O'Reilly compared Daily Kos to Capone, Mussolini
On the July 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, responding to Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers' assertion that "there's a lot of stuff that [Daily Kos bloggers] do that isn't horrible," host Bill O'Reilly said: "It's kind of like Al Capone." O'Reilly continued: "We'll only do bad things on Thursday, and we'll slaughter a bunch of people, but on Friday we'll go to church." In response to Powers' statement that "there's a lot of good diaries put up there," O'Reilly said: "[Former Italian fascist dictator Benito] Mussolini made the trains run on time."
In recent days, O'Reilly has repeatedly compared Daily Kos to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, as Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here). For example, on the July 19 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said: "[T]he hate this site traffics in rivals the KKK and Nazi websites." Media Matters has also noted that O'Reilly previously used the phrase "Mussolini made the trains run on time," to compare the Italian dictator to billionaire philanthropist George Soros.
O'Reilly asserted earlier in the July 23 segment that the Democratic Party is "held hostage" by Daily Kos, because bloggers "say to the candidates, 'If you don't toe our line or be nice to us, we're going to pull funding for you. We're not going to raise money and we're going to attack you.' " He added: "And you know who the most attacked person is? Hillary Clinton." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin responded: "Yeah, that's right. The far left is emboldened. And they see a lot of these Democrat candidates not only cowering in front of them but then crawling on their knees to pander and try and get their votes."
While O'Reilly cited left-wing bloggers for "attack[ing]" Clinton, Malkin has herself attacked Clinton -- as recently as July 20 when, while guest hosting The O'Reilly Factor , she talked about a letter to Clinton from Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman saying that Clinton's request in May for a briefing on U.S. contingency plans for withdrawal from Iraq "reinforces enemy propaganda." Malkin asked Fox News contributor Juan Williams, "Wasn't this a case of Hillary putting on her little imaginary four stars on her sleeve and playing armchair general? Isn't that perhaps what got the Pentagon so ticked off, Juan?"
From the July 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: On the radio today I basically said if the Democratic Party is going be held hostage by these people, and they are. Because not only do these people say terrible things, Michelle, they actually threaten the candidates. And they say to the candidates, "If you don't toe our line or be nice to us, we're going to pull funding for you. We're not going to raise money and we're going to attack you." And you know who the most attacked person is? Hillary Clinton.
MALKIN: Yeah, that's right. The far left is emboldened. And they see a lot of these Democrat candidates not only cowering in front of them but then crawling on their knees to pander and try and get their votes. Which I think in the end is probably a stupid thing to do because there's this perception that they're a lot more powerful than they are.
O'REILLY: Than they are, absolutely.
POWERS: I think that's right. But what I was going to say --
O"REILLY: Real quick.
POWERS: -- is there's a lot of stuff that they do that isn't horrible. Most, like 90 --
O'REILLY: Oh, I see. It's kind of like Al Capone.
POWERS: No. No. No. But it's really --
O'REILLY: We'll only do bad things on Thursday, and we'll slaughter a bunch of people, but on Friday we'll go to church. Stop.
POWERS: But the majority -- look, the majority of the stuff -- there's a lot of good diaries that are put up there. There's a lot of smart political stuff that's on there.
O'REILLY: Mussolini made the trains run on time.
POWERS: Oh, it's not like Mussolini. That's ridiculous.
Oh, looky! Nazi/fascist comparison 1,974! And made by the thinnest skinned of the thin skinned crowd! No surprise there!
The real underlying motive in attacking left minded sites by Bill O and Savage Wiener is that the right MSM talkers and owners are mortified by the increase of the Web to dilute their very expensive investment in shaping of the average American’s views. It’s a whole new game and they thought they owned the playing field. Well they really did up to the beginning of their decline about 5 to 7 years ago with the increase of web use. Rush wasn’t made an honorary member of Congress in 1994 for nothing.
Another O'Reilly fued and his latest "villian du jour". Take it back to Mommy and let her sort it out.
Kristen Powers, the female Alan Colmes......"Here is my milquetoast opinion, I am sorry, really, the left is not all bad, I am so sorry, sorry, sorry, please"
Oi!
The fact that she's actually respectful and level headed doesn't make her any less of a liberal. You don't have to go around saying that Bush is evil and Republicans are fascist war mongors in order to be a liberal.
Nice false contrast you set up there.
Listen, if I was sitting across from Michelle Malkin, and we were talking about respectability of bloggers, it would be the most obvious thing in the world to use her as a prime example of what the far right presents as a respectable, responsible blogger. This is someone who released personal information about war protesters, and then when people complained about the subsequent death threats, she posted the information again! And this is someone who guest-hosts a prime time slot on FOX news. "Funny, Bill, but Michelle here puts up personal information about war protesters and doesn't care if they get death threats. Then you reward her with prime-time air time. Seems to me you're setting a bad example, and showing people that if they don't act responsibly they might get paid for it".
That is how to not be a milquetoast. Don't put up some mealy-mouthed apology, point out that the most radical elements in the lefty blogging world don't hardly hold up a candle to those on the right, including those in present company. It's not a matter of two wrongs making a right, it's a matter of "if you really cared about this, Bill, and were really fair, you would be criticizing LGF or other such sites more often, and you wouldn't have Michelle Malkin on as a guest, much less a guest host."
What kind of "personal information" did she post on her blog?
She posted names, email addresses and phone numbers. Now note that while these are surely cell phone numbers, they are all students at the same university. Anyone inspired to intimidate or harm them could probably find them by name alone, or use the email addresses to pose as a fellow protester who wants to meet them.
Why is "personal information" in quotes? Did you not notice they got death threats from this? What on earth would she have posted that would have allowed people to contact the protesters that wasn't really personal information?
What's funny is you actually link to the post which has a screenshot showing the press release with the students names and email addresses LISTED on the PUBLICLY available press release. Pretty much disproving your entire point. The information was PUBLICLY posted by the protestors. How is this any different than having information posted to contact a reporter for a newspaper or a professor or some type of official who has their public contact information available???
What a dishonest post.
Including info in a press release that goes to the press is wholly different than publishing that information on a website for all to see.
She did not have the right to do that. It's obscene that you would defend her actiions.
"This is someone who released personal information about war protesters"
Once again, liberals completely mislead and distort the issue. The personal info on the military protesters (not "war" protesters) was included on the press release sent out by the group. Malkin linked to the PUBLIC press release. Maybe if the military protesters had any brains they wouldn't list their private telephone numbers on them. (and this is actually completely different than left wing websites going digging for unpublished personal information on Malkin). Get the difference. Military protesters posted personal info themselves PUBLICLY; Left wing smear sites post Malkin's info which is NOT available publicly.
Of course that was their mistake to list that information. However, you are either being dishonest or are not really looking at the link I provided.
The question is, what was the purpose of Malkin relaying this information? One would like to think that she didn't want anyone to intimidate or threaten these people, right? Yet, when she is told there are death threats being made, look at the page I provided you.
