
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.





















Editor at Large
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
we humbly refer to the
September 27, 2007 - 16:40 ET by TruthMongerwe humbly refer to the mountain of NB evidence undeniably demonstrating otherwise...
this phenomenon has also gone by many other names - PC, thought police, re-education, brainwashing...
You're right. Gestapo is the wrong word
September 27, 2007 - 14:13 ET by ArcherBWho 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 think "Brownshirt" would have been a more accurate phrase to use here. If you read up on the tactics of Brownshirts, like showing up at rallies they oppose and shout down whoever they don't like (Minute Men at Columbia, Ann Coulter at UT, Republican National Convention in NY...), you'll find that the left follows these tactics to the letter. This is no different.
It's a Brownshirt tactic, not Gestapo.
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
Not to mention "Gestapo"
September 27, 2007 - 14:30 ET by JasonCNot to mention "Gestapo" implies that they are agents of the state.
"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
nothing wrong with that
September 27, 2007 - 16:41 ET by TruthMongernothing wrong with that implication - the libs are the state...
PC is mandated by law
How so? Because Democrats
September 27, 2007 - 21:57 ET by JasonCHow so? Because Democrats have tenuous control of the house and senate?
"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
O'Reilly is not
September 27, 2007 - 10:36 ET by buddycO'Reilly is not careful. He is going to get smeared really bad. The latest is nothing compared to what he is going to get. He has been a target for years. This isn't new. It is just a matter of time. The goal is to destroy him like the Clinton did to Imus. If they just damage him as the did here, they will be happy and wait for the next opportunity.
This is Clinton politics. We have been living in this environment for almost 15 years.
The left
September 27, 2007 - 10:42 ET by iveseenitallI saw this interview. I kept thinking, "My God. This stuff is right out of the Communist handbook." Thank you, O'Reilly and Bruce.
BTW, it is amusing to me to watch O'Reillys "education" regarding the left over the past few years. He actually said to President Bush's press secretary that you can't change them and not to bother trying. This is something many of us have known for decades. It takes a while, but sooner or later all clear-thinking people know to...
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Bill O likes to talk about
September 27, 2007 - 10:46 ET by Chidi NwachukhuBill O likes to talk about being smeared, but where are the examples of him being misquoted?
In this case, the left's tactic
September 27, 2007 - 10:49 ET by sarcasmoWas apparently to quote him accurately but out of context, as we've been repeatedly-told by everyone including Juan Williams, the other half of the conversation. Should that tactic be called honest, or dishonest??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
This is thetranscript from
September 27, 2007 - 11:06 ET by Chidi NwachukhuThis is thetranscript from Media Matters. I am not sure how this is out of context:
From the September 19 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor:
O"REILLY: Now, how do we get to this point? Black people in this country understand that they've had a very, very tough go of it, and some of them can get past that, and some of them cannot. I don't think there's a black American who hasn't had a personal insult that they've had to deal with because of the color of their skin. I don't think there's one in the country. So you've got to accept that as being the truth. People deal with that stuff in a variety of ways. Some get bitter. Some say, [unintelligible] "You call me that, I'm gonna be more successful." OK, it depends on the personality.
So it's there. It's there, and I think it's getting better. I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out: "Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it."
You know, I was up in Harlem a few weeks ago, and I actually had dinner with Al Sharpton, who is a very, very interesting guy. And he comes on The Factor a lot, and then I treated him to dinner, because he's made himself available to us, and I felt that I wanted to take him up there. And we went to Sylvia's, a very famous restaurant in Harlem. I had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful. They all watch The Factor. You know, when Sharpton and I walked in, it was like a big commotion and everything, but everybody was very nice.
And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that's really what this society's all about now here in the U.S.A. There's no difference. There's no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment -- people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you're gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody's skin.
[...]
O'REILLY: No, no, I mean, I like that soul food. I had the meatloaf special. I had coconut shrimp. I had the iced tea. It was great.
WILLIAMS: Well, let me just tell you, the one thing I would say is this. And we're talking about the kids who still like this gangsta rap, this vile poison that I think is absolutely, you know, literally a corruption of culture. I think that what you've got to take into account that it's still a majority white audience -- young, white people who think they're into rebelling against their parents who buy this stuff and think it's just a kick. You know, it's just a way of expressing their anti-authoritarianism.
