
In the wake of the recent media-created scandal concerning statements made by Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on his radio show, a rather enlightening discussion has ensued regarding the existence of a well-organized campaign to demonize every television and radio personality whose political opinions don't march in lock-step with the left.
A rather frank and candid conversation concerning this matter occurred on Wednesday's "The O'Reilly Factor" between the host and outspoken radio talk show personality Tammy Bruce.
Here are some of the astounding highlights, with full transcript to follow (video available here, h/t Hot Air):
- BILL O'REILLY, HOST: The far-left Internet sites are in the business to smear any and all commentators who do not toe the liberal line.
- TAMMY BRUCE, RADIO HOST: Well, it is actually very serious. And the real story is -- and I think those of us who are in the public eye have got to call attention to the real story, which is the fact that a Gestapo has emerged in America. If you'll notice, the attacks on you mirror the attacks on General Petraeus. And you have a media Gestapo in Media Matters, and then you have the political Gestapo in MoveOn.org. And the intention is the same. The intention is to smear an individual without any basis in reality, without any fairness, in an attempt to make that person demonized so that they will not be listened to.
- BRUCE: It is a very serious dynamic. Now, the issues involved are almost irrelevant because the truth of the matter is, no matter what is said, no matter what is done, the Gestapo will find a way to move in some kind of element of demonization, especially as we move into this election year. And it is -- when it comes to the military, when it comes to government, or especially with you, in this case, an individual who is independent from either party line and who is likely to be listened to more seriously than other people.
- BRUCE: It's a gift because what it does is it swings the curtain back. I -- when I was in the left, it's known as the network. Literally, a network of outlets that then follow the lead of who it is that's leading the charge, whether it be The New York Times or, in this instance, Media Matters or MoveOn.org. And what Americans need to realize, and I think what commentators have a duty to do, is remind people what the real story is, which is this is an opportunity to see how that network operates, how it exists, especially as Americans have to listen to establishment media for news about an election and for decisions they make. So it's a real opportunity to show who is part of the network, who is playing that role, who is a water carrier and who isn't. And I think that you, as a lightning rod, is a perfect example for most people about the agenda is of the Gestapo and how it can be stopped.
Hopefully, someone can stop this, because America is beginning to be held hostage by these far-left, well-financed operatives, and it has ominous portent for the future of our nation.
What follows is a full transcript of this segment.
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: "Impact" segment, tonight. The far-left Internet sites are in the business to smear any and all commentators who do not toe the liberal line. In the past year, Media Matters has personally attacked me 109 times. Glenn Beck has been smeared 92 times. Rush Limbaugh, 87 times. And Sean Hannity, 75 times. Not one liberal radio commentator has been smeared by Media Matters.
Joining us now from Los Angeles, radio talk-show star Tammy Bruce, who's also been attacked by that smear factory.
OK. Commentators are attacked by this. We know this. We ignore it most of the time until CNN or another, what they call, mainstream media outlet picks it up. But some people are saying, "Look, O'Reilly, you should just ignore this. You shouldn't do anything about it." I'm attacking it, obviously. How do you see it?
TAMMY BRUCE, RADIO HOST: Well, it is actually very serious. And the real story is -- and I think those of us who are in the public eye have got to call attention to the real story, which is the fact that a Gestapo has emerged in America. If you'll notice, the attacks on you mirror the attacks on General Petraeus. And you have a media Gestapo in Media Matters, and then you have the political Gestapo in MoveOn.org. And the intention is the same. The intention is to smear an individual without any basis in reality, without any fairness, in an attempt to make that person demonized so that they will not be listened to.
It is a very serious dynamic. Now, the issues involved are almost irrelevant because the truth of the matter is, no matter what is said, no matter what is done, the Gestapo will find a way to move in some kind of element of demonization, especially as we move into this election year. And it is -- when it comes to the military, when it comes to government, or especially with you, in this case, an individual who is independent from either party line and who is likely to be listened to more seriously than other people.