Notice that she says that the personal information is no longer available on the press release. So they corrected that mistake. Not only that, but when they removed the information from the cached version of the release, she went to the trouble of finding a screenshot of the original and posted it again. I linked to that page instead of her original one for that very reason.
See, if her readers want to go through the trouble of finding this information themselves, that's one thing. Most people aren't likely to make that effort. But for a widely-read blog to post that information, and then refuse to take it down, and re-post it after she knows full well that people are scared for their lives is absolutely contemptible. Her attitude is obviously that partisan politics comes before basic decency and responsibility. Why should anyone feel guilty over displaying the same attitude towards her, honestly?
"The question is, what was the purpose of Malkin relaying this information?"
So that people could contact those savages and let them know how disgusting and revolting their anti-military actions were. The same as when Malkin puts up contact info for Senators or corporations or anyone else who has taken a position or committed an action which is reprehensible in her view (and the view of any normal sane human being).
"One would like to think that she didn't want anyone to intimidate or threaten these people, right? Yet, when she is told there are death threats being made, look at the page I provided you."
Guess you missed this part. Of course it was on another post, so I'll forgive you: "If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language."
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/seditious-santa-cruz-vs-america/
"Not only that, but when they removed the information from the cached version of the release, she went to the trouble of finding a screenshot of the original and posted it again. I linked to that page instead of her original one for that very reason."
Yes, and people like you are the exact reason she did that. After the information was removed (i.e. the idiot moonbats came to their senses and realized its probably night the brightest idea to list their personal email, address, phone # on a PUBLICLY released document), people on the left (such as yourself) went around claiming that Malkin had fisked their personal private information and posted it PUBLICLY. Which is false. That is incorrect. And you continue to perpetuate that lie.
"But for a widely-read blog to post that information, and then refuse to take it down, and re-post it after she knows full well that people are scared for their lives is absolutely contemptible."
Ok, I just explained this above, but since you probably didn't understand it, I'll try again. SHE POSTED THE SCREENSHOT OF THE PRESS RELEASE TO PROVE THAT THE INFO WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED BY THOSE MORONS AND IT WASN'T HER WHO PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFO.
"Why should anyone feel guilty over displaying the same attitude towards her, honestly?"
Because her info is NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE/RELEASED. Her phone number is UNLISTED as compared to these morons who put their home telephone numbers on a PRESS RELEASE.
Finally, I'm just going to copy something from one of your favorite websites which pretty much sums up the whole case.
It is available in its original form on other sites besides Malkin's.
The "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE" tag would seem to imply that the students have waived any privacy they may have had regarding the information. (Name, phone number, and school email addy)
Also, the students are listed as press representatives encouraging readers to contact them. Given the controversial nature of the their action they should have expected negative reactions as well as positive ones.
College is where some of us learn about real-life. These kids are getting a strong valuable lesson. Besides, these kids are pretty active in UCSC politics/activism, they are not naive shrinking violets. In other words: "Welcome to the big leagues."
Who sent the death threats? Michelle Malkin's Readers. Therefore Michelle Malkin is worse than Hitler.
--End O'Reilly Logic--
"So that people could contact those savages and let them know how disgusting and revolting their anti-military actions were."
Savages? Revolting? Thanks for demonstrating the mindset of these people which Malkin surely knew before she did this, twice. They have a right to protest. Anything outside of that, like someone slashing tires, can be dealt with by authorities instead of Malkin's thugs.
"Guess you missed this part. Of course it was on another post, so I'll forgive you: "If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language.""
I saw that, obviously you missed the part where I told you I linked to one post instead of the other. How convenient that you don't note what immediately follows it:"As for SAW, my message is this: You are responsible for your individual actions. Other individuals are responsible for theirs. Grow up and take responsibility."
In other words, because they did something she doesn't like, she's not going to lose any sleep over anything that happens to anyone. I'm supposed to take her disclaimer seriously when she knows people are getting death threats and leaves the information up? That's a hell of a nice set of priorities she has there. I guess if someone had shot one of them, it would have just served them right, huh?
"Yes, and people like you are the exact reason she did that. After the information was removed (i.e. the idiot moonbats came to their senses and realized its probably night the brightest idea to list their personal email, address, phone # on a PUBLICLY released document), people on the left (such as yourself) went around claiming that Malkin had fisked their personal private information and posted it PUBLICLY. Which is false. That is incorrect. And you continue to perpetuate that lie."
When did I say "private"? You should probably read what I write before you accuse me of lying, don't you think?
So let me get this straight. Malkin could have just said that the information was on the press release. Wouldn't a decent person put a concern for people's safety ahead of these concerns? Wouldn't a decent person understand that once there are death threats, then things have gone too far, and try to prevent more from happening instead of basically saying "I don't condone it, but I'm not responsible for what my rabid readership does, and I'm going to give them another chance to do so"?
See, the issue isn't that the protesters are angels. It's not whether the information was private or public. It's not whether Malkin says she condones anything or not. The issue is that a respectable blogger would understand that when lives are being threatened, it's time to back down a little. She made her point, and when things went too far, she should have acted appropriately, and she didn't.
There's really no way around that, no matter how many irrelevant aspects of the story you dredge up.
"See, the issue isn't that the protesters are angels. It's not whether the information was private or public."
Actually, that is pretty much the entire issue right there. After Malkin posted the PUBLICLY available contact info, liberal idiots began spreading lies that she had dug and hutned to post "unpublished" and "private, personal" info which was clearly NOT the case. And as such she used the original PRESS RELEASE to back her the false claims being made against her.
"It's not whether Malkin says she condones anything or not. The issue is that a respectable blogger would understand that when lives are being threatened, it's time to back down a little. She made her point, and when things went too far, she should have acted appropriately, and she didn't."
A couple things. First, Malkin was only posting the original PUBLICLY available press release to defend herself from left-wing smear sites which falsely accused her of publishing their private and unpublished info. So because there are a few nuts out there who made threats against the moonbats, then Malkin is just supposed to roll over and isn't allowed to defend herself against liars who tried to distort the issue?? Please. Second, the posting of the original PUBLICLY available press release wasn't to inflame the situation. It was to back up her point. Notice that there weren't any other posts on the subject after that AND that it only constituted a total of 2 posts (maybe 3) over 2 days. This wasn't some ongoing issue which repeatedly got emphasis and focus over the coming weeks and months. Third, I'm sorry but you can't hold someone responsible for the irresponsible and dumb actions of others. If so, MMFA would have shut down in a heartbeat by all the vitriolic and nasty letters they've sent to people like David Broder, BOR, Joe Klein, et all. Could Malkin have done more to prevent nutjobs from making threats? I suppose. But to say that she is in anyway responsible for what the nutjobs do is ridiculous. BOR frequently posts the PUBLIC work phone number for editors or journalists who make outrageous or false statements. So then if a few nutjobs make harassing or threatening phone calls then Bill is at fault and he isn't supposed to report stories or allowed to give PUBLICLY available information???? Please..