O'REILLY: But it's a different -- it's a different dynamic, though.
WILLIAMS: Exactly right --
O'REILLY: Because the young, white kids don't have to struggle out of the ghetto.
WILLIAMS: Right, and also, I think they can have that as one phase of their lives.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: I think too many of the black kids take it as, "Oh, that's what it means to be authentically black. That's how you make money. That's how you become rich and famous and get on TV and get music videos." And you either get the boys or the girls. The girls think they have to, you know, be half-naked and spinning around like they're on meth in order to get any attention. It really corrupts people, and I think it adds, Bill, to some serious sociological problems, like the high out-of-wedlock birth rate because of this hypersexual imagery that then the kids adapt to some kind of reality. I mean, it's inauthentic. It's not in keeping with great black traditions of struggle and excellence, from Willie Mays to Aretha Franklin, but even in terms of academics, you know, going back to people like Charles Drew or Ben Carson here, the neurosurgeon at [Johns] Hopkins [University]. That stuff, all of a sudden, is pushed aside. That's treated as, "You're a nerd, you're acting white," if you try to be excellent and black.
O'REILLY: You know, and I went to the concert by Anita Baker at Radio City Music Hall, and the crowd was 50/50, black/white, and the blacks were well-dressed. And she came out -- Anita Baker came out on the stage and said, "Look, this is a show for the family. We're not gonna have any profanity here. We're not gonna do any rapping here." The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg.
WILLIAMS: Oh, and it's just so awful. It's just so awful because, I mean, it's literally the sewer come to the surface, and now people take it that the sewer is the whole story --
O'REILLY: That's right. That's right. There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, "M-Fer, I want more iced tea."
WILLIAMS: Please --
O'REILLY: You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all.
focus like a laser beam
September 27, 2007 - 11:27 ET by bulbasaurCould you help us advance the discussion by stating in a simple and very clear sentence what wrongdoing Mr. O'Reilly committed?
You seem incapable of articulating it.
I'm sure you're reality-based and everything, so it's not a personal insult. We're just asking you to focus like a laser beam.
For example, when I say "Bill Clinton pardoned terrorists," that's not a smear. That's a brief, concise statement of something offensive that Mr. Clinton did.
See what we're looking for here? Resist the urge to cut and paste. Be reality-based. Focus.
I was commenting on (follow
September 27, 2007 - 12:52 ET by Chidi NwachukhuI was commenting on (follow me) on the fact that Bill was NOT BEING MISQUOTED. HE ACTUALLY SAID THIS: "And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." I didn't say what he said was wrong, but did say that he is wrong in claiming he is being misquoted. He is being accutrately qouted, in context. Seems simple to me.
let me help you
September 27, 2007 - 10:55 ET by bulbasaurNobody said he was misquoted.
We said there's no substance to the smear against him. All smoke, no fire.
Hope that helps!
There's plenty of substance.
September 27, 2007 - 11:11 ET by WisdomThere's plenty of substance. I wouldn't call his comments racist. But I would call them ignorant on a certain level. I would think that BOR living in New York City would encounter enough minorities to know they're able to run a restaurant and to eat in a civil manner. Although he did really seem a little flabbergasted by this, which surprised me. But I think he was more speaking to his audience letting them know "hey we're all the same." I think he realized a lot of his audience is unfamiliar with other races so he had to explain to them that a black restaurant is "exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks," and that at the Anita Baker concert the "blacks were well-dressed." It's sad that he has to point that out to his audience. He obviously meant well and didn't mean to offend the owner of Sylvia's, even though he did. I just couldn't believe BOR couldn't realize how so many took it as an insult instead of a compliment. I heard a good analogy the other day, it's like meeting your friend's mother and "complimenting" her on the fact that she's not a prostitute.
I have diligently scanned
September 27, 2007 - 11:19 ET by bulbasaurI have diligently scanned your post for a specific charge of wrongdoing against Mr. O'Reilly. I really did.
See, the thing about a smear is that it tends to defy expression in a simple sentence. A smear is a train of slogans and insinuations.
Can you give us a brief, very clear statement of Mr. O'Reilly's wrong?