O'REILLY: OK. Now, how do you handle it then when a CBS morning news -- totally irresponsible, the correspondent didn't listen to the tape. The anchor who did the interview links it up to an Imus. You know, this Media Matters is --
BRUCE: Sure.
O'REILLY: -- the same people that got Imus. Now, they know that's dishonest. CNN from the jump knew it was dishonest because I told them.
BRUCE: Sure.
O'REILLY: And they didn't care. CNN, we know because they're getting hammered in the ratings 6 to 1 by us. So we know why they do it. But how do you handle a CBS morning news?
BRUCE: Well, you -- this is actually a gift. And I know it probably doesn't feel that way --
O'REILLY: No, it does. I agree with you.
BRUCE: -- to those of use who have been targets.
O'REILLY: It is a gift, absolutely.
BRUCE: It's a gift because what it does is it swings the curtain back. I -- when I was in the left, it's known as the network. Literally, a network of outlets that then follow the lead of who it is that's leading the charge, whether it be The New York Times or, in this instance, Media Matters or MoveOn.org. And what Americans need to realize, and I think what commentators have a duty to do, is remind people what the real story is, which is this is an opportunity to see how that network operates, how it exists, especially as Americans have to listen to establishment media for news about an election and for decisions they make. So it's a real opportunity to show who is part of the network, who is playing that role, who is a water carrier and who isn't. And I think that you, as a lightning rod, is a perfect example for most people about the agenda is of the Gestapo and how it can be stopped.
O'REILLY: Sure, and the reason it's a gift is because we have the tape. And anybody --
BRUCE: Yes.
O'REILLY: -- can go to BillOReilly.com and hear the whole thing. And there's no two sides to the story. There's no debate.
BRUCE: Well, it's context.
O'REILLY: Right.
BRUCE: No, it's context, and the other issue is always --
O'REILLY: But isn't it depressing --
BRUCE: Uh-huh.
O'REILLY: -- isn't it depressing in a republic as strong as America that we have now the most corrupt media in the history of our country. That's a little depressing to me, Tammy.
BRUCE: Well, it is, but it also then shines the light on the media that we can trust like Fox, frankly.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.















Comments Policy
I like Bruce, and she has
September 27, 2007 - 10:31 ET by bassndudeI like Bruce, and she has hit it right on. Move on and MM are nothing more than media and political nazis. But instead of the Jewish community, it is the conservatives they wish to exterminate.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I place a motion on the floor
September 27, 2007 - 12:32 ET by cvgbuckeyeI place a motion on the floor and pledge that "I shall no longer refer to the Main Stream Media or the MSM as such, BUT from this day forward I will refer to them as the GESTAPO"
slight caution
September 27, 2007 - 16:32 ET by TruthMongerInvoking the Nazi's too much can be a problem...
But ain't this delicious!
Yeh
September 28, 2007 - 15:14 ET by cvgbuckeyeYeh, I reckon you are right truthie; you're right.
This is a non-scandal
September 27, 2007 - 10:32 ET by sarcasmoIt's not at all like what Anus said, and the left lost their chance at getting O'Reilly fired, as I've said.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Bruce and O'Reilly stopped short of naming the underlying source
September 27, 2007 - 10:32 ET by RJof much of these media and political "gestapo" tactics: George Soros.
This man has stated he intends to change America, and is financing his dream by funding organizations like MediaMatters and MoveOn.
Who can go through this
September 27, 2007 - 10:33 ET by JasonCWho can go through this transcript and find all instances of weasel words and slippery rhetoric? Let's start with Bruce's obsessive use of "Gestapo". Isn't there a rule about how using Hitlerian references loses the debate automatically? Is Bruce really comparing her smear-the-right conspiracy theory to the liquidation of Jews? I've always condemned it when leftists call Bush a Nazi, and I'm gonna do it here too.
I've read one of Bruce's books, and so I shouldn't be remotely surprised by her behavior on BOR, but my jaw hit the floor nevertheless when I caught this segment last night.