"First, Malkin was only posting the original PUBLICLY available press release to defend herself from left-wing smear sites which falsely accused her of publishing their private and unpublished info. So because there are a few nuts out there who made threats against the moonbats, then Malkin is just supposed to roll over and isn't allowed to defend herself against liars who tried to distort the issue?? Please."
So because she feels the need to defend herself, she's justified to further a situation where lives are being threatened? Obviously that's wildly irresponsible behavior. That's her excuse for doing it, fine, but it clearly shows a lack of concern for the safety of others.
"Second, the posting of the original PUBLICLY available press release wasn't to inflame the situation. It was to back up her point. Notice that there weren't any other posts on the subject after that AND that it only constituted a total of 2 posts (maybe 3) over 2 days. This wasn't some ongoing issue which repeatedly got emphasis and focus over the coming weeks and months."
One thing you've failed to mention, which I was reminded of because of your "inflame the situation" line, was that Malkin called all of this "sedition" in the first place. She was inflaming the situation from the very beginning by essentially calling protesters traitors.
"Third, I'm sorry but you can't hold someone responsible for the irresponsible and dumb actions of others. If so, MMFA would have shut down in a heartbeat by all the vitriolic and nasty letters they've sent to people like David Broder, BOR, Joe Klein, et all."
As was pointed out, MMfA is much more careful about their advice on how to contact these people. MMfA isn't accusing any of these people of being unamerican, either. And of course, you certainly can hold people responsible for the actions of others, under certain circumstances. This is, unless you want to argue there should be no "hate speech" laws.
Honestly, if you were in that position, and you knew people were getting threatened, would you leave that information up? Would you really do that because you weren't responsible for whatever happened? Personally I can't imagine calling people unamerican traitors, posting their contact information (PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC or not), and then leaving that information up when there are death threats. That is just completely foreign to me.
Of course, I'm a secular humanist atheist liberal. I guess I just don't have the sense of ethics and morals that you guys obviously have.
GRINO you really don't see the difference between a press release in one sitting versis a more acessible sitting? She refreshed the info after a request to remove it, do to threats Why would she frustrate their wishes. She seems to approve of the threats, by her actions.
Your coment on Malkin's (personal?) info is cryptic.
"GRINO you really don't see the difference between a press release in one sitting versis a more acessible sitting? She refreshed the info after a request to remove it, do to threats Why would she frustrate their wishes. She seems to approve of the threats, by her actions.Your coment on Malkin's (personal?) info is cryptic. "
Look to be honest with you, I really had no idea what your post was saying and a large part of it was due to the numerous spelling/grammar mistakes. I have no idea what you mean by using the word "sitting" when you say "a press release in one sitting"...Did you mean setting? The point of the matter is that these students PUBLICLY released their contact info on a PUBLIC document on multiple websites BEFORE it was posted on Malkin's site.
The reason she posted the screenshot of the info after it had been removed (I explained this in the earlier post but I'll do it again) was to prove/demonstrate/show that THESE PEOPLE PUBLICLY POSTED THE INFO ON THE PRESS RELEASE. See lying liberal hacks were going around falsely claiming that Malkin had PUBLICLY posted PRIVATE information. However, the publicly released press document clearly showed that the students themselves released their own personal info to the public.
No she actually doesn't approve of the threats. Perhaps you missed this statement "If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language."
So I'll put it a few more times
"If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language."
"If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language."
"If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language."
"If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language."
Got it????
"If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language."
That’s like the goombah who walks into your corner market and tells the proprietor, “Mr. Gambino would like to offer you his protection. It would be truly unfortunate should a tragedy befall your family in the absence of Mr. Gambino’s protection.”
Malkin had to know she was priming her posters to intimidate those kids. She could have simply admonished her readers to be professional and courteous.
Take as an example the recommendations MMFA suggest their readers adhere to when contacting those with whom they wish to register a complaint:
Keep it short. Be specific. State what you want clearly. Make sure the subject line of your message conveys what you are writing about. Personalize your email -- but don't get personal. Link to further information.
[link to mediamatters.org]
Malkin doesn't condone death threats, just like GWB doesn't condone torture. Sure, you could contract someone out to do your dirty work, but make sure your formal statements prevent you from taking responsibility for your actions.
It's called covering your arse...
The fact that she's actually respectful and level headed doesn't make her any less of a liberal. You don't have to go around saying that Bush is evil and Republicans are fascist war mongors in order to be a liberal.
That doesn't make a person a liberal, Rino Hunter. It makes them right.
I just hope that Bill can wind up the War on The Daily Kos before this years War on Christmas starts. It comes earlier every year.
I'm not sure that Bill can fight on two fronts at once.
Two fronts at once? I see a nazi comparison in the works!
He also has trouble farting while chewing gum....
Good Gawd Bill - Go back to something "normal" like the "War on Christmas" or defending pedophiles please. Your obsession with DailyKos is just bizarre - or rename your show "The Godwin Factor".
Hate is hate and I am glad that O'Reilly is speaking out against these hatemongering dividers.
Refresh my memory Sue, but has b.o. ever spoke out against Free Republic?
Monk well you have effectively set off the troll ranks. That is why I always say never post to them if we don't then they would all just go away. That being said I can understand why you do, but by the same token it does make the thread pretty long since most people answer to the trolls. Yes I mean the ones like Sue, Grhino, Rino and especially Leatherhead. Monk BTW I always love your posts I just wish all posters,not just you, would ignore them. I am guilty of the same as most times the posts from the likes of them are so darn thickheaded it's hard to belive they actually graduated from high school. <sarcasm>
But sue, Bill isn't talking about himself...
I was not aware that O'Reilly had started criticizing himself.
Sue you have nothing to back your argument up that Kos is a hate web site. I have been visiting it daily to see this "hate" and haven't found anything that compares with the name calling and divisive BS that O'Reilly directs towards them let alone all the other garbage he spews. Your argument, opinion, position are laughable. You're either a plant to rile us up or severely deluded.
She may just have a different view than us, it does not mean she is a plant. All views should be tolerated and debated respectfully.
Respectfully Doris I agree with you. However Sue has yet to illustrate just how Kos is a hate site. I did not tell her to shut up or go away but I am certainly not going to show her "respect" for making the same dubious statement over and over again. Respect is earned and lost. She has lost it so will be mocked!
Thank you Doris, I show respect to everyone on here and never call people names, I just want my views heard . If others disagree, that is fine this is America, I just ask people to not resort to name calling.
What name calling? A plant? Deluded? Those are descriptions. I don't need to be called names to be offended. Calling the Daily Kos a hate site does the trick esp. in reference to the king of hate and division Bull O'Reilly. I have to defend my positions all the time because that guy lies and people believe him. Of all the insults he has hurled it is simply indefensible to claim that something aas tame as Kos is a hate site. Posters do not a site make.
Where's the "respect" you show everyone in this statement:
Jeter apparently in the world of Marv , if you even question Kos you are a supporter of the right wing and a hater. SueEld / Friday July 20, 2007 05:59:05 PM EST
It's a flat out lie. How is lying about someone being respectful?