Well there is no smear or
September 27, 2007 - 11:33 ET by WisdomWell there is no smear or "taken out of context" because everyone is able to listen to the audio clips themselves. The "WRONG" you are asking for, first and foremost, is offending the owner of Sylvia's and the many other patrons. That is the worst of the wrongs because they obviously treated Bill with complete respect, as he stated on his show. It's like I said in the earlier post, it's like meeting a friend's mother and saying "its glad to see you're not a prostitute" and then wondering why it wasn't viewed as a compliment, because that was the intent. The other "wrong" was the blatant ignorance O'Reilly showed, I actually agree with the moderates and left-wingers on this one. It is perceived as "wrong" because most people couldn't get over the fact O'Reilly was so shocked at the civility of black patrons. I wouldn't call this "wrong" though. I would call it "surprising" coming from O'Reilly. And the only defense I would've given O'Reilly was that he was just speaking to his audience and trying to get them to understand how we're all the same. But since, O'Reilly has not come out and said that but instead called it a smear and defamation which I think was wrong of him to defend his comments like that.
you ranted again
September 27, 2007 - 11:40 ET by bulbasaurFacts are concise, smear is vague and subjective.
I think it's clear that this is nothing but a smear attack on Mr. O'Reilly.
Well the facts
September 27, 2007 - 12:08 ET by WisdomWell the facts are...
O'Reilly went out to eat at a restaurant. The next day he spoke about the restaurant and offended the owners and employees. They called his comments "one of the worst stereotypes ever of our customers" and "extremely insensitive." He also offended many of the black race. Now, people are having discussions about what the intent was, situations surrounding the statements, and letting those personally linked to the statements (the workers and frequent customers of Sylvia's) speak out. Nothing is "vague and subjective" about the fact that he offended many people. Yeah, some leftist extremists might be trying to smear O'Reilly. But overall, it's just a discussion, not a smear. And I think Mr. O'Reilly is being irresponsible by not addressing that directly or apologizing to the owners and employees at Sylvia's. Or, at the very least, he could just explain himself and his intent (that he was talking specifically to his audience and those that might have stereotypical views). I believe by calling it a smear and not standing up and fighting it directly, O'Reilly is hurting his himself in the way he'll be viewed by the general public.
So, wisdom, how does one reduce one's ignorance?
September 27, 2007 - 13:00 ET by acaiguanaOr is that too hard a question for ya?
It would appear to me that your base charge against O'Reilly is that:
The other "wrong" was the blatant ignorance O'Reilly showed...
I beg to differ. I would assert that O'Reilly was showing a learning event to America and was talking to all of us when he was stating what to you appears to be obvious, that of course, the restaurant was 'normal'.
On the other hand I could take a myriad of examples out of the air pointing to other members of the MSM with respect to their apparant wilfull ignorance about conservative thought and policy stands. Where has one of these folks demonstrated any effort to belie their ignorance?
Take Kouric for example. She went to Iraq. She comes back and still cannot find anything good to say about the war or the soldiers. Why is that? Are our soldiers still ripping the eyelids off Iraqi civilians? Or is she just so mired in her ignorance that she cannot bring herself to change any ideas she spouts. I would go for the latter.
So, while I am not changing the conversation here, I do believe that there is a vast bedrock of mindset among the Liberal Left and that mindset is that they are willing to do whatever it takes to kill off any Republican office holder, destroy any conservative thought broadcast or printed and that as such, they concentrate their firepower on the more obvious messengers.
The reason Sowell has not been made a spectacle (although he has been attacked) is that Liberals discount his influence just like they discount the influence of most of their minority followers as individuals, rather than seeing these folks as part of the greater fold.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I didn't say anything about
September 27, 2007 - 14:37 ET by WisdomI didn't say anything about partisan politics. I'm talking about a specific incidence. While, I agree with you O'Reilly was talking to his primary audience and making it a "learning event for America" like you said, although I would call it a "learning event for his audience" Most of America doesn't give in to those stereotypes. His blatant ignorance comes more from his response. Rather than responding like you and me in stating he was merely just informing his audience, he started acting like those people questioning his words were smearing him. But he is the one that offended all those nice people he encountered at Sylvia's, and then didn't even attempt to apologize.
