Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Re: Ann Coulter Gets Owned

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
206 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Aug 17, 2010

Video Cam Direct Upload

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 10 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (meesterp)

  • silly dweebs. Your assumptions are funny. The parts about heart attacks and dentures are good; ironic too. Some day when you can't afford to pay for something; keep me in mind. I have about 30+ years of Social Security and Medicare for you to pay for. You dweebs covering the tab - or your wives as they make up for the lameness that their husbands represent. It will be fun spending money I don't need on stuff I can do without and appreciating it as 'get back' from dopes like you.

    haha

  • silly libs, at best you are like fans cheering as their team manages to get a single batter on first base while Ann has run the score up to 2017 - 0.

    So, enjoy. Your definition of 'owned' is as feeble as the full tally.

  • the original poster thought they were so clever by blocking comments to their video. Sort of like a child saying holding their ears and saying "I can't hear you. I can't ear you". Since they were so clever blocking comments about a statement about someone " getting owned" it was irresistible to own them nu getting around their block by using a video reply.

    I left my video open do they could continue to demonstrate the magnitude of their intellect.

    Interesting that you asked.

  • but she did get owned. lol.

  • Only a silly person would think that.

Video Responses

This video is a response to Ann Coulter Gets Owned
see all

All Comments (31)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I have no need to claim a "victory." You lost this "debate" a long time ago, but you're far too steeped in tunnel vision to realize it. From the moment you decided to impugn an entire group of people (Fox News, et al), you revealed your inability to assimilate anything other than your own bias. You were never interested in true debate or discourse; only in deluding yourself that your point of view can't possibly be incorrect.

    I will now devote as much time to you as you deserve: zero.

  • @spongefreddie

    Erm...

    You still haven't attacked my counter of Ann's premise...

    You seemed to put a lot of effort into responding to my comments, misrepresenting them at times as well, but didn't bother to touch on the actual debate. You want to claim victory yet refuse to even deal with the actual premise Ann brought up?

    Again, the only inference I can make is that you must be, like others, an Ann, FOX, and Bill O supporter, as no reasonable person would dismiss a premise as you are.

  • Pardon my blooper of the omission of the "@Theobrothers" in my previous post. The comment was absolutely intended for Theobrothers, and not for the original poster of the video on this page, as I'm sure most of you surmised.

  • Repeating your same tired points ad nauseum only supports the theory that you are indeed lost in a whirlwind of narrow-minded self-aggrandizement. Glad you enjoyed my article; so did many others who are not as impressed with your 'logic' as you are.

    No matter. Your impervious delusional armor apparently remains intact.

  • @spongefreddie

    Flattered by your article, lol.

    However, you conveniently left out the actual premise and counter premise which the debate is based upon. The weaponry used by the United States in Vietnam could have been 100% purchased from, and made in, Canada, and yet this would still not vindicate Ann. Her claims had nothing to do with trade relations.

    You say you aren't an Ann Coulter Fan, yet you purposefully overlook the entire premise of the debate? Hmmm, seems rather suspicious.

  • @spongefreddie

    The problem is not in her comparison of the two wars but rather in her contrasting of Canada's position then, and now. There is no evidence that Canada's position on the Vietnam War was inverse to their position on the Iraq War.

    The evidence, used to support the claim, that Canada supported the US in it's War in Vietnam, especially regarding the use of troops, is used in a fallacious manner and is easily proven as such as referenced in the video.

  • @spongefreddie

    Love your article, you left out;

    "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?"

    Now obviously Ann is using a "compare and contrast" method. She's attempting to compare the two wars while contrasting, what she sees as, Canada's difference in stance regarding the support of those wars.

  • Meh... newlines are such a pain... just go to Sponge Freddie Speaks and see the January 20th entry entitled "The irresistable power of delusion."

  • @Theobrothers

    Lord Theo! Behold the power of the Internet!

    spongefreddiespeaks.blogspot.c­om/2012/01/irresistable-power-­of-delusion.html

  • @spongefreddie

    Also, your video, lol, makes claims based on what 3 general links with no real details. My video has like what 30+ links, refuting every last bullshit excuse used to defend Ann.

    Your 1 hour of work can;t compare to my obvious scouring of the net regarding everything on this subject.

    Get over yourself. LoLz

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more