I think the controversy over BOR and Soulfoodgate is definitely nothing but hype that will blow over. But O'Reilly routinely mocks, smears, and insults people on his show, so I have a tough time buying his wounded puppy act. Ever notice that serious conservatives, the type that don't put glamour shots on the covers of their stunningly unintellectual and badly-written books about the vast left-wing conspiracy, tend not to get "smeared" in this way? I've never seen Thomas Sowell get attacked like this, have you? You participate in the politics of mud-slinging, you get dirty. Simple as that, Bill.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
If you've never seen
September 27, 2007 - 10:37 ET by sarcasmoUgly, racist attacks from the left on black conservative/libertarians like Walter Williams & Thomas Sowell, then you've not been looking too hard...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I've seen serious rebuttals
September 27, 2007 - 10:48 ET by JasonCI've seen serious rebuttals to their work, but I've never seen them get caught up in the kind of public 3-ring circus that BOR does on a regular basis.
And Sarc, I'm a big Sowell fan, you too?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Funny...
September 27, 2007 - 10:52 ET by sarcasmoI've seen them called "Uncle Toms." I don't see many serious rebuttals of their work, though, perhaps you can point me to a few?
And yes, I'm a fan of both men. I like their ideas.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarc
September 27, 2007 - 11:01 ET by JasonCHere's a brief one. It's not exactly comprehensive. Many articles that I described are of the sort that you have to pay to read the full text. I'm not saying I agree with this article by any means, just an example of a writer criticizing his work without resorting to primetime-style hysteria. On a sort-of-related note, have you read Sowell's review of The Bell Curve? Great stuff.
Thomas Sowell: Capitalism as a Religion
bt Jerry Kraus
Thomas Sowell (b. 1930), senior fellow at the Hoover Institution,
Stanford University, is the author of "Basic Economics: A Common Sense
Guide to the Economy" (3rd Edition, 2007, Basic Books), an elegant,
informative, witty and accessible introduction to a wide range of
economic principles from the perspective of a modern American
economist. Mr. Sowell writes with style and grace on a wide range of
economic subjects of highly general interest. He also writes economic
propaganda of an absurdity that would make Lenin or Mao blush,
completely ignoring the most basic elements of common sense in an
effort to demonstrate the absolute perfection of the Capitalist
"Market" -- whatever that is -- as an economic mechanism and social
structure. A single example will suffice:
"The cost of medical care is not reduced in the slightest when the
government imposes lower rates of pay for doctors or hospitals. There
are still just as many resources required as before to build and equip
a hospital or to train a medical student to become a doctor.
Countries which impose lower prices on medical treatment have ended up
with longer waiting lists to see doctors, less modern equipment in
their hospitals and, in the case of Britain, a substantial portion of
their doctors have come from Third World countries with lower quality
medical training, because of an inadequate supply of doctors willing
to practice medicine in Britain. Costs have not been lowered for the
same medical care. Lower prices have been paid for lower quality
treatment." (p. 501).
So, since medical care is FREE in Britain, we are to conclude that it
must have ZERO VALUE!!!???
Aside from the fact that Mr. Sowell has, in fact, provided no evidence
whatsoever that British Health Care is inferior to American Health
care, the direct implication of his argument is that free health care
is worth nothing whatsoever. This seems unlikely, since life
expectancy is actually HIGHER IN BRITAIN than in the United States!!
As Adam Smith pointed out in "The Wealth of Nations", Capitalism has
its limitations. There is destructive competition -- such as
malpractice litigation, medical advertising expenses, huge medical
insurance bureaucracies. There are economies of scale that come from
mass production and simplification with government control. And there
is the elimination of straight gouging -- Canada's drugs cost half
those in the U.S. Would Mr. Sowell seriously argue that that's
because they're only half as effective???
Free Enterprise is a powerful spur to creativity and ambition and
productivity. It is very useful in many economic contexts. But not
all the time. And not always with health care.
Don't confuse analysis with pure religious faith. The "Market" is not
perfect. And the "Market" is not all there is to economics or human
society. Thomas Sowell's economic fanaticism notwithstanding!!