It's out of control
September 27, 2007 - 10:59 ET byIs anything new really going on here? Methods of demonizing and attacking "others" come from all points along the political spectrum (however you want to conceptualize it). Is this simply the nature of the beast, or is it possible to actually have intellectual conversations about complicated issues without name calling?
billions of dollars
September 27, 2007 - 11:22 ET by bulbasaurGraft and corruption is nothing new. Everyone knows that political campaigns engage in dirty tricks.
Our concern is that members of the democrat party appear to have reached a grim milestone in that they have formalized the infrastructure of the smear tactic, and have apparently earmarked disturbingly large sums of money for it.
This is a new development, and one to monitor very closely.
The Left
September 27, 2007 - 11:45 ET by iveseenitallThe libs on the left compliment ordinary behavior by minorities all the time. Chris Rock used this phenomenon in his comedy routine. He'd mention how some of his friends were so proud that they were not in jail or leaving their kids and wives to fend for themselves. Rock would say, "Hey don't feel so proud about that. You're not SUPPOSED to be in jail. You're not SUPPOSED to leave your wife and kids." The simple , decent behavior we used to come to expect is now something SPECIAL for a minority? Who are the racists here? O'Reilly was simply trying to point out that it is the rapper type who are, hopefully, out of the mainstream.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
isia, What conservative
September 27, 2007 - 12:27 ET by Chris Normanisia,
What conservative public figure, in their right mind, will ever want to even mention African-Americans ever again? It's just too dangerous, with the MoveOn and MSNBC thugs just laying in wait...
Right
September 27, 2007 - 12:35 ET by iveseenitallRight, Chris. Give a liberal an inch.... Even the "best" of them will turn on you in a heartbeat. O'Reilly let his guard down. I'll say it a thousand times...
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Well I think conservative
September 27, 2007 - 12:35 ET by WisdomWell I think conservative public figures just need to get more in touch with minorites and not seem so distant. That's why I was frustrated that our conservatives turned down the debates that were going to be valuable to Hispanic and African-American voters, further distancing themselves from minority voters. There's no "thugs laying in wait," just people that hold public figures accountable for their statements.
Yeah, sure, right, whatever
September 27, 2007 - 12:39 ET by Chris NormanYeah, sure, right, whatever you say...
The shame of it is, there
September 27, 2007 - 13:01 ET by BinxlyThe shame of it is, there ARE a small minority of, well, minorites who lie in wait to attack anything conservative. I blame it on the 'dung hill' principle applied to why and how young middle eastern boys are so easily indoctrinated by terror groups.
Most minorities come from liberal households. Those who had a 'tough' childhood financially, their parents are usually democrat voters due to the stereotype that all conservatives want to end aid for those who need it, when in fact they are not. Most are for holding those USING these services responsible for not just using their welfare as a pay check.
What's funny is too, the 'dung hill' principle is that these middle eastern boys, living in poor conditions, barely able to eat enough each day to survive are approached by these terror groups and offered 3 square meals, clothing, a 'safe' place to sleep, and a sense of community. The irony in THAT case is that the food is scarce because the terrorists rob their own people of such resources and often hijack outside aid from other nations. They also are the reason why many 'normal' citizens are in danger as these terrorists cowardly hide within the civilian masses, and the lack of a sense of community, also caused by the destruction the terrorists bring into their community by fighting from within the masses, causing a disrupt in their society, and a constant sense of fear. These criminals steal everything from their own people, then hold it over their heads to get them to enact their will, to march under their banner in exchange for mere survival.
Democrats are alot alike. High taxes may hurt the 'rich' more than anyone, but they ALSO hurt the poor. The liberals basically collect a percentage of your money, even those whom are poor, take a large chunk OF that percentage, then give it back, much smaller, and call it 'government aid.' Its like that ATM commercial where someone bites out of your hotdog before you get it yet you PAID for a whole hot dog. These people work hard all their lives for the most part and then the government takes a chunk, returns a much smaller chunk, and calls that 'humanitarianism.' Baloney.
Problem is, many of these 'thugs in waiting' are mislead. They don't realize that the liberals hurt them the MOST. Affirmative Action, minority quotas in jobs, and many other democrat backed principles actually FURTHER drive the stake between caucasians and the other minorities. That is the democrats saying to minorities 'I know you're lesser than us white men. You NEED extra help because you're inferior. No worries, vote for me and I'll make sure we don't let these inferiorities keep you from finding work.'