I gave examples last week, the site is a hate site. When people post on that site the F*G word and profanity to me that is hate. To you it may be acceptable.
And your F word references were thoroughly debunked. Systematically dis proven as being hate speech. Your other example was a post from an anonymous blogger that called Lieberman an "a hole." That was an insult directed at an individual who happens to act like one frankly.
That was it, the best you could offer. By your own standards this is a hate site, my local FoxNews affiliate's blog is a hate site, any blog that doesn't monitor or filter the posters have examples of "hate." Your argument is disingenuous at best.
Bing, This site does not allow such gutter trash talking cuss words as DK does.
I believe that is where Sue feels their hatred, based on their schoolyard slurs used by their posters. If they feel that raises the level of discourse on their site, that is their business. I prefer to steer clear of garbage such as that.
Claiming a site is a hate site because of a handful of posters is an over generalization and is disingenuous. O'Reilly on the other hand actively uses hate every day. Kos does not. He posts, unless you click on a link you don't even see the comments.
Sue should clarify that the posters at Kos are hateful, but to say the site is a hate site is a joke.
"O'Reilly on the other hand actively uses hate every day"
Do you have any examples? When's the last time that O'Reilly advocated that someone be assassinated or wish death upon somebody?
Examples? MM shows hundreds of examples of Bill specifically using hate speach. Not his posters to his blog, but Bill personally. Now whether or not you agree the examples are hate may be another issue. I personally consider it hate, so there's your starting point.
Then give me an example. I've never seen an O'Reilly thread here where he said anything even close to hateful.
You must be joking. This very thread is exactly about O'Reilly making hateful statements comparing the daily kos to Mussolini and Capone. If you are in agreement with that, well, there's no way I can prove otherwise because all you are doing is proving you harbor the same hatred so you can't recognize it anymore.
He was saying that they are both hateful, which is definetely true. The Daily Kos obviously isn't as bad, but O'Reilly never said they were. His point was that they both spread hate.
that has got to be the disengeneous statement of the year. How "hate is hate" suddenly translates to "he isn't comparing the overall hate, just the concept of hate in general" only occurs in the mind of an apologist. Nowhere else has this definition been forwarded...
Oh come, on he is constantly using invective to criticize thos on the "far left" as he likes to call anyone who doesn't want to deport all immigrants and force Jews to celebrate Christmas.
The most famous example:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100008
"Oh come, on he is constantly using invective to criticize thos on the "far left" as he likes to call anyone who doesn't want to deport all immigrants and force Jews to celebrate Christmas"
O'Reilly doesn't want to deport all immigrants either, so I guess O'Reilly must consider himself far left. And he doesn't want to force Jews to celebrate Christmas. That's just ridiculous.
What did Mussolini stand for?
Mussolini's domestic goal was the eventual establishment of a totalitarian state with himself as supreme leader (Il Duce). To that end he obtained dictatorial powers for one year.
Sounds like Bush so far, right?
He favoured the complete restoration of state authority, with the integration of the Fasci di Combattimento into the armed forces (the foundation in January 1923 of the Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) and the progressive identification of the party with the state.
State's rights above federal powers - uh, Republican again!
In political and social economy, he passed legislation that favored the wealthy industrial and agrarian classes (privatisations, liberalisations of rent laws and dismantlement of the unions).
Favoring the wealthy and powerful - um, Republican again!
Since O'Reilly brought it up, and since you don't see nothing wrong with making this type of comparison, who does Mussolini really compare to?
"Sounds like Bush so far, right"
No, not really.
Then you should be playing a mean pinball, as The Who sang about.
i thought that was dire straits
State's rights above federal powers - uh, Republican again!
I really hope that was meant as a joke.
Not really. I forget the name, but which neocon thought it a good idea to drown the federal government in a bathtub? Not arguing that the government grew more under bush, but most neocons favor otherwise, especially when it comes to issues like incarceration, abortion and taxation.
Off the top of my head, I believe that was Grover Norquist. He said he wanted to shrink government down to a size where you could drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the tub, or similar wording.
Here's a GREAT example of BOR spreading HATE:
Bill O'Reilly had Tammy Bruce (for some background, read here and here) on THE O'REILLY FACTOR1 and had an exchange which perfectly fit Richard Hostadter's concept (see here and here) of the paranoid pseudo-conservative.EXCERPTS:O'REILLY: Continuing now with the Imus controversy, which has metastasized into a ideological witch-hunt by evil forces. Or am I overstating it?O'REILLY: But I am seeing danger for this nation because of all of this dishonesty being fed out of this far left swamp into the mainstream media. Am I overstating it?BRUCE: No, you're not. ...Now in this instance, in what you've just talked about with Mr. Delay, is what happened to you is what happened what I consider the test case, back six, seven years ago to Dr. Laura Schlesinger.With a word that's plucked out of a sentence used in the attempt to destroy one person. That effort, Bill, was launched by about a half a dozen people only and facilitated through the Internet of well financed, small groups of people who have literally -- and they did then and they still do, have a list of individuals that that are to be targeted, because if they don't -- well, you're on it of course.BRUCE: ... But the truth of the matter is I used, essentially, what is a conspiratorial network of people in the newspaper and television industry at the time that would move whatever it is that I wanted moved.O'REILLY: You bet. And we have elements at NBC who do it every day. We have elements at Newsweek magazine who do it. And we're going to name one of those tomorrow.O'REILLY: Right, right. And now you have Rosie O'Donnell, who is now doing this in the entertainment realm. They contact her. They feed her this crap. She spits it out in front of all the women who are watching her on ABC. And this is how it goes.BRUCE: Well, you have multiple impressions using different media. You've got, of course, newspapers and people like Frank Rich. It's moved through the guarantors on camera like the Rosie O'Donnells.So regular Americans hear it from so many different avenues they believe it's true.O'REILLY: They believe it. Yes.1SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR 8:29 PM ESTApril 16, 2007 MondayTRANSCRIPT: 041603cb.256SECTION: NEWS; DomesticLENGTH: 1061 wordsHEADLINE: Media Figures Under Attack by Special InterestsBYLINE: Bill O'Reilly, Tammy Bruce
That is a pretty narrow definition of hate. I think accusing a kid who had been kidnapped and most likely sexually molested over several years of enjoying himself is the very defintion of hatefulness, telling those from San Fransisco that when al Queda bombs the Coit towers dont come asking for help because he didnt like they way they voted on an issue is pretty hateful. Threatening Jeremy Glick was hateful. The man is a seething caludron of hate, insecurity, and outright distortions and lies.
He doesnt need to, he invites others who do onto his shows. According to both of you that makes them hate shows just like the KKK.
Ofcourse in BO's case he actively extends an invitation to these ppl where as Dkos just lets anybody post comments.
Does anybody even need to mention that the things BO claims were said on Dkos never actually were? Nah, why let reality get in the way of the latest threat to all your freedoms.
Do you have any examples? When's the last time that O'Reilly advocated that someone be assassinated or wish death upon somebody?
