Coulter: "I sort of beg to differ with Fox" on Dunn's comments, "I have quoted Mao"
October 23, 2009 9:35 pm ET
From the October 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
With different people tuning in to Fox, they do not want to show their total hatred of this Administration and anything not Connie.
Watch for a few set-up disagreements between Foxites. But they can't hide the contents of their package just by putting a pretty bow on it.
I applaud the Adminstration for taking the heat to expose Fox. Watch Fox squirm as they try to calm down their attitude to everything-Obama.
This White House is too smart for the Cons...my reasoning...the only thing they have against this White House is the fear of the future. And it is easy to scare a con. Read the posts that will appear after this one.
And for you Annie, what choice did you have but admit what you've said and written....DUH!!!
That is an absolutely brilliant point.
Oh my!
Did I hear what she said??
I'm also starting to catch on to Fox's strategy. They make a lot of noise about something that's taken wildly out of context, and then once they get enough idiots mad, they back off and explain the context. On a Friday night.
Several seconds later.......
Wait a minute! You just said it wasn't as controversial as your network made out. Why should other networks carry a story that you just said is a non-story? The controversy was your own network's device on the story, and nothing more.
I like how BilldO backs off as soon as he sees she's not going all-out on the Mao idiocy.
But they're sticking to the Van Jones and ACORN stuff. They must feel pretty sure that there's no video of them saying anything positive about either of them.
How do the idiot Fox Fans not see through this pablum?
Oh well, I guess Beck can take HER of his list of guests...
Wonder who'll screw up next?
And Col., ALL of Faux Nooz entrainment hosts do things like that. Beck is your classic walking contradiction. However, by constantly telling his audience "THEY think that YOU are dumb and crazy, but *I* KNOW you're SMART and Patriots. So, you can BELIEVE ME, because WE check ALL our facts 3 times over before we present them to you".
And you know how Beck screams, PLEADS with Someone, ANYONE, to call or write him and "correct" him? He begins and ends his show, almost daily, with these "pleas". I spent over 3 weeks, recording the shows, going over them, and emailing the FACTS to him, AND calling both his radio show and Faux Nooz--with videos and official documents to refute the LIES he was spewing.
Funny, he never mentioned it? (Oh, and I've since found 3 others who are doing the same thing--they haven't been mentioned nor as he retracted a thing.) Instead, he just piles more lies on top of the original.
Yep, he's so transparent, I'm shocked and saddened at the ignorance, that so many have been drawn into his evil web-not knowing, or believing, they're "fighting" against their own self-interests....
By the way, anyone going to challenge Chris Wallace to out himself on Sunday for being the "concerned parent"?
Credibility? No. One truth among a thousand lies is not credibility.
For what reason?
It's wholly inconsistent with her right-wing views. When she makes false and inflammatory comments that serve conservative causes, then we know the motivation for that. It serves a political purpose. Where is that element here?
The world is not binary in nature. There are degrees to be evaluated. People may be honest about one thing and then lie about another, and they're judged by the amount of lies they tell. The point of noting her comment here is that even someone with Coulter's history isn't buying into this nonsense. That's how ridiculous it is. So, credit where credit is due, but it doesn't mean that anyone should believe the next right-wing argument that she spits out.
Also, doesn't it seem fair of MMfA to note something like this? People like you like to argue that MMfA just hates conservatives, but then they point out when someone bucks a trend like this. If they really wanted to paint conservatives as poorly as possible, why would they do that?
I will NEVER understand the "if you aren't a this, you have to be a that" argument. Most REAL people are a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
Oh, the shame!