That's crap. White, black, brown, orange, red, whatever, we're ALL human. We ALL have the same capabilities. The democrats seem to think differently, and yet, its conservatives who apparently think minorities 'are lesser beings.'
Basically you both have good points. Wisdom points out many minorities merely want to have dialog about issues pertaining to them. I agree, they should be able to. There ARE those with hit job questions waiting in the wings, but I have faith they are WAY outnumbered by minorities who simply want answers to the issues that matter to them. Its just a shame that republicans let that small minority influence their attendance, or in this case, lack of attendance.
The reason that some
September 27, 2007 - 13:17 ET by Chris NormanThe reason that some minorities are offended by certain comments is that they are professional offendees. The reason Media Matters, CNN, and MSNBC are hyping this smear of "racism" is because they have seen it work so many times. Get rid of O'Reilly and they get rid of the lynch pin of FoxNews domination of primetime cable news shows...
One "Macaca" will get a
September 27, 2007 - 13:31 ET by vrwc13One "Macaca" will get a conservative ousted. On the other hand, liberals seem to continually get a pass. I think it all came to pass when "Feckless" coined "It depends what the definition of "is" is."
v
And that's why it's so
September 27, 2007 - 13:35 ET by Chris NormanAnd that's why it's so dangerous when the media is dominated by one political ideology. When they decide to gang up...
I know what Chris Rock
September 27, 2007 - 12:31 ET by WisdomI know what Chris Rock routine you are talking about and it is very poignant. But Rock is referring to "living room chatter" and the uneducated person who still has such blatant stereotypes. Rock wasn't talking about libs at all, I don't know where you are getting that idea. But the difference here is O'Reilly is a public figure on public airwaves who lives in New York City. That type of rhetoric is to be expected by regular people talking in their living room, but I think most people expected O'Reilly to have more sense than that. I did, since he lives in one of the most diverse cities in the country. I agree with you that "O'Reilly was trying to point out that the rapper type is out of the mainstream." But, really the rapper type has never been the mainstream. That's a small portion of the population that has been overly potrayed by media outlets. O'Reilly was just trying to tell his audience to rid of their stereotypes.
Rock
September 27, 2007 - 14:04 ET by iveseenitallWisdom:
I didn't say Rock was talking about libs. I said he was talking about his friends. I then jumped to the libs in the MSM who do the same thing --expect that ordinary, decent behavior is something special for a minority. There's the racism.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
O'Reilly is a white
September 27, 2007 - 13:07 ET byO'Reilly is a white broadcaster, not a black comedian or someone who just fell off the turnip truck into the big city. For someone who is constantly reminding us that he's been a broadcaster for twenty-five years, he should have known better.
Yes, never discuss anything
September 27, 2007 - 13:31 ET by Chris NormanYes, never discuss anything that may have anything to do with African Americans. Everyone should know better...
So when Jesse Jackson
September 27, 2007 - 13:49 ET bySo when Jesse Jackson called NYC "hymietown", that was fine with you, right?
YOU'VE BEEN ASKED!
September 27, 2007 - 14:11 ET byYOU'VE BEEN ASKED!
Oh, I apologize. I was
September 27, 2007 - 16:50 ET by Chris NormanOh, I've BEEN ASKED. I apologize for the delay, I didn't know you were waiting with bated breath for my reply. I was trying to get some work done. What, for heaven's sake, does my disapproval or approval of the "Hymie Town" remark have to do with my reply that O'Reilly "should have known better"? It's sort of a non-sequitur. You might as well followed up by asking me what my favorite brand of cereal is...
Hymietown
September 27, 2007 - 16:58 ET by TruthMongerconservaties were simply targeting Jackson's HYPOCRACY
it's the Larry Craig thing
Chris, if you respond, be prepared
September 27, 2007 - 14:18 ET by RJfor a pointless, inane "conversation."
Shut your cakehole RJ.
September 27, 2007 - 14:25 ET byShut your cakehole RJ. This is between me and Norman Normal.
Um, I wasn't talking to you
September 27, 2007 - 14:32 ET by RJ;^>
Chris... If you respond
September 27, 2007 - 14:32 ET by Clear thinkerChris...
If you respond be prepared for a pointless, inane "conversation."
Two cakeholes are always better than one!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
LOL!
September 27, 2007 - 14:34 ET by RJLOL!