Once again proving you don't know what the hell you're talking about, Rino Hunter, here's an example from right here on MMFA. And it only took me about 30 seconds to find it via a Google search:
O'Reilly endorsed assassinating Syrian leader if he "doesn't help us out"
On the October 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly called for the assassination of Syria's leader, Bashar al-Assad, if Assad does not help promote stability in the Middle East by maintaining Iraq's borders. O'Reilly claimed that "we could take his life, and we should take his life if he doesn't help us out." O'Reilly was responding to Fox News contributor Gen. Wesley Clark's suggestion that the United States use diplomacy to bolster regional support for the Iraq war among uncooperative neighbors.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510040005
Profanity isn't hate. We discussed that in the other topic -- the one where you accused me of all sorts of falsehoods and never backed them up or apologized.
If profanity is hate, then certainly the lies you (and JLyons) attempted to smear me with should be at least as hateful.
The onus remains on you to provide bonafied examples of hate speech by the operators of the DailyKos.
You could do a google search and find thousand of hate examples. - SueEld / Friday July 20, 2007 05:02:28 PM EST
Should be an easy task. You failed last time.
Your weird obsession about profanity doesnt prove anything except YOU have a weird obsession with profanity. Grow up, adults sometimes use profane speech. Personally I dont care whether you like it or not.
Sue,
I am not afraid of good Anglo-Saxon words.
Example: CLUSTERF**K, a term used to describe Iraq.
Bing & Sueld,
Some of the posters over at Kos are quite hateful. Of course Sueld that doesn't make it a *Hate Site*.
Hateful posters can be found on almost any site--Left or Right. I mentioned Huffington the other day. Some real class acts over there ::eye roll::
MMFA doesn't allow posters here to get out of hand. That's one reason I like it here.
I agree with you hate is hate but the Daily Kos is not hateful, it has a different political view just like O'Reilly. O'Reilly does not like anyone with a different view than he has so he turns around and smears his opponents.
Well Doris,
I’ve been reading Sueld’s post about Daily Kos and apparently Sue feels this way because she/he wants Daily Kos to hire a moderator to delete the posts she/he finds objectionable. I also don't like the comment sections of blog sites that do not moderate, so when I do go to those sites I skip the comments and read the blogs. Daily Kos is not a hate site and Bill and Sueld for that matter saying it over and over and over doesn't make it true. It just kind of shows that they have a weird obsession with Daily Kos, I wonder why they (Sue & Bill) single them out for this when many many sites conservatives sites as well fail to moderate the comment section. I suspect it's because they don't like the views of the Daily Kos bloggers. When they start taking the other sites to task that fail to moderate as well I'll know they are even handed when it comes to this matter, until then I know they simply have a bias against Daily Kos.Thank you Lynn.
Lynn, I agree with you. I like a moderated site better. People tend to behave themselves a bit better. I am probably like Sue in that I am about PG13 in my tastes for profanity. But I do try to see beyond the cursing to the meat of the post if I wander in to the site. As far as Kos goes, I don't see anything that passes for the kind of hate Bull is talking about. For some reason, conservatives seem to get into a dither over naughty words. It seems to me if you can use the editor on your shoulder you can get through most of it without being too badly bruised. Of course when it's just really offensive and pointless, that's another thing. I am offended by people with a paucity of ideas and honest thought more than cursing (even being PG13 as I mentioned).
Lynn,
Once again, you are completely out in left field and without any type of factual evidence to backup your assertions. There are plenty of sites on the left where people don't wish other politicians dead with whom they disagree. This is the prime example of what separates Daily Kos (and other hate sites) from a reasonable left-wing discussion site. Regardless of your thoughts about George Bush or the Iraq War or the Republican party, saying "Screw Them" and saying that "I feel no sympathy over their deaths" about civilian contractors (working in Iraq because the company they work for sent them there...these individual people had nothing to do with decision to go to war in Iraq) is just rude, hateful, and disgusting. Those are the kind of sentiments which are tolerated, accepted, and encouraged on the Daily Kos. Or the diary the other day labeled "Killitary" describing how those in the military are perhaps more likely to become serial killers. Now this diary was taken down (most likely due to all the heat the site has been receiving since BOR did the story on it and Jet Blue), but 6 months or 1 year ago, that story would have stayed up with no problem.
I expect you will be able to provide multiple examples of where the site owners "encourage" that sort of behavior from the individual posters. Go ahead, start posting some facts...
I just did post an example
"Screw Them. I feel nothing over the death of these mercenaries"
No you didn't. You posted an example of posters saying stuff, not the site advocating it. That's the whole point here, what posters say does not mean the site supports or denies. I can easily find several examples of right leaning sites doing the same thing, but I would not claim the site owner approves or denies the verbage of their posters either. My only measure is whether or not they allow the same people posting to continue unabated.
"No you didn't. You posted an example of posters saying stuff, not the site advocating it."
Oh really???????????????????
"That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them." by kos on Thu Apr 01, 2004 at 12:08:56 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/4/1/144156/3224/
That was posted by Kos. That would be the guys who owns, runs, and founded the site. As in "the site". AKA Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. So no you were actually wrong.
Mercinaries ARE there to kill people for big bucks! They made their own immoral choice. I feel bad for their children and families, if they get killed in the process, but I can't feel anything but shame for contracted murderers.
That's kind of funny. Ghrino here was just making Malkin's case about student protesters being responsible for their own actions, and if someone threatens their lives, then welcome to the big leagues. So there's no sympathy on the political battlefront, even when lives are threatened.
But mercenaries who are paid to fight are supposed to be sympathetic figures? Why? Don't they know the risks they're taking?
By Ghrino's own sentiments, Markos's statement is perfectly acceptable.
Didn't mean to misspell the name, sorry.
Brabantio, Did you intentionally try to cram so many distortions into one post or was it just coincidence??
1) "Ghrino here was just making Malkin's case about student protesters being responsible for their own actions, and if someone threatens their lives, then welcome to the big leagues."
That quote was from a poster on the Daily Kos. That was not my quote. Second, I (along with Michelle Malkin) did NOT condone or support death threats (or any threats) against those idiot moonbats. I support writing them an email or calling them and telling them how disgusting, stupid, and un-patriotic they are. I do NOT support any threats of a physical or verbal nature against anyone ever.
2) "But mercenaries who are paid to fight are supposed to be sympathetic figures? Why? Don't they know the risks they're taking?"
First, that comment was made about civilian contractors, NOT armed forces members. People driving trucks and doing engineering work, NOT carrying again guns looking for terrorists. Second, the fact that you do view our armed forces as "mercenaries" (implying that they only signed up to get money rather to support and defend the country they love) is disgusting, dumb, and frankly typical of the left-wing loony bin.
3) "By Ghrino's own sentiments, Markos's statement is perfectly acceptable."