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Only Marxism requires
September 27, 2007 - 11:19 ET by robert108Only Marxism requires perfection, which is the source of its totalitarianism. Free people making free choices, on the other hand, works quite well with normal human imperfection.
ummmm.....OK. "He was,
September 27, 2007 - 11:21 ET by JasonCummmm.....OK.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Free?
September 27, 2007 - 12:03 ET by AgnosticBut the value must be equated with the cost of the system. Free? If tax money (revenue) is not used by the government then it is free and Kraus' argument would have some validity. But as I am sure you are aware it is not free to anyone who pays taxes and it is generally "less free" to the middle class who lack the options of the rich and the hand outs of the poor.
The key to economics
September 27, 2007 - 22:35 ET by UnsaneYour pleas notwithstanding, economics makes the world go 'round.
By the way, if you master the tagline, you will hold the key to ALL economics. And yes, Leftist horror notwithstanding, it most certainly applies to labor.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Ad nauseum, the posted
September 28, 2007 - 14:51 ET by JasonCAd nauseum, the posted remarks are not written by me or endorsed by me. They were merely cut 'n posted by me to satisfy Sarc's request for an article that critiques Sowell fairly; a criterion which, ideological particulars notwithstanding, this article does.
If I had to do it all over again, believe me, I would have used the private message function.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
He won't answer you.
September 27, 2007 - 12:19 ET by NforceHe's a typical hit & run mental coward lib. They run their mouths then run. What I'd like to know is why lilberal democRAT asshats like him feel the need to come on Conservative blogs and run their mouths. Like wild animals, they just can't stay in their own territory. I can't stand 'em.
Answer who, tough guy?
September 27, 2007 - 12:45 ET by JasonCAnswer who, tough guy? Sarc asked for an example of a dignified rebuttal to Sowell and I cut and pasted one. I'm not even supporting it's position, it's just an example of the sort that he asked for. I'm not running my mouth, I'm making arguments, and that's what these sort of message board-enabled blogs are ostensibly for. I have no use for Daily Kos. If you feel threatened by it, go listen to Rush so you can just nod in lemming-like agreement with everything he says. And if you have a problem with me in particular, go complain to Mr. Shepherd and tell him you want me banned. Really, do it now.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Nforce...
September 27, 2007 - 15:38 ET by JasonCStill waiting, cowboy.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
i must lean toward the lib
September 27, 2007 - 16:35 ET by TruthMongeri must lean toward the lib a little here - Nazi references get tossed around too much these days...
but the world should still only use them when referring to the LEFT (rimshot:)
Nforce
September 27, 2007 - 13:13 ET by Noel SheppardNf,
With all due respect, Jason is a valued member here, and irrespective of his liberal leaning, is by no means a hit-and-run artist. Frankly, I'd love to have more liberal members like him.
In reality, if we are only talking amongst fellow choir members, wouldn't that get borrowing? As such, we're trying to encourage folks with opposing views to join the discussion. I hope you can appreciate that. ns
Much appreciated
September 27, 2007 - 13:40 ET by JasonCMuch appreciated Noel.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"you participate in
September 27, 2007 - 10:40 ET by buddyc"you participate in the politics of mud-slining, you get dirty"
I am sure you support Ann Coulter's writings about the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan and others. They got involved in mud-slinging. Why don't you tell us they deserve what Coulter gave them?
I support Ann Coulter's
September 27, 2007 - 10:46 ET by JasonCI support Ann Coulter's right to say whatever she wants in her feeble-minded books. I happen to think her attack on the Jersey Girls was both weak and in poor taste (not that she did attack them at all, but the way she went about it; but rubbing salt in a wound is Coulter's basic MO). So no, I don't "support" Coulter's writings but I'm not gonna start shrieking that it was unfair or call the PC police.
I could care less about Sheehan, she's been hurting liberal causes for way too long now and based on her more recent behavior should be institutionalized. She absolutely got involved in mud-slinging, so yes, fair game.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Since both the Jersey Girls
September 27, 2007 - 11:43 ET by robert108Since both the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan initiated the mud-slinging, they both got the consequences of their actions. AC is anything but feeble-minded, btw.