Okay, I'm feeling
September 27, 2007 - 14:38 ET byOkay, I'm feeling generous. I'll go ahead and open this up to everyone. Jesse Jackson's hymietowm comment--okay with everyone here?
Pass
September 27, 2007 - 14:39 ET by RJPass
To busy eating
September 27, 2007 - 14:43 ET by Clear thinkerTo busy eating cake.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Cake or crow?
September 27, 2007 - 14:54 ET byCake or crow?
got your hymie town right here...
September 27, 2007 - 16:44 ET by TruthMongerwe were "targeting the hypocracy" - you know - like its ok to be gay but lets fire senator craig anyway...?
YOU'VE BEEN ASKED,
September 27, 2007 - 17:06 ET by TruthMongerYOU'VE BEEN ASKED, BLASTER!
not that i really expect your requisite capitulation on this anyway
These people are filling
September 27, 2007 - 15:23 ET by Chris NormanCT,
These people are filling the comment sections with inanities today.
"Norman Normal". That's
September 27, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Chris NormanBlaster (?),
"Norman Normal"- that's very clever and mature of you...
Keep your cake
September 28, 2007 - 04:19 ET by Matthew Sheffieldto yourself.
That is a personal attack, however strangely expressed.
Do stop.
Follow the money........
September 27, 2007 - 12:13 ET by vrwc13The leftSeptember 27, 2007 - 10:42 ET by iveseenitall
I saw this interview. I kept thinking, "My God. This stuff is right out of the Communist handbook." Thank you, O'Reilly and Bruce.
So one must ask "who is behind all this?" Follow the money>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
> George Soros perhaps?
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
Soros
September 27, 2007 - 12:29 ET by iveseenitallSoros? You mean that European guy who owns the Democratic Pary? My wife wrote to him after the 2004 election. She told him then that he can't "buy" America. We hope and pray it's still true.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Soros? Yeah him...
September 27, 2007 - 13:13 ET by vrwc13Anyone who isn't a total left-wing lunatic has known for years that George Soros is a bad guy. Not just because he does everything he can to undermine America and its traditions, but because he is quite literally a crook. In 2002 a French court convicted Soros of insider trading and the court's decision was upheld in 2006.Investor's Business Daily recently wrote a multi-part expose on Soros and his growing influence in American politics. His fingerprints are literally on every major issue of the day from terrorism to global warming. - from here (George Soros: The Enemy Within)
She told him then that he can't "buy" America. We hope and pray it's still true. - iveseenitall
He's trying...so keep praying...hard and often.
v
What about Richard Mellon
September 27, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Chidi NwachukhuWhat about Richard Mellon Scaife?
No one here is smart enough
September 27, 2007 - 16:28 ET byNo one here is smart enough to know who he is.
Umm... One Question...
September 27, 2007 - 13:17 ET by TeamcheeserWhere is Al Sharpton in all of this?
Wasn't he with Bill O'Reilly at the restaurant? Could he not shed some actual light on this matter for a change?
Maybe I missed it, but I've heard nothing from Rev. Al.
NOTE: I've since come to realize that I did miss it and Joe Scarborough is downright mad at Sharpton for not Duke lacrossing O'Reilly! Hah! Hey, Joe, if you're looking for your soul... it's been sold!
"I heard a good analogy the
September 27, 2007 - 14:45 ET by ckc1227"I heard a good analogy the other day, it's like meeting your friend's
mother and "complimenting" her on the fact that she's not a prostitute."
Actually, it isn't a good analogy, unless there is a stereotype being perpetuated by a segment of the entertainment industry I don't know about that labels all mothers as prostitutes, with this same segment of the entertainment industry being the only source of information on the subject of mothers for those who have had little or no contact with mothers in their daily lives.
Bill's point was spot on. He can't help that some are too stupid to get it, and that others just don't want to get it, and don't want you to get it either.
always good to hear from Tammy
September 27, 2007 - 21:29 ET by(and what an awesome last name)
Tammy has some great first hand knowledge of 'the network' from her years as chapter president for NOW
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
The Nazi comparisons have
September 28, 2007 - 10:49 ET by rwestThe Nazi comparisons have to end. This "gestapo" isn't disappearing people, it isn't killing people, it isn't even effectively intimidating people. Media Matters and MoveOn are base and pathetic, but it does a great dishonor to those who survive real oppression to compare some petty partisans to Nazis.