a new word). There is no way you can claim otherwise as you refuse to refute my premise."

You must be 12 to make a statement like that. I win, you lose because I don't like your facts? Is that it?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

What facts?

There was an original premise and a counter premise. The facts are already laid out, you have yet to state your counter premise in defence of Ann's original one.

You REFUSE to cite a premise of any sort, in doing so you must concur you have lost, this is philosophy 101. Seriously, are you claiming philosophical argumentation and the rules therein are "childish"?

Just wow. Keep calling me 12 though, it proves you to be an expert intellectual discourse.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Then why didn't you just make a video and make your point? Did you use that little kindergarten program because you really didn't want to show your face making outrageous denials? I'm befuddled. Clear it up for me?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

I did make a video and did make my point? Have you even bothered to read the comments section which is a supplement to the claims made in the video?

I found it much more humorous to use animation software.  Why does the medium matter, argue the premise, not whether I'm 12, in kindergarten, or use childish tools to bring across the message. the entire argument is in the comments section.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Yes, I read your rantings in your comment section, and again, it looks like the rantings of an adolescent. Here's why... no objectivity, the facts are there, but you conveniently ignore the parts that prove you wrong. No surprise there. You can't refrain from calling Ann Coulter, Fox News and Bill O'Reilly names. Another clue. Why Fox News and why Bill O'Reilly? How did they get into this? Immaturity on your part on several levels. And you have the balls to accuse me?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

You are either unable to understand language or you are purposefully disavowing the context in which she was speaking, either way "that's all Ann Coulter" was saying is entirely wrong.

"We were on Hannity and Colmes discussing the Anti War Protesters. Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice versa, I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam, was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

That isn't simply, Canada sent Troops to Vietnam.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - You see, I understand why Canadians are pussies. They don't support anybody when it comes to war. They don't have to and why should they? Canada is nestled right in between our largest state, and the mainland. They're safe merely because of their physical proximity to the US. What country would have the balls to attack Canada? The US would shoot down any missile launched in the vicinity of Canada just to protect itself. Still, you'd think Canada would at least help.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

Aww, thanks for playing the, I almost had a real debate but lost so I started to attack a whole group collectively, game.

Funny, you were working so hard to win a debate, in the supposed defence of Canadian Veteran's, remember you said "A Canadian who'll trample on the graves of those brave men just to win a YT debate. Sad." and yet here you are stating "You see, I understand why Canadians are pussies."

I knew you were simply defending Ann, thanks for finally coming clean. LOL

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Of course I'm defending Ann Coulter! Duh! Canada still sent troops to Vietnam. ROFLMAO!

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - And I was referring to those of you who'll argue that those brave troops weren't there. You know that. It is shameful that you'd trash those (few) brave troops who did fight and die.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

"blacks sure are X" You can't clarify a collectivist statement with, I was referring to. You made the statement, it is what it is, either own up to the mistake and correct it, or own up to meaning exactly what it states. Language, especially when written, isn't something you can come and claim difference of meaning on. It has specific rules, and if you don't understand those rules then I suggest you go learn them.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Once again, you're being juvenile. If you answer this way, I win. If you say this, I win. "If the answer is never, then I guess you secede." That is so childish. I will say this... you are good for a laugh. You lost when you couldn't handle the dialog on my video, so you create your own video using kindergarten characters and your own talking points as if that changes anything. You sound rather desperate to "win" this dialog.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

I'm not saying that at all, what I was saying is that if you have no evidence, you must secede, if you can't point out where I'm wrong and why, you must secede. You may think it's juvenile but this is how logical discourse works man.

You cannot make claims, have no facts to back them up, and then continue on as though you've done what's necessary to win the debate.

This isn't Fox News and you aren't Ann Coulter, this is the real world, and thusly you need a real argument. LOL

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@Theobrothers - Do you mean concede? How can I concede? Canadians were in Vietnam. Canada sent them. In support of combat operations or not, they were still there. You're funny, but cute when you try to rewrite history.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

You've been on my page for a while now, and everything you have said can be summed up as, "I support Ann's position, despite the evidence to the contrary, and when I'm asked to cite where I'm right I ask to talk about the Iraq war".

At what point are you going to use a fact or citation either for something you can prove or against a point I've made in the video or in the comments section.

If the answer is never, then I guess you secede. Let me know what you decide.

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

There is no perceptional issues here.

1. Volunteers aren't sent. A Wall built for them by Americans on private land isn't the Canadian government agreeing to them fighting. They received NO Canadian Medals.

2. A UN mandated mission to overlook a peace treaty isn't Canada sending troops to aid the USA's War. Receiving medals for that service isn't support for the War, but rather the peace. The one's who died surprisingly aren't on the North Wall, why do you think that is?

[Theobrothers]

@NAGGERNUTZ

I have no problem. Ann Coulter made an unfounded claim. I have clearly, in the comments section of this video mapped out her claim. If you disagree she made that claim, then provide a detailed critique of my rebuttal, otherwise you are simply stating vacuous opinions. I used logic, you are using opinion. You can't win a debate like that. lol...

[HappyColouredMarbles]

Haha! Ann Coulter would not be so polite, nor would she stay quiet so long to let Theo explain himself. Moreover, she would NEVER accept what he is saying or change he views because of it - she would just argue until he gave up, or would deny what he said and promise to get back to him with "proof".

[Theobrothers]

@HappyColouredMarbles

I know, but this is more for the education of those who don't generally argue as she does. I was getting sick of watching people defend her and disregard all logic and evidence while doing so. Thus I created this video, so that people with logic could come here, see that ALL the claims in the video are backed up by facts and links in the comments section, and feel the argument has been clearly won.

No more need to waste time on those other biased unevidenced video's.

[RawChristianSuperman]

Haha, I love it, poor old Ann Coulter. I've seen videos like this before, what is the program you used?

[Theobrothers]

@RawChristianSuperman

The company is called "xtranormal" and the program you need to download is called "State".

Don't bother doing everything through the website, just download the program which you get a bunch of free stuff with.