Since both the Jersey Girls
September 27, 2007 - 12:48 ET by JasonCSince both the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan initiated the mud-slinging, they both got the consequences of their actions.
I more or less agree.
AC is anything but feeble-minded, btw.
I don't think she is either; quite the opposite, she's a savvy, shrewd political personality who's found her niche. But I do think that her writing is weak and couched in bad jokes that pass for insight. Being over-the-top doesn't make good writing, but it's really all that separates her from hundreds of unknown far-right writers.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC: "
September 27, 2007 - 13:02 ET by MightyMouthJasonC: "
I support Ann Coulter's right to say whatever she wants in her feeble-minded books."
Robert108: "AC is anything but feeble-minded, btw."
JaconC:
"I don't think she is either; quite the opposite, she's a savv..."
So JasonC is "arguing for the sake of arguing". And as the typical liberal, cannot stand by his own words. We see it all the time around here.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM, and you expected acute
September 27, 2007 - 13:07 ET by bassndudeMM, and you expected acute intelligent discourse?? What else do these people do?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Leon had a slew of
September 27, 2007 - 13:11 ET by vrwc13Leon had a slew of "circular reasoning" statements yesterday in the "deleted" comments on evolution/creation debate on the "View" blog. Give these guys enough rope...
v
Leon is always running in
September 27, 2007 - 13:13 ET by bassndudeLeon is always running in circles. He dosent even know what he thinks.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Ahhh semantics. Actually,
September 27, 2007 - 13:08 ET by BinxlyAhhh semantics. Actually, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Jason was refering to her BOOK being feeble-minded. I love her books due to how rediculously over the top they are and because she is like the Bill Maher of the right, only much more well informed if not a bit too harsh at times. A smart, savvy person can indeed have feeble minded literature created by them. Just as how many feeble minded authors (thinking Ann Rice) can sometimes stumble upon literary gold.
And now we hear from
September 27, 2007 - 13:19 ET by MightyMouthAnd now we hear from balboa's sockpuppet.
Why not just come out and say: "Ann Coulter doesn't believe a damn word of what she writes!"? ... And then attempt to prove it!
JALC:
Just Another Lying Conservative... trying to make a buck eh?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Good lord MM! I LIKE Ann
September 27, 2007 - 13:28 ET by BinxlyGood lord MM! I LIKE Ann Coulter!
I agree with plenty of what she says, I was merely saying that Jason was refering to the book as feeble minded, not Ann Coulter persay. I only said that *because* its over the top, that might turn off some, even cause some to deem it 'feeble minded.'
Explaining a motive doesn't really ever equate to endorsing it. As for sockpuppets, they're sorta creepy, plus, I don't think I've ever disagreed with anyone on here more than I have with Bal, I just save my responses cause it seems he gets plenty of ball busting without my 2 cents :)
Binx, how the hell are
September 27, 2007 - 13:39 ET by MightyMouthBinx, how the hell are "feeble minded" peeps supposed to "pick up" on "over the top" political commentary? Can ya answer me dat?
On the frigin contrary, it takes people damn near as politically savvy as Ann to pick it up. Which is exactlly why most libs don't.
You see the libs are the feeble minded ones the books are written for, but the savvy Ann has missed her feeble minded target audience and hit the savvy conservative audience! She's the luckiest frigin writer on earth!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
haha well again, I dont
September 27, 2007 - 14:06 ET by Binxlyhaha well again, I dont endorse his calling the book 'feeble minded' to be correct, just that perhaps, semantically, that was his point. Agreed, 'feeble minds' will miss the point of these books. However, I respect the fact that people do indeed see her as 'feeble minded.' She is VERY conservative, and just how many VERY conservatives see VERY liberal minded people as feeble minded, its no suprise that the extreme left would also find something as rooted in conservative princples as Ann's books as 'feeble minded.'
Not that Im calling you part of the extreme left there Jason, you're far too mannerly (so far) to get that awful of a title :-P
Thank you binxly, and your
September 27, 2007 - 14:10 ET by JasonCThank you binxly, and your response was quite thoughtful as well. I don't think there's any subtlety to Ann's writing, personally. The insistence on the part of conservatives that I just don't get what she does has yet to be substantiated.