That was possibly the worst analogy I have ever read. Ever. The civilian contractors were doing a job which had nothing to do with killing/injuring/attacking anyone. As a result of doing that job, they were murdered and their bodies were burned to a crisp and hung from a bridge by terrorists that want to kill you and me and everyone in this country. The moonbats at UCSC were protesting against our military and ending up catching flak because they posted their personal information on a PUBLIC (this is the key word which you seem incapable of understanding) press release on MULTIPLE web sites. I honestly can't find 1 thing that is in common between those 2 situations. Seriously, if you can identify 1 thing that's in common, then I'll cede this point to you, but there is nothing in common at all between the 2 scenarios.
"That quote was from a poster on the Daily Kos. That was not my quote."
I know. Were you not using that quote to bolster your argument? Seems like you were.
"First, that comment was made about civilian contractors, NOT armed forces members. People driving trucks and doing engineering work, NOT carrying again guns looking for terrorists."
Then your criticism of Markos is that he was misrepresenting who those people were, not the comment by itself.
"Second, the fact that you do view our armed forces as "mercenaries" (implying that they only signed up to get money rather to support and defend the country they love) is disgusting, dumb, and frankly typical of the left-wing loony bin."
Who's distorting? The post you're quoting labels them mercenaries, I didn't come up with that out of thin air. It doesn't apply to "our armed forces" in general.
I never denied that the student information was public. I understood it before you got on this thread, and never said otherwise. But you forward the view that they were stupid, savages, etc and should have expected what they got. You don't condone it, but at the same time that's just how things go, right? If that's not your view, that it's just the nature of the situation, then you should clearly have serious issues with Malkin's behavior.
Is that clear? If you think what happened to the students was wrong, then you should criticize Malkin for furthering that situation, no matter what her excuse is. If what happened to the students wasn't wrong, then the same attitude can be applied to the contractors or mercenaries or whatever they were. Either we're talking about apathy towards two groups who are both getting something they don't deserve, or we aren't. You tell me.
Did you not KNOW there ARE mercenaries in Iraq? Ever hear of Blackwater? They are NOT truckdrivers YOU are misrepresenting what is being said. HE didnt say contractors he said MERCENARIES and there are MERCENARIES in Iraq carrying guns. They are soldiers by definition. Your very argument is disengenuous.
Not only are you a disgusting and truly repulsive human being, you are also factually incorrect.
Kos was referring to civilian contractors. Not any member of the armed forces, but civilian contractors stationed in Iraq who drive trucks and complete other "non-killing tasks". Yes, I would gladly question your patriotism.
The above post was directed towards THERICK
Regardless of who it was directed at, it sure sounded like the "hate" you guys are upset about.
So...Blackwater USA contractors are non-military? Since when?
NO, you are full of it he specified MERCENARIES. There are armed mercenaries in Iraq that are NOT truckdrivers that are being paid AS mercenaries not truckdrivers YOU are lying, YOU are changing what is said. Look up the word mercenaries and you wont see the word used as a synonym of truckdriver.
Civilian security contractors ofetn display a callous indifference to Iraqi lives.
Check out this video:
http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2007/07/privatizing-war.html
Grhino--First, you have no credibility to question MY patriotism while cheerleading for this war which is killing our boys and girls at a rate of 100+ each month.
Second, You know damned well that I wasn't talking about truck drivers and construction workers. I was talking about MERCINARIES. I wrote: "Mercinaries ARE there to kill people for big bucks!... contracted murderers." I made sure that this was crystal clear because that's what important when one is dealing with knee jerking knuckle draggers.
So that you know that I had no confusion about the difference between contractors and mercinaries--I AM A CONTRACTOR. I have been remodeling and building homes over 30 years. We don't carry guns, and we have yet to kill someone, although I must admit we have never worked in Iraq. By the way, a plumber who used to do a lot of my work went to Iraq a year ago for the big plumbing bucks. He re-upped for another year recently, and he told me that he doesn't carry a gun, nor has he killed anyone.
Nice try. I especially enjoyed the way you twisted what I said so you could paint me as unpatriotic. You guys wouldn't have to do this if you could admit that you've been wrong every step of the way.
I totally agree. Feeling sorry for Mercenaries killed in Iraq is like feeling sorry for hit men who get killed by other hit men. Please. They are hired guns who get paid big bucks because the risk is so great. I have have no tears to spare for such people.
saying "Screw Them" and saying that "I feel no sympathy over their deaths" about civilian contractors
They AREN'T contractors, they are mercenaries and they were needed there because Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wouldn't listen to the generals about the dire need for more troops.
i believe they singled them out because democratic candidates are going to attend yearly kos , their convention he wants to paint them as far left haters
"If you don't toe our line or be nice to us, we're going to pull funding for you. We're not going to raise money and we're going to attack you."
K Street, anyone?
O'Reilly is taking on Kos while Savage rages against MMFA.
Great tag team ;-)
And it's always about Nazis...or the KKK...
Savage gets the Gay Mafia
O'Reilly gets Capone.
Me thinks these 2 might self-destruct soon :-O
Well I think Savage self destructed in 2003 on MSNBC, however he is still on radio.
You are onto something. I hate to sound Cheney-esque, but this kind of desperate ranting idiocy that seems to be on an ever increasing pace by O'Reilly et.al. has an odor of "last throes" about it. Hopefully my prediction will be more accurate than Cheney's.
So, in good ole RepublicO'ReillyMalkin world when elected representatives listen to the people and follow the lead of the people, it's cowering. Democracy is cowardly?
Malkin and O'Reilly are dangerously stupid.
How do you sleep at night?
You can't surrender a whole blog to the whims of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we surrender the whole blogosphere system? And if the whole blogosphere is lost, then isn't this a surrender to the internets in general? I put it to you, Roundhouse - isn't this a surrender of our entire Homeland society? Well, you can post whatever you want at Kos, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of the Homeland....
Yikes! You had me going up until that United States of the Homeland part.
I bow down and pay homage to that great Animal House homage
Oh that son of mine.
He's not your son Fred.
Thank god for that Ethel.
Thank you SNOOPY, wrong refferrence, a mangled FST quote,but that song always gives me a smile.
I'm really hating how the preview function lies to me at times. It really looked good before I hit post!
Not bad, you know, the rightie tighties might just be that husband thinking if the liberals get in power, poor ethel will be corrupted and run off with a liberal!!!!
PS...ya'll are showing yer age! (and mine)
Mussolini made the trains run on time. So did Guilliani.
Off topic I know, but I couldn't resist.
And yes I will freely admit I hate thugs like Rudy. And O'Reilly.
Yeah Rudy and O"Reilly are thugs, I am sure they are as bad as the criminals in our society who molest children and attack 100 year old women.
What on earth are you referring too?
Or the corporate criminals that extort money from their customers and employees, provide shabby benefits.
Or maybe the criminals that are in control of the Executive branch.
Those are the ones that effect our lives a lot more than those "bad and evil people" in prisons and such...
Its a matter of perspective
You're not so far off. Ask Bill about his falafel or ask 'strip search' Rudy about his NYC police state.
A real pair of upstanding gentlemen.