Speaking of, she has another book out already? I have to assume it's another "greatest hits" type collection, or that her standards of research have just slipped another notch.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Actually her new book may
September 27, 2007 - 14:27 ET by MightyMouthActually her new book may be the best yet (title wise anyhoo).
"If Democrats had any brains they would be Republicans"
Don't have to have a "feeble mind" to get that one...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Jason, I love seeing
September 27, 2007 - 22:38 ET by UnsaneJason, I love seeing Leftists getting their panties in a bunch over Coulter. She's not even that great a writer. For the proper articulation of conservative thought, there are much better, far superior sources of information.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
First of all, I mentioned
September 28, 2007 - 08:22 ET by JasonCFirst of all, I mentioned Coulter only in passing and the thread was immediately derailed in the interest of other posters making me clarify my position. Second, I think you'll find that I was far less panty-bunched than those accosting me with questions. Frankly, I think a certain strain of conservative is just as rabid about defending her at any cost (why?) as some liberals are about mocking her at any cost. And the book sales go up.
Finally, I agree with your last statement; that's what I've been trying to say! It's not her opinions that are so putrid, it's her commercial imperative to be extreme, which renders her arguments incredibly weak and easy to rebut.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I am happy to see you admit
September 28, 2007 - 10:56 ET by MightyMouthI am happy to see you admit to derailing the thread. Of course in your mind the "derailers" are the ones who challange your flaming assertions. sheesh...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Nonsense. The derailment
September 28, 2007 - 12:18 ET by JasonCNonsense. The derailment was caused by fellow NBers' insistence that I clarify a semantically-unambiguous remark about Coulter's work. That the thread turned to that pressing matter and never found its way back to Sowell, O'Reilly, or the "gestapo" comment can hardly be pinned on me.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
You said, and I quote:
September 28, 2007 - 12:35 ET by MightyMouth"I support Ann Coulter's right to say whatever she wants in her feeble-minded books"
Which is basically an ad hominem on those who read her books. If you want to call that "semantically-unambiguous" then I am going to have to LMAO at you! And...If you didn't want to derail a thread with such a statement you should have made it at KOS or HUFFPO. :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
But again, those who freely
September 28, 2007 - 13:05 ET by JasonCBut again, those who freely say such offhand things about liberal equivalents like Michael Moore and Al Franken are not taken to task at such length to qualify the exact semantic meaning of their remarks, diverting focus from the original subject matter in the process.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Well, whos fault is that?
September 28, 2007 - 13:08 ET by MightyMouthWell, who's fault is that? Why don't you moonbats get more involved in defending your heros?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
They are, emphatically, not
September 28, 2007 - 13:23 ET by JasonCThey are, emphatically, not my heroes. I would think as little of someone's political perspective that was entirely formed by reading Lies and the Lying Liars or watching Fahrenheit 9/11 as I would of those informed by Coulter.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Fair enough. We appreciate
September 28, 2007 - 13:33 ET by MightyMouthFair enough. We appreciate you not enabling thread derailment by responding to attacks on people you don't agree with (?). Anyhow, IMO you started it. Just don't do it again and you won't get the same result. :-o
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Or if I do question what
September 28, 2007 - 20:14 ET by balboaOr if I do question what someone says about a liberal, it's ME who's derailing a thread. :=|
JasonC...
September 28, 2007 - 20:08 ET by UnsaneAllow me to be more clear then, as I certainly respect one who reads Ann Coulter BEFORE being critical of her, whether praiseworthy or damning. When I say that the Leftists get their panties in a bunch, that was NOT aimed at you. Yes, I certainly could have been more clear about that.
Her commercial imperative to me isn't what offends me; once with some conservative friends over lunch one day, when Godless came out, we all agreed that she is "a conservative bomb-thrower". In fact, it was this "bomb-throwing" - as well as the crying on the Left - that prompted mr to buy the aforementioned book. The presentation could have been better (not nearly the quality I have gotten from Hannity, Charen and especially Dr. Sowell), but ultimately what dims her in my eyes is her writing style. Reading her book, I got the sense that she made no effort to separate her writing and speaking styles. That is a bothersome thing for me. Hence I am reluctant to read anything else by her.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Understood and agreed.
September 28, 2007 - 20:10 ET by JasonCUnderstood and agreed. Though I think Hannity falls into the same camp, and in many ways he irritates me more than Coulter. But that's another thread for another time.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Thank you Binxley, I was
September 27, 2007 - 13:29 ET by JasonCThank you Binxley, I was indeed referring to her books as feeble-minded, which is, semantically, exactly what I originally said. I am well aware that one cannot actually be stupid and also be as spectacularly successful as Ann.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So you are saying Ann
September 27, 2007 - 13:33 ET by MightyMouthSo you are saying Ann Coulter is giving political opinions in her books that she does not believe? They are for the simple minded buyers of her books, but she doesn't believe a word of it, right? That is what you are telling us now? Well prove it!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I think she believes in her
September 27, 2007 - 13:37 ET by JasonCI think she believes in her overall opinion but I think she writes about them in a dishonestly reactionary way, a way that has proven conducive to selling more books. I think she well knows that not all Democrats and liberals fall under the rubric that she has cast for them, but she is smart enough to take this extreme, compartmentalized view because a) it's easier than being nuanced and b) people enjoy that sort of thing.
Hell, I own two of her books, so even I've bought into it and put money in her pocket.
Does that make sense?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
You admit you're one of the
September 27, 2007 - 13:43 ET by MightyMouthYou admit you're one of the feeble minded buyers of Ann Coulter's books? Oh oh.. that was BEFORE you realized Ann is full of Sh*t. hmmm... you wouldn't be backtrackin because I called you on it would ya? naaaaaaaaaaa!!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Oh MM, I've admitted a
September 27, 2007 - 13:46 ET by JasonCOh MM, I've admitted a dozen times over on this site that I read Coulter's column regularly and own some of her books. You should've seen the look on the clerk's face when I went into the bookstore/worker's co-op in Amherst, MA, and asked them to special order "How to Talk to a Liberal." I consider myself a cultural and literary critic, and I wouldn't be much of one if I didn't read what I criticize, now would I?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So you are like one of the
September 27, 2007 - 13:55 ET by MightyMouthSo you are like one of the Newsbusters who are forced to watch the "View" or Olberloon or Sissy Matthews so you can come and report on their idiocy?
Thanks for your public service JasonC. Those of us who buy Ann Coulters feeble minded books because we are...well... feeble minded, appreciate your efforts.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Something like that,
September 27, 2007 - 14:08 ET by JasonCSomething like that, although I manage not to turn every utterance of her name into some derogatory portmanteau.
Strange how casually-used adjectives such as "feeble-minded" (and much worse), when applied to the likes of those you mention, are not nearly so heartily challenged and semanticized on this site!
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Thank you Bill O'rielly!
September 27, 2007 - 14:22 ET by MightyMouth"portmanteau" Thanks for making me look that up. I learn something new everyday on NB :-)
And if you think about it, it's not so strange that such terms are not challenged more on this site. After all this is by and large a conservative blog. I think you'll find more civil discourse here than on almost any liberal site. But that's what conseratives are about: civil and inclusive discourse! :-p
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I know, I was joking about
September 27, 2007 - 14:29 ET by JasonCI know, I was joking about that part. And despite a tenuous agreement on political terms, I despise liberal blogs. For basically all the reasons you put out there.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I don't think she is
September 27, 2007 - 13:43 ET by BinxlyI don't think she is refering to 'liberals' as to ALL people who vote democrat, ever have voted democrat, or even have liberal leanings. her concept of 'the liberal' is in reference to the self-congratulating, anti-capitalist, immoral, 'gimmie your money so I can spend it better', tax-em-to death liberals who are either a driving force of, or member of the current crazy left-wing trendy crazy sweeping the uninformed and apathetic across our nation. I highly doubt she TRUELY thinks ALL liberals fall under that banner. She's merely doing what someone should have a long time ago. Fighting the liberals at their own game, using a crass approach, only with Ann she is often not only correct, but also doesn't fall into the pitfalls of authors like Al Franken who just simply have no frame of reference and throw out stereotypes of conservatives without anything substantial to reinforce said stereotype.
you support thugs
September 27, 2007 - 11:05 ET by bulbasaurDemocrat Bill Clinton's administration called Monica Lewinsky a stalker in an effort to escape Clinton's being discovered as a perjurer in a civil rights trial.