I recognize you, I do.
Yeah and posters on Kos use profanity I am sure that makes THEM as bad as a Fascist like Moussolini and a murderous thug like Capone. Is there ANY consistancy whatsoever in your dual arguments because I dont see any
When Craig Kilborn was host of The Daily Show, he referred to Rudy G as "Il Duce" or "Benito Guliani" fequently. They used a camera shot of him, shot from below, with his arms folded, frowning in that sternly strong I'm-in-charge-so-I'm-always-right way. 'Twas eerie (in a frightening sort of way that has become more pronounced over the years), the similarity between that and newsreels of Mussolini.
If O'Reilly doesn't like Hitler or Mussolini why is he wasting time on Daily Kos he ought to be warning the American Public about the 800 executives orders Bush as written. These executive orders is equivalent to tyranny.
The only hate here is Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin towards anyone that dare disagree with their narrow world view. That these guys would criticize anyone, let alone a rather tame blog like DailyKos isabsurd. O'Reilly has an enemies list for Pete's sake. I don't remember seeing an enemies list over at Kos.
I emailed Billo with courteous and friendly disagreements hoping to get posted on his nightly viewer letters segment. Must be that he couldn't answer the questions because he had my address blocked. Could it be that I am on Billo's enemy list? God, I hope he doesn't send FOX "NEWS" rentacops over to rough me up.
Is it my imagination, or does the still picture of Bill O'Reilly on the video window at the top of this screen bear an uncanny resemblence to Benito Mussilini? Especially the projecting lower lip and the stilted hand-clap gesture???
It's pretty simple.
The leftwing, liberal, progressive blogosphere is performing the role of an informed, involved electorate. We are relaying the word on the street, in the office, and all parts in between, to the bending collective ear of our politicians. It's active participatory democracy and the authoritarian wing of the Republican Party cannot stand it. They revile citizen activism and lust for strict, macho overlords to keep the great-unwashed masses in line with a punitive conservative moral order.
So, in keeping with the standard of attacking their opponent’s strength, in this case the Progressive netroots community, they slander, smear and flail madly to attach a negative image to true patriots.
I call the strategy RATSOUP (Republican Authoritarian Theocratic Standard of Unethical Procedure)
I likey!
Thank you. Take it. It's yours.
Wow!
What exactly is the "punitive conservative moral order" that I am under the spell of - and which macho overlord am I supposed to be paying attention to, or taking my punishment from, or being unwashed as a result of?
Enlighten me.
I'm talking about extremists like O'reilly, Malkin, Coulter and the 26 percenters that still support Bush/Cheney and would support any leaders who have been conferred legitimacy by authority figures.
I'm guessing you are not made of such stuff as are authoritarian followers.
A punitive conservative moral order has at its foundation discipline. For example consider an implicit conserative worldview: If you are not prosperous, it means you are not disciplined. If you are not disciplined, you cannot be moral. Therefore, you deserve your poverty.
I think that makes sense. Does that make sense to you?
I have no clue where you got your definition of conservatism, but it ain't anywhere near mine or anyone I know. Perhaps some extremist fringe element, but to slap that wacked out view on the backs of any reasonable conservative is no different than putting some extreme left wing nutcase view on the backs of reasonable liberals.
To argue extreme fringe views is a waste of time.
I agree, Mr. "Liberals have no clue"
Anybody can see where that was a joke, if you have no sense of humor or couldn't very easily see that, that is your problem.
As for liberals having no clue, that may fit you - but no sense in generalizing beyond that.
Wow. Pot, meet kettle.
Yours was a joke, but mine isn't?
Clearly, yours could not have been a joke, for it was 1) cut-and-pasted (ideal sourcing); 2) on Tommy. When will libruls ever learn to have a sense of humor?
I love it when Tommy criticizes others for their lack of humor:
Now you're being sarcastic ;^} [emphasis mine] I'm as left as they come I just don't believe your analogy is accurate or a fair comparison between the two individual situations. -- bingvangorden / Tuesday July 17, 2007 05:32:04 PM EST
Oh get over it. I was not being sarcastic.-- tommy / Tuesday July 17, 2007 05:42:15 PM EST
"To argue extreme fringe views is a waste of time."
Not really. Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Savage et al have made lucrative careers of it. They have effectively pushed the debate so far right that union-busting/privatization/dergulation junkies like Reagan appear reasonable.
Considering they are talk show hosts and not public figures who write legislation and laws, and if self-serving screamers who make a living off inflammatory rhetorice is your best example - then I am not so worried.
They are talk show hosts who directly influence public opinion. Thay have more power than elected officials.
Ppppppppppttttt!!
That is absurd, they are private citizens, not elected officials.
We disagree.
Yes Tommy, they are private citizens. But if you think for a moment that they don't influence right wing voters who in turn influence elected officials, then you're the one who has no clue.
Rush Limbaugh alone influenced his non-thinkers (aptly called dittoheads) to elect a Republican congress in 1994 by spending 3 hours each day slamming the Clinton administration and personally attacking Bill, Hillary, and Chelsey, while telling them how wonderful Newt Gingrich was.
Around that same time, many more right wingers jumped on the bandwagon to make their millions from the bigoted ignorant who fill the talk airwaves. Arguments have been made that their "Government=Bad" daily drumbeat indirectly influenced Timothy McVey to carry out the Oklahoma City bombing. And the list could go on and on.
Don't try to sell that they have no power. They might be the most powerful force in this country.
Thanks, THERICK. That was better than what I would have written.
One more thing.
I believe that you and Jeter, and a few others are not led around by the nose by these vile people. However, I believe that a large majority of right wingers, and Republicans, will follow them regardless the heigth of the cliff.
Tommy,
Those gasbags ARE the voice of the Right and they regularly have leaders of the GOP and agit-prop outfits like the Heritage Foundation on their shows.
"I have no clue where you got your definition of conservatism, but it ain't anywhere near mine or anyone I know."
Discipline as a virtue is not part of conservative morality? No Republican has ever said that our poorest citizens are poor because of bad personal choices? That's exactly what I was referring to when I wrote, if you are not prosperous, it means you are not disciplined. If you are not disciplined, you cannot be moral. Therefore, you deserve your poverty.
I think my definition of conservatism is pitch-perfect.
Tommy,
I wouldn't be so quick to pounce because there are prominent conservative gasbags who have ideas about the poor similar to the one ROUND describes. EXAMPLE:
Michael Medved writes a hilarious and revealing column. Here's the heart of it, what Medved thinks is:
Good post, Roundhouse. I am just getting into the Al Gore book "Assault on Reason" and he talks about the lack of participatory democracy created by the one way communication of television. The net is akin to the the days of pamphleteering and is much more conducive to democracy. So the "ruling" class doesn't want any participation in their little kingdom. We are supposed to be the peons and be kept ignorant.
What about all the conservative websites who mirror the liberal ones? Are they also doing so to combat the ruling class Democrats who want to silence their voice?
Tommy, I'm not sure who you are talking to. But we are talking about TV being a one way communication as opposed to the net which is participatory for everyone, left and right. Right now the blogosphere is much more active on the left and that is what O'Reilly rails against. He and the corporate owners of the TV content are the ones who don't want other views getting heard. Right now the corporate elite and their flock of propaganda parrots such as O'Reilly and the multitudes of others get their own one way message out. Regular people can't participate in the realm of TV except in a very limited way (writing letters, etc.). And most of them are ignored.
Tommy, your statement suggests the liberal sites came 1st and then the conservatives made mirror sites to counter them. Can you prove that, or was that a subconscious effort to "blame democrats 1st"?
A key difference is that many of the most prominent right wing sites - Instapundit, LGF, Malkin, NRO to name just a few - don't even allow readers to post comments. There is no discussion or dialogue taking place there, simply the blogowner spouting her or her views. The fact is that the right wing seems to be afraid to listen to what the unwashed masses have to say. If the right is all about protecting freedom and democracy, it seems curious that they allow so little of it to occur on their websites.
Thanks, JuliaJayne. Gore is right.
The netroots community might just save our democracy from the top down corporatists who would cede our liberties to the profit over people elitists.
BTW, when you're done with Gore's book, take it to your local publicly funded library. I need to borrow it.
Well, if he hadn't already, O'Leilly has certainly jumped the shark now. He needs to make himself the most ridiculous item of the day.
Markos has trains? Cool! I've got my brother's old Lionel set in the attic. Maybe we could hook them up...
Back to school for O'reilly, 'til he understands analogies, similies & metaphors.
Like a stopped clock, he may be right about something twice a day (I'll be generous) But about Kos, he's a bit batty.
Your generosity spills into charity when you use the "twice a day" figure for Falafel Bill.
I say old chap, 3 cheers for bill selflessly promoting dailykos. There are 3 possible effects on the dailykos daily hit count as a result of bill's anti-infatuation
1 no change
2 reduction in hits
3 increase in hits
I would say that almost for certain he is causing an increase in hits, thus kos can charge more for advertising, thus will have more money to spend on truth, justice and the American way!!
I know I hadn't been there in a long time and I checked it out. Go Kos! I hope O'Reilly makes Kos a bigger star than he is already, blogospherewise anyway (still small by TV standards I'm sure). Still with Bull's advertising, who knows.
I'm hoping the blogosphere will be to corporate control of US, as VHS was to the the collapse of Ceausescu's dictatorship. As video cameras became somewhat common, they were outlawed because people could see for themselves that the state news was one big fat lying machine.
As billy rants about Kos he is encouraging his viewers to peek outside the right wing echo chamber. In much the same way they would visit assmunchers.com if he was similarly obsessed, many of his viewers will be unable to resist visiting, just to see for themselves the awful, stinking mounds of hate festering in the mid day sun.
lol, enlightenment provided courtesy of BOR. Wonders never cease.
Kirsten Powers, so called Democratic strategist, is usually brought in to present the "contrary" viewpoint.
However, Kirsten Powers should be delighted with what Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are doing to the Democrats. She is a Lieberman lover and a member of change the party, a conservative democratic website, that wants to move the Democrats into a more Christian, conservative direction. Also check out her blog PowersPoint,
About Lieberman:
Good thing all that effort was expended trying to defeat Lieberman. A special thanks to Markos Moulitas who -- referring to Lieberman -- bragged that:
Question: How does one become the arbiter of what a "real Democrat" is?
-------------
There you go, nobody can claim that Fox in not fair and balanced!!!!
But... I hate Bill O'Reilly. And I hate Bush. Is it so wrong to hate evil?
BORe continues to make a fool of himself on the Daily Chaos issue. What's new?
Here's something new!! Just in. Billo's commentor is being investigated by the secret service.
http://newsfortheleft.blogspot.com/2007/07/bill-oreilycom-being-investigated-by.html
No, I did not do any fact checking, just the old cut and paste!!
I think Stephen Colbert pretty much covered this one: "If there's one thing the Nazis were known for, it's allowing people to express unpopular ideas in an open nature."
O'Rye Cracker is looking more and more like that Darth Sidious.
Referring to Savage's comment about the Imas outting
O'Reilly and Savage are just two in the same, media clowns groping for last vestiges of historical trivia. It's sad to see.
Savage can't see a perked early retirement package (termination with severence bonuses ) in the case of the Imas race card oblate which was synchronized around the VA Tech Massacre. CBS wants the Iron Wall of republican propaganda...which it represents...to appear sympathetic to the plight of individuals targeted with slurs of hate speech, so it looks to see who it wants to get rid of. In order to bluff effectively with the Manchu-Candidate mass murderer of Asian descent, the government has to put on its sensitibity poker-face, the result is the contrived Imas controversy. Fair is fair, recruiting terrorists to peform their missions of destruction was what DavisVA-WilsonNM urged in H.R. 861, and a string of freak shooters preceded by identical sets of fake bomb threats in each case: SLC-Trolley Square, VA-Tech were notable examples.
Since it looks so contrived and organized, the government wants to make overtures of equality on behalf of epithets, so it has its main television propaganda bureau help soften up the target with a distraction to help confuse associations when it manufactures its biggest Asiaphobia posterchild. The government has outsourced a lot of pseudo sophisticate psychometry on the American population in order to lull it while it beats it senseless.
...conclusion regarding the ultra-left airhead commentators..
...it's important to hear ORielly say something pat and standard that's compressed into enough of a vacuum to mean nothing or anything...(for example)...
...it's important for Savage to also keep dredging up hyperboli regarding the holocaust, as a weapon to derride contemporary political enemies, while overlooking the mass murder atrocity of 9-11's pyrotech demolitions, or just ignoring it because Savage is selective about his fascism and when...
Since the Imas flap was built on very thin circumstances, and since it raised more of an issue about his right to speak freely in private as he didn't make comments on the air...given its synchronization with the VA Tech shootings...it takes on the appearance of a subfused effort on the part of media to mount a campaign to dramatize plausible deniability, i.e. deniability the freak shooters are not random events, that too many irregularities surround them; and deniability race based seletion would be filter the government or its clandestine operatives use to whip up a storm of demonization targeting an ethnic/nationality for reprisal hate speech or hate crime. The robo-rat science is well developed, a subject of Popular Science and Mechanics magazine articles. The reason for its development is obviously not to control rats; and there is no other explanation for acts a human being would have to be tortured and conditioned to commit.
...then the icing on the cake...
The next day a replica of the first atom bomb, 'little boy', is left anonymously in a Carnegie Mellon University parking lot, sounding a bomb squad alarm and media circus. Television enthralls audiences with 'Jerico' a show about the nuclear subversion of America and there you have the calling card in the news, and on the tails of the latest mass sympathy reprisal intimidation. I wonder if the fake A-bomb was Heather Wilson, Rep. NM's idea. Jo Ann is a representative in Virginia, these H.R. 861 songbirds do have tenuous threads of association, though nothing that could improve on their full-throated confessionals in Congress.