And yet people like you not only lacked outrage, you gave him honors and accolades until the day he left office in disgrace.
Your hissy fit about Ann Coulter falls flat, pal.
Where is my hissy fit about
September 27, 2007 - 11:08 ET by JasonCWhere is my hissy fit about Coulter? I was 16 when Lewinskygate went down, I couldn't even vote yet, and I was more concerned with girls and beer than giving anyone accolades. What does Lewinsky even have to do with this conversation? I'll be happy to clarify my position, but at least address what I said and make some sense.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
your hissy fit
September 27, 2007 - 11:34 ET by bulbasaurLike a good lib you distance yourself from Bill Clinton. Don't be ashamed, I'd do it too.
When you ask what Clinton's attack on Monica Lewinsky has to do with this topic, it has the same relevance as your smear against Ann Coulter, which is also off topic.
See, in my case, I referred to a specific thing Mr. Clinton said that was a verifiably false attack. In your case, you changed the subject to a vague, nonspecific smear against Ann Coulter.
Coulter and O'Reilly really get to you libs. Why?
Where did I smear Ann
September 27, 2007 - 12:52 ET by JasonCWhere did I smear Ann Coulter? I was asked how I felt about her writing about the Jersey Girls. And the question was very much on-topic, as this whole board is about right and leftwing personalities throwing mud at each other.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Some of us do our best to
September 27, 2007 - 13:09 ET by BinxlySome of us do our best to remain objective as possible. That said, mud fights can be fun and extremely enticing. Look at woodstock :-P
JC
September 27, 2007 - 11:07 ET by Noel SheppardJC,
The Gestapo did more than just kill six million Jews. The reference here is about propaganda, and Joseph Goebbels was the master. As such, in this instance, Bruce was comparing Nazi propaganda tactics against its enemies to what the left do to theirs. You might not like the analogy, but it is, at the very least, a compelling and provocative one that deserves discussion.
As for your mud-slinging comment, do black Republicans like Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas deserve the attacks they get from the left? Furthermore, I have seen some rather hateful netroots comments regarding Thomas Sowell. Did you miss these, too?
Finally, what did Gen. Petraeus do to deserve how he was treated by MoveOn and the netroots? Hmmm?
If you think these folks are purely retalitory in their tactics, you're fooling yourself. ns
Indeed, if you buy into the
September 27, 2007 - 11:20 ET by JasonCIndeed, if you buy into the notion that there is some sort of highly-organized cabal of liberal smear artists with a secret master plan to bring down prominent conservatives, then I suppose the Gestapo analogy is apt. But I don't think this is true, and I don't find Bruce's discussion to be thoughtful; I think she was dropping little rhetorical bombs all over the place. "Gestapo" served as little more than an unqualified term guaranteed to rile up a viewer.
Clarence Thomas and Rice are public political figures and one cannot say they deserve or don't deserve criticism. When race enters needlessly into it, you can be sure I will criticize it.
If there are bloggers attacking Sowell, as you mention, I am unaware of it. Leftist bloggers tend to be unhinged. My point was that you don't see him getting involved in these big-pundit battle royales.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Actually, Tammy did give the
September 27, 2007 - 11:46 ET by robert108Actually, Tammy did give the supporting info about the cabal; when she was a leftie, they called it "the network", and she described how it worked.
I read "The End of Right
September 27, 2007 - 12:50 ET by JasonCI read "The End of Right and Wrong." Just because she worked for NOW years ago doesn't make her qualified to claim that there's a massive leftist conspiracy.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte