O'Reilly to Coulter: "I don't even care, to tell you the truth" about Coulter's controversial comments
SUMMARY: A Los Angeles Times article about Ann Coulter's recent appearance on CNBC, in which she said "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected," reported that "Fox News did not rule out having her on as a guest again, but a network executive said if she came on she would be pressed about her statements." Nevertheless, during Coulter's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, her first appearance on a Fox News prime-time show since the day on which she made the comments, O'Reilly told her, "I don't even care" about those comments.
According to an October 13 Los
Angeles Times article on Ann Coulter's
recent controversial comments: "Fox News did not rule out having her on as a guest again, but a network executive said if she came on she would be pressed about her statements" on the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea, in which she said "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected." But during a brief discussion of the controversy on the October 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly
said, "I don't even care, to tell you the truth." Coulter replied, "Either do I. You brought it up, and I'm not explaining myself." Coulter's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor marked the first time she has appeared on Fox News since her October 8 comments aired.
Additionally, O'Reilly did not challenge Coulter's assertion during the segment that "the Orthodox Jews are all supporting me. They have some vague familiarity with the Old Testament and the New Testament." Instead, O'Reilly responded: "The Orthodox Jews are supporting you. What does that mean?" Coulter replied, "This is not a Christian thing even here. This is way beyond that. This is the irreligious against the religious." O'Reilly did not note that several Jewish organizations have denounced her comments, including the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Additionally, although the introduction of the October 15 O'Reilly Factor included audio of Coulter's October 8 assertion that "[w]e believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws," O'Reilly did not air or discuss any of Coulter's other comments during his show.
As Media Matters for America documented, when Big Idea host Donny Deutsch asked Coulter, "If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?" Coulter responded, "It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like." She described the convention as follows: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America." Deutsch then asked, "It would be better if we were all Christian?" to which Coulter responded, "Yes." Later in the discussion, Deutsch said to her: "[Y]ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians," and Coulter again replied, "Yes." When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."
During the segment, O'Reilly asked Coulter, "You go on this dopey show. Why? Nobody watches this dopey show. Why are you wasting your time? Go out to dinner." Coulter responded, presumably referring to Deutsch: "Because he's always amiable to me. A dunce, but an amiable dunce." O'Reilly later said, also presumably referring to Deutsch, "I don't want to mention his name. He's just a twerp." As Media Matters noted, on the October 11 broadcast of Steve Malzberg's WOR (New York) radio show, Coulter said: "I don't think most Jews are as stupid as Donny Deutsch."
From the October 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right, now. You go on this dopey show. Why? Nobody watches this dopey show. Why are you wasting your time? Go out to dinner.
COULTER: Because he's always been amiable to me. A dunce, but an amiable dunce.
O'REILLY: So what? There's six people watching, and they're not going to buy your book.
COULTER: I didn't realize he was going to turn himself into the [Rev.] Al Sharpton of the Jews.
O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to mention his name. He's just a twerp. But you go on there, and you talk about Christianity and Judaism, all right? Now, come on, no matter what you say -- no matter what you say -- they're going to load it up against you. You know that. Just the topic.
COULTER: Look, me saying, "Good morning" -- they'll load it up against me and start demanding that no one have me on. OK. So what? I mean, of all their defamation campaigns against me, announcing that I am Christian and part of my Christianity entails actually believing it, it's not really taken off.
O'REILLY: But they tried -- I read the transcript. I couldn't really make heads or tails out of it. I'm not smart enough. But they tried to say that --
COULTER: Well, you are smart enough --
O'REILLY: -- you were denigrating Jews. You wanted all the Jews to be Christians.
COULTER: Right, but it's part of the, as I say, the Christian panic syndrome. Look, the Orthodox Jews are all supporting me. They have some vague familiarity with the Old Testament and the New Testament.
O'REILLY: The Orthodox Jews are supporting you. What does that mean?
COULTER: Yeah, because they've heard of the Bible. This is not a Christian thing even here. This is way beyond that. This is the irreligious against the religious.
O'REILLY: OK. I don't even care, to tell you the truth.
COULTER: Either do I.
O'REILLY: But I do care about --
COULTER: You brought it up, and I'm not explaining myself.
O'REILLY: No, I had to bring it up because of other things.
COULTER: Yeah, but all of your little lead-ins were that I was explaining myself. I'm not; I'm promoting this book.
O'REILLY: Right.
Interesting, a Google search of "O'Reilly and Coulter go down on each other's waste of trees" returns about 883 results. Did Bill go down on Ann first, or was she first?
Who cars about this stupid interview?
What was she wearing?
O'Reilly is right about one thing, no one watches Donnie Deutch. The guy and CNBC are a joke.
"no one" not one single person? I beg to differ. That channel is left on in bank lobbies, investment office lobbies. I once spent some time working on a computer in a radiologists office and he had that channel on all the time. This is just Ann and Bill in heat, not making much sense because their hormone levels are off the charts.
She's the one who chose to go on his program.
And you know this because you... don't watch?
Billy-Boy doesn't care. Neither does Coulter. They both think Deutsch is a dunce. She was just there to promote her book.
Looks like they were just being honest. Maybe their honesty gives you the heebie jeebies, but other than that...where's the beef?
Exactly. Coulter wanted to say some fresh new offensiveness in order to get buzz about her so she could promote her book, happens every time - she nearly admits as much here. O'Reilly obliges. MMFA fans the flames. Ann gets what she wants. Another win-win.
That was probably the least offensive statement she has made. The outrage is invented by groups like MM.
Think about it. Do you think it would be better if more people believed the way you do?
Do I think it would be good? Yes. Do I think THAT makes me BETTER? No see the distinction?
Deutch is not only a dunce, but a phony. Ann is so outrageous but he has her on twice? Give me a break.
Ah, another thread with every other post by Tommy. But that's okay. Saves time in not reading.
Jeter, you are either being willfully naive or ignorant. O'Smelly bemoans "smear merchants", "personal attacks" and claims the Factor is the "no spin zone."
The problem is he a liar and a hypocrite. He insults Duestch why? What has Duetsch ever done to him? Why denigrate his show, which does have a small but dedicated and intelligent audience. OH I forgot, NewsCorp just launched a business network so they have to pick fights with CNBC to help build an audience.
It's time to call liars liars (O'Smelly), haters, haters (Coutler) and all those who do these contortions to defend or apologize for them morons. I'm just saying if, the shoe fits . . .
Jeter, you are either being willfully naive or ignorant.
Well hello to you too Krome.
You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. As is Billy-Boy, & yes, even Coulter.
But perhaps you ought to try not coming off sounding like a condescending pompous ass when expressing it. It really makes you no better than the folks you are railing about...
BTW, I stand by my post.
You are certainly entitled to express your view, you're even entitled to call me a "pompous ass" but you are adding nothing, absolutely nothing to this dialogue or addressing the substance of the MMFA post or my previous post. I think there is a word for that but evades me . . . oh that's it . . . Trolling!
BTW, I stand by my previous post as well.
You begin your post by suggesting I'm either naive or ignorant...primarily I suppose because you didn't agree with my post. Now you've added Troll to your insults. And I bet you still haven't figured out why I said you were pompous & condescending?
You go on a rant about Coulter & O'Reilly, which is fine, but doesn't mean I, or anyone else is naive or ignorant if we don't parrot your opinions.
My first post gave what I consider a good summation of the O'Reilly-Coulter encounter.
Your post was just a lot of blustering...there was nothing I could have commented on, except to tell you to calm down.
Oh my, so touchy. Your "so what" attitude every time we prove the hatefulness that exists on right is beyond annoying. MMFA does its job well, and in my estimation wouldn't have to exist if the MSM did it's job better.
I have almost no respect for social conservatives anymore. Most social conservatives are bigots, self-righteous and yep . . .ignorant. GO NASCAR DADS!
Unable to muster a reasoned retort, Krome shouts NASCAR! Is that your clever [cough cough] substitute for the usual epithets Fascist! or Nazi!
Funny how you figure all Conservatives follow NASCAR, isn't that stereotyping? I thought you Libs didn't do that. Ha!
Are you always in a constant state of outrage Krome? That kind of stress can kill ya. And quite frankly I find it beyond annoying...
There's a lot out there to work up a sweat over, Coulter & O'Reilly confabbing ain't one of them. Neither hold office OR believe it or not...influence policy.
I've little respect for the Far Left. Most are Moonbats. They are whiney, self-righteous, pompous, narrow-minded, panderers, & yeah... ignorant.
J2, we love you too, baby. ;-)
Yes, but isn't a large chunk of O'Reilly's Mantra.... that he holds people ("villains", especially) accountable? Of course, the fact that he excoriates only those whose political persuasion differs from his, that, my friends, IS a problem. I mean, don't just look at this whole Ann Coulter thing. This, I'm saying, in that he never takes a single right-wing nut-job to task, EVER (and, no, David Duke doesn't count). Hell, he wouldn't even hold Rudy Giuliani "accountable" for something he, O'Reilly himself, finds detestable; PRESIDING OVER A SANCTUARY CITY, for Christ! Having selective outrage is I guess what I'm accusing O'Reilly of, utilizing separate yardsticks, etc.. For more examples of this selective outrage, check out paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com
I don't know if they ADL represents Orthodox jews, but they are not supporting old flame thrower anny.
Ann says "Look, the Orthodox Jews are all supporting me."
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/5149_12.htm
COULTER: Right, but it's part of the, as I say, the Christian panic syndrome. Look, the Orthodox Jews are all supporting me. They have some vague familiarity with the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's both insulting and blasphemous to say that the people who wrote the Old Testament "have some vague familiarity" with it?
Everything this woman says is insulting and callous. The fact that she has an army of rabid supporters is both sad and alarming.
Actually Greek, I believe the jig is finally up. Eric Boehlert as much as admits in his piece today that an "expression of thanks" should be afforded these rightwing blowhards.
That is quite an astonishing statement in light of the daily bombardment of posters here who constantly whine about this stuff and say it's so detremental and injurious to serious political discourse in this country.......which is obviously baloney and incredibly disingenuous.
So who are the real Ann Coulter fans anyway? Those that buy her books, or those whose "thanks" she gets for being so nasty?
I know, I know... that's been your stance all along = 'don't show these people any attention... they will fade into oblivion'. Would be nice... I just don't think it works that way... It's a catch 22...
And, this may be the real 'genius' of a person like Coulter = ultimate opportunist. They know their perpetual inflammatory language will only increase their public image. But, what to do? Sit on your hands, hold your tongue while this harpie is allowed to spew garbage day and night? And, she has the gall to call herself a Christian? It's pathetic. People have to call her out. I just don't understand why more people aren't angered or disgusted by it... More of her people I mean... That is, right-wingers, Christians, etc... That's a sad commentary in itself.
By the way, I'm not so sure how much damage any gaffe by these pundits does... I don't know if I believe Boehlert on that score... sounds like wishful thinking to me. These pundits seem stronger than ever. It's just gotten nastier.
No, be honest about it. At least Mr. Boehlert said as much as he is encouraging this type of rhetoric because it's good for liberals, and bad for conservatives, by thanking them for what they say.
Sorry, you can't "call them on it" and "express your thanks" at the same time - that makes no sense.
You would be right this time, except for:
The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
So as a result, you are wrong (once again) on this one.
Okay... thank you Ann Coulter for being such a c*nt! It doesn't work that way in my brain... Is that being intellectually dishonest?
Frankly? I want Coulter to go away... I want FOX News to go away... I don't secretly pine away for these jerks to be the aggressive, lying creeps that they are... just to prove a point? That's playing martyr... something I don't subscribe to. You think I'm kidding myself... falling prey to the same game (just from the Left, or whatever)...? I seriously hope not...and I honestly do not think so. But, you can believe what you like.
Tommy, why are you assuming that Boehlert speaks for GreekFurnace, or anyone else here?
Every time someone attributes beliefs of other people onto you, you object, and rightfully so. But when Greek expresses beliefs that differ from Boehlert, then you feel you have to tell him to be honest, and that such disagreement makes no sense.
What the hell?
Boehlert speaks for himself, but when he admits that he is cheering Coulter, etc. on as in thanking them - then those that agree with the topic threads posted here do the same, with their feigned outrage.
So, do you agree with Boehlert and this website or not?
Dude - honestly, you've formed another 'all-or-nothing' scenario that is significant per you... You see the world this way. Great. I'm being completely honest with myself (and you) when I say you're full of it.
Greek,
You may want all this nonsensical rhetoric to stop, but it's obvious this website does not. There is no amount of liberal nuance that can deny that.....it's right there in Boehlert's piece.
But many of you will not admit it, so you dance around with word parsing in typical fashion instead of honest criticism of this website, if that is the way you really feel. Why is it so hard to face that? Wow.
Wow. Spare me the lecture. You want some grand realization from us lemmings? That's your business... and probably why you enjoy visiting this site to teach us all our daily life's lesson. Boehlert may be being honest (or whatever you want to call it)... however, as I said, I do not share his view (if that's even what he meant). But, it appears I'm so deluded (per you) that I can't even come to the realization that you've been right all along... Reductio ad absurdum.
You don't have to get all huffy. It's hard for many of you to criticize this website in any fashion by saying you want Coulter to stop - when that is in direct conflict with the powers that be.
Huffy? *sigh*... This site ain't perfect. I've said it in the past... and have criticized pieces when I thought it was necessary (of course, not as often as you or Bruce, Wes, Jeter, etc).
If Coulter stopped... FOX went away... there was nothing left to do re 'conservative misinformation'... this site would be defunct, meaningless. I'd say 'good'... and find something else to waste my time. That's the truth - believe it or not.
Greek, I respect your honesty.....and I believe you are sincere.
I just find it rather funny that all these people who claim they want this crap to stop really don't want that at all. For the exact reasons Boehlert lays out in his very honest piece, to his credit.
He is right, some people do attribute this inflammatory stuff uttered by these blowhards as a direct correlation with conservatives and Republicans. That is reality and cannot be denied. I believe it is unfair as I have said, but nevertheless it happens.
So some people who despise these people find that awfully delicious, that is also undeniable. A victory of sorts at any cost, even at the expense of civil discourse. Stick it back to the cons who spew all this crap to their listeners, I can understand that......they deserve the scorn they get with their big mouths, they are not victims.
But the fact is they feed off of one another and need the blowback each's reaction creates.....for if there was none, it would die a fast death. That is the interesting conundrum many are in with this polarizing climate of political discourse nowadays - on both sides.
I absolutely agree with you. Frankly, although I comment here and there... I have a low tolerance for this garbage... and tend to fade into the background because I just can't take the vile back-biting. This site, I feel, sums up a lot of the nonsense into a neat little package... it ain't perfect, but the very format - showing direct transcripts with little add'l commentary - I feel does allow bystanders (like me) to come to their own conclusions regardless of personal political standards.
And, to be honest... I do feel that MMFA has strayed somewhat a bit too far toward the 'baiting' or harping on inane points... and less 'reporting' of legitimate 'misinformation'... That I'm not crazy about... and a reason why I often tend to agree with the more moderate of the conservatives hanging around. But, I'll take what I can get. And, for the most part... MMFA does a pretty good job, I think.
If I were Boehlert... part of this site... part of the punditry process... I would probably be thankful... This IS his bread and butter. I'm just not interested in that. And, its not the reason I read this site.
Very well said, I agree completely. It is very instructive and educational for me when I am discussing important issues that the highlighted misinformation here brings up. That is far more important than some self promoting, self serving offensive slur that seeps out of Ann Coulter's mouth and the hundreds of posts defending it, or railing against it. I have been plenty guilty of engaging in it too, I admit that.
But all it does is get us all angrier and more personal, and what good comes of that? I am as complicit as anyone and not always proud of my temper.......but I'd rather discuss what is important to us all, I think most of us would.
Well... sometimes getting uppity is cathartic too ;-) Your comments are always appreciated, Tom.
I dont care WHAT this site says. Differing opinions on tactics are trivial. I want Coulter to go the way of the Dodo Bird. I want people to respond to her name being mentioned by saying WHO? If Boelert feels differently thats his take. I nor anyone else has any reason to answer for it. Nor do I think it wise to just ignore her like we did Limbaugh for the first decade or so. She WONT go away because us liberals pretend she is beneath contempt and ignore her.
What's wrong with Limbaugh? If all you want to do is tear down conservatives like Coulter and Limbaugh, then it really means you have nothing of your own to sell. Pathetic. That's why conservatives win on principles (God, country, and capitalism), and liberals win on falsities (welfare state, baby killing, and socialism).
Right, so when you guys try to tear down the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore, you're just showing that you don't have anything to offer. Is that how it works?
Come back when you have something meaningful to say.
"...then those that agree with the topic threads posted here do the same, with their feigned outrage."
Um, what? Do you understand that topic threads are all separate and weighed on their own merit, and that Boehlert's post is his own personal opinion?
I'm not sure the two things are contradictory, as was noted elsewhere. I despise her behavior, and I think she has to be called out on it at every legitimate opportunity. But if Republicans aren't going to weed someone like this out of their own ranks, then any price they pay for being associated with her is their own damn fault, frankly. And if that helps to improve the dialogue over the long run, then I would be grateful for that. I would prefer that the dialogue be more reasonable, and I don't want anyone like Coulter around to make Republicans look bad.
I don't know if that's what Boehlert said, and I don't care. My opinion doesn't rely on what anyone else says.
Your honesty is appreciated.
But what do you really feel is the motivation then behind MMFA's posting of their inflammatory rhetoric? Do you think they do it to highlight it so it will stop? Because according to a major player here, thanks are in order when they open their mouths?
You don't want to stop something when you essentially encourage it by "expressing your thanks". As I said, that makes no sense.
The "thanks" in question is because Coulter makes conservatives look bad. Isn't that right? It's certainly not because Boehlert agrees with her or anything.
So, if that's the basis for the gratitude, then obviously it's not inconsistent to highlight her behavior and try to get that information out to as many people as possible. Because the more people that know, the worse conservatives look.
Does that make sense now?
You're talking about motivation again and as I said that is irrelvant - the point being is that Boehlert, and obviously this website, want it to CONTINUE, for whatever reason - whether it's to make conservative look foolish, or make liberals win elections, or to polarize the electorate....it doesn't matter.
You either want it to continue or you don't. If you do, then you are essentially a "fan" of Ann's.
"...the point being is that Boehlert, and obviously this website, want it to CONTINUE, for whatever reason - whether it's to make conservative look foolish..."
First off, I'm not convinced that Boehlert speaks for MMfA. I think there's a disclaimer about that.
Second, thanking her for this does not mean that anyone wants it to continue. For example, I may use the phrase "thanks for proving yourself to be a hypocrite" to someone, but that doesn't mean I want that person to continue to be a hypocrite. The whole purpose of a comment like that is to shame the person into changing their behavior and/or to alert others to that behavior. In this case, one can be grateful for the display because conservatives may have to address it, or pay for being associated with her.
Third, the use of the word "fan" is a major stretch, even if one was to accept your argument. An ardent devotee? That's a bit hard to swallow.
You make good points and worth considering.
But I think we agree that Ann and her crap do nothing to further anything except contempt one side has for the other. And that is sad.
It is sad, and that's why I keep saying that networks need to uphold some standards and stop inviting her onto their shows. She has no rightful place in the national discourse.
I agree with you. But in this day and age of ratings driven news and tabloid sensational and "gotcha" discourse, it doesn't look like that will happen anytime soon. So if Coulter gets marginalized, good.
I share your wishes, nonetheless.
I think highlighting it makes it clear they are poisoning civil discourse and pushing the agenda toward the right. Whether or not it stops it is immaterial, I mean that would be nice but if it DOESNT happen that doesnt mean that no good will come of such exposure. It can also marginalize her among reasonable middlegrounders who see that many people find her obnoxious that what she says is NOT a reasonable part of rational discourse.
I'd say the latter, tommy cause we've seen several pieces of proof that most of her books are bought en masse versus one at a time!
HELLO TOMMY
I haven't posted in quite a while, but this latest Coulter episode has me back at the keyboard.
After I cut through the typical conservative slight about people voicing their concerns as "whining" and whatever other point you're trying to make I'm struck by how such and active politcal poster is clueless about the "Overton Window". Coulter's remarks are not only about selling books, her function in the Republican party is to move the position of the Overton Window, and this my friend affects the public discourse and policy.
The point is the hypocrisy of many on these talkers is astounding. They sit here and condemn their words and act as though they are bothered by it - yet this website says they desserve an "expression of thanks". Duh?
It's probably similar to the thanks felt by you conservatives towards Ralph Nader. You may be ideological and political opposites, but he helped to advance your cause.
Jeepers, Tommy, is it that hard to imagine that
a) Coulter's rhetoric could be offensive and destructive and therefore the nation's political discourse would be better off without it
AND at the same time
b) her vociferous espousal of extreme right-wing positions, and her visibility, could do damage to the Republican brand?
More than that, is it not possible that SOME commenters on this site would see her as a hateful figure and the things she says as not worthy of a place in the public arena, and OTHERS gladly put up with her, as long as she keeps making the right sound hateful and crazy?
Is this that hard to see? Or are you going to stick with your "libs think she does them a favor, so libs who crticize her are hypocrites" meme?
"Eric Boehlert as much as admits in his piece today that an 'expression of thanks' should be afforded these rightwing blowhards."
Here's the entire Boehlert quote: "Based on the recent ranting and ravings from Malkin and Limbaugh and O'Reilly, a lot more progressives may be expressing their thanks in the months to come." And the context is that they may be expressing their thanks to these blowhards for exposing the hatred and bigotry of the rightwing. That's hardly the "astonishing statement" that you want to make it out to be.
What a ridiculous parsing of words. Whether this exposes the "hatred and bigotry of the rightwing" or not is irrelevant. The point that you will not concede is that you are thanking them for spouting off, for whatever reason.
You feed off of it, you don't want it to stop, you need it, and you know it. To try and say otherwise is a flat out lie.
"What a ridiculous parsing of words."
There was no parsing at all, actually. I simply posted the entire quote and gave a little context.
"Whether this exposes the 'hatred and bigotry of the rightwing' or not is irrelevant."
It's not irrelevant at all. In fact, that was the precise point that Boehlert was making. Your point is irrelevant and dishonest, because you only want to point your finger at the part where Boehlert says, "Thanks," and then yell, "Gotcha!"
Clams,
You leave out the fact that MMFA is fueling misinformation of its own with both O'Reilly and with Limbaugh.
I think it is easily argued that the Reason Limbaugh and O'Reilly stay on these subjects is because the left, as evidenced by MMFA, looks loonier and loonier by purposefully misrepresenting Bill's and Rush's remarks.
So, it is funny that again the kettle is again accusing the pot of being black.
As an aside, I found it very telling that MMFA resorted to using the Colbert Report as a source for one of its threads.
It looks to me like the joke is on MMFA.
You leave out the fact that MMFA is fueling misinformation of its own with both O'Reilly and with Limbaugh.
Example?
Misch,
Pick any of the threads. I like the one where somehow Rush is being attacked because a clarifying comment came a minute and some seconds later. That was plain silly.
Also the Phony Soldiers comment was taken completely out of context. It is only in the world of MMFA where anyone thinks Rush is denigrating actual soldiers. Anyone who listens to Rush knew what he meant and his record of support for the troops, (even those that disagree with him,) is very well known. To argue otherwise was laughable.
Bill's comments were said in a sarcastic manner to make fun of people who might actually hold the bigotted opinion he satarized. It was typical stupid O'Reilly for expressing himself that way but it wasn't racism by any stretch. Again to argue otherwise only shows a bias against Bill.
Hey thanks again for asking for examples. This is the second time today isn't it?
Thank you for your unbiased opinion. We'll just have to disagree on this one.
Hey thanks again for asking for examples. This is the second time today isn't it?
What is that supposed to mean? Did I ask for something earlier today? Or are you just being obnoxious?
I asked first. ;-)
The actual arguments on those threads thoroughly destroyed both of your examples. Perhaps you should go back and review them.
Considering your ludicrous defense of Limbaugh in the past, it's hard to take your opinion seriously here.
No it wasnt. Only you hiveminders who dont know what you believe until Rush TELLS you what you believe take that seriously. The caller said REAL soldiers WANT to be in Iraq and the press ONLY talks to soldiers that pop up, the Oxymoron chimes in with phony soldiers and even though you guys cant come up with even the HINT of the mainstream press paying any attention to those soldiers that Rush later claims he meant, you tell us its the ONLY real explanation for his comment? The only reason to believe that is you are instructed to as part of the loyal hivemind
Anotheramerican:
"I think it is easily argued that the Reason Limbaugh and O'Reilly stay on these subjects is because the left, as evidenced by MMFA, looks loonier and loonier by purposefully misrepresenting Bill's and Rush's remarks."
That's an argument I'd like to see. Should be easily made, right?
Any examples of purposeful misrepresentation?
Any evidence that this "purposeful misrepresentation" is the reason these guys stay on these topics, as opposxed to, say, reflexive defending of their ideoloical brethern?
By now I assume you've seen my reply to Misch above.
Micsh, I apologize for misspelling your handle. I'll try to do better.
Your examples are very, very weak, AA: Rush's "phony soldiers" comment and O'Reilly expressing surprise that a black-owned restaurant was "no different" than a white-owned one.
You may be surprised that I find neither of these, examples of "purposeful misprepresentation" on the part of MMFA. Both were presented in full context, with transcripts and recordings to let people decide the intent and tone. Maybe you could identify specific text where MMFA deliberately misrepresented the quotes?
The thing about Rush mentioning MacBeth over a minute after his "phony soldiers" was that he had edited the transcript and recording on his own site to make the two remarks seem closer together than they actually were. That seems pretty important, and MMFA would be rightly criticized for if it was ever found to have committed a similar act. The fact that rush found it necessary to alter the record says something about his truthfulness.
O'Reilly, on the other hand, was probably being sarcastic. But his sarcasm revealed an unconscious racism, in my opinion, that he will never acknowledge.
YOU leave out the fact you are FULL OF IT and there was NO misinformation from MMFA. Only the hivemind could take seriously that the LEFT looks loony when they point out the racism and outrageousness of Billy O and the Limborg mouthpiece. You may actually believe that in your world of complete delusion but in the reality based universe its ludicrous. O'falafel says he cant get over the fact black people can actually run a restaurant and MMFA repeats his words verbatim and to YOU that makes US look loony? Increase your medication dude.
CC,
So you disagree with Boehlert and his extended hand of thanks to Coulter and others, correct?
In other words, you want their rhetoric to stop, or not? Which is it?
Because Boehlert is thankful for it, it only stands to reason that he wants it to continue and posts their threads accordingly as a form of highlighting their words as a thankful gesture. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from it.
As I maintain, it's a win-win for the blowhards who get MMFA's thanks, and for MMFA who get the blowhards to give them publicity.
"In other words, you want their rhetoric to stop, or not? Which is it?"
I want it to stop.
So, do you believe the way to stop it is to highlight it, in doing so this website has essentially admitted it is giving it "thanks" for it furthers the negative image of conservatives as laid out by Eric, or ignore it?
For the umpteenth time, 1. those two things are not mutually exclusive, and 2. Eric Boehlert doesn't speak for me. You're desperately trying to pin the "intellectually dishonest" tag on anyone and everyone here, but it's not going to stick no matter how many times you repeat it.
P.S. And you already know how I feel about the idea of ignoring these toxic fools. It doesn't work.
Nice dodge, expected, but nice anyway.
What dodge!? I just answered your question. What exactly are you trying to get me to say?
Because you try and have it both ways. You say you want this to stop, yet you use it all the time to label it as rightwing bigotry and cast a large net to scoop up all conservatives in with their rhetoric. If it stopped, what would you use then?
There's no "both ways" here. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. The rhetoric of the most extreme rightwingers is dragging down the conservative movement and I want it to stop. It's pretty simple, but you're twisting yourself in knots in an attempt to charge MMFA readers with hypocrisy, where there in fact is none.
Your concern for the conservative movement is touching.
What an absurd misrepresentation of my position. I have no concern for the conservative movement at all. You either have a serious reading comprehension problem or your just dishonest. Or both.
Tommy, can you explain why "exposing the bigotry and hatred of the rightwing is irrelevant?"
I'm seriously curious as to why you and other conservative posters think "bigotry and hatred" are irrelevant. Jeter, AA, Rhino maybe you all could chime in as well.
I'm more and more convinced that this mindset is congenital and might be easily corrected with some type of gene therapy. The purpose of said therapy would not be to make you think like us godless libs, just to make you think critically period.
I can tell you exactly why, because Tommy, et. al. pull this trick all the time. They make the substance of the charge irrelevant in order to defend it without getting their hands dirty. Tommy doesn't want to defend the actual words that come out of Coulter's mouth, so he always looks for the argument that doesn't have anything to do with the actual statement in question.
Krome, You missed the entire context of your highlighted portion, read it again.
As Tommy notes, that's not what he said. He was saying that "whether or not" there is this exposure is irrelevant to his point.
I don't think anyone you listed has ever said that it's irrelevant to expose hatred and bigotry.
Thank you, I appreciate your clarification.
His point being what exactly?
"Whether this exposes the "hatred and bigotry of the rightwing" or not is irrelevant. The point that you will not concede is that you are thanking them for spouting off, for whatever reason."
Of course, I disagree with Tommy that such exposure is irrelevant to his point, as well as that point itself, as I think my conversation with him should illustrate. But he did not say that the "hatred and bigotry of the rightwing" is irrelevant in general.
I think your conservative ideology once again leaves you wanting, Tommy.
It's not a matter of classification, it's a matter of progress. In other words, coulter simply resides along the road of intellectual growth. You begin at ignorance and progress toward enlightenment by becoming informed. Unfortunately, one attempting to depart ignorance may read a coulter book along the road, slipping on its slimy rhetoric, careening into the barrow ditch of conservative misinformation and mired there forever as a coulter fan. Sad.
However, those that avoid the "coulter detour" eventually reach enlightenment, and recognize that neophyte travellers need to be warned about such obstacles as coulter, limpaugh, hannity, or o'really, lest they also find themselves axle deep in conservative rhetoric. And there is - as there should be - great celebration whenever one of these hazards becomes visible, allowing future neophytes to avoid them completely.
Thus, I have no problem saying: Thank you, Ann, for adding a few cones around the pothole you are.
MMFA has not distorted O'Reilly and Limbaugh's comments. They have presented them in their full context. Therefore, you have no point.
Sorry, that was meant to be a response to AA above.
That's okay. I'm still not sure I have a point.
Neon,
Your post sounds suspiciously similar to one of Coulter's. Are you not in effect saying Liberals are 'perfected' Conservatives? It sure sounds like it to me.
Gee I wonder how many will call you out for your hate speech?
I don't think political views are a 'protected class' in this country.
I don't think it's Hate Speech to argue that someone's political views are wrong. If it is, then nobody is more guilty of Hate Speech than Coulter, though. But it's not.
Hating an entire religious group, however, does make you a bigot. People should be allowed to worship whomever (or not) without worrying about being harassed or discriminated against.
Micsh,
We agree on the whole religious intolerance thing.
I'm not sure, but if you are implying that Coulter has harrassed or discriminated against Jews then I think you are mistaken.
How about putting the shoe on the other foot. What if a Muslim, with a past of hateful rhetoric toward Christians spoke of “perfecting” Christians to the Muslim way. I am certain Coulter would understand.
And don’t forget, these conservative attack dogs call non conservatives traitors, unpatriotic, mentally ill or worse. This is apparently ok.
Conservative attack dogs such as coulter continually redefine progressives/liberals through misrepresentation and exaggeration(example: tax and spend liberal/lover of beuracracy)
However keep in mind, liberal/progressive are supposed to remain docile and respectful and understand that being mislabeled and attacked is politics as usual, however one should never try to characterize a conservative’s argument, because anything negative can only be considered a vicious attack.
No, but she encourages it. I do feel harassed when somebody is proselytizing and preaching to me. It's very condescending, and I could do without it.
Are you saying that all conservatives are like Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc?
Maybe you should go back and re-read that post.
Brab,
Sorry. I have no idea of the of point you are trying to make.
Having said that, I invite you to go back and read this again. :-)
I really didn't think I had to explain something this simple, but fine.
"However, those that avoid the "coulter detour" eventually reach enlightenment, and recognize that neophyte travellers need to be warned about such obstacles as coulter, limpaugh, hannity, or o'really, lest they also find themselves axle deep in conservative rhetoric."
There's nothing about "liberals" at all there. The point seems to be that people like Coulter are obstacles to reasonable thought and intellectual honesty. That applies to everyone, including conservatives. If conservatives avoid people like Coulter, they more easily allow themselves to express themselves intelligently, as opposed to following her example.
That's why I asked if you thought all conservatives were like these people. If you don't, then your post made a wild assumption. Is that clear now?
Barney wrote: "Are you not in effect saying Liberals are 'perfected' Conservatives? It sure sounds like it to me."
No, Barn. Liberals are perfected HUMANS. Conservatives are humans gone wrong. Less coulterish, more like Dobsonish.
Neon,
I find it puzzling that you castigate Coulter for supposedly using hate speech but now use the same phraseology she did - only changing it to Conservatives and Liberals - and somehow that is supposed to be a pithy rejoinder?
Gotta love that TLL! (Typical Liberal Logic)
ps. Any of you Coulter haters gonna accuse Neon of hate speech? My guess is no one will find it offensive and even a few will try to defend. Oh well.. its been fun.
Probably because most recognize my "perfected humans" comment as parody, spurred by your miscomprehension of what I previously wrote (see Brab's comment about your miscomprehension - explained masterfully).
By the way, were you this critical of Coulter's "perfected jews" comment?
Thanks for the compliment!
AnotherAmerican - you are simply vile. How dare you spread your hate speech and generalizations about liberals, at MMFA of all places!
Please return to the rock from under which you crawled.
Micsh,
Uh... who's using the hate speech?
Thanks for another fine example of typical liberal logic.
Also known as LOGIC. Actually in this case satire. No one really expects you to grow a brain suddenly and understand either concept
SHEEWWWW, that is the sound of another good and clever argument going RIGHT over your head.
Greek,
Why do you call her supporters rabid? I haven't seen any over-the-top posts defending her.
However I do believe it is rather clear that the Coulter haters in these past few AC threads have figuratively been foaming at the mouth expressing their dislike toward Coulter.
Why I even saw on poster gleefully suggesting certain Jews might cut up Ann and put her flesh on bagels. Don't you agree that suggesting cannabalism is bit on the rabid end of the spectrum?
;-)
I don't think cannibalism means what you think it means. Cannibalism is definied as eating one of your own. We're talking about eating ann, here.
(and after writing that, I just lost the urge to ever eat anything again)
That is one of the silliest comebacks I've had the pleasure to laugh over.
Thanks!
Cannibalism involves eating the flesh of other humans. Anne has no flesh.
"The normal question, the first question is, are these cannibals? No, they are not. Cannibalism in the true sense of the word implies an interspecies activity. These creatures cannot be considered human. They prey on humans. They do not prey on each other, that's the difference. They attack and they feed only on warm flesh. Intelligence? Seemingly no reasoning ability..." -- Dr. Rausch, Dawn of the Dead
For some reason, the above lines from my favorite horror movie seemed apt when discussing AC and her ilk.
I just love the high intellectual argumentation supplied by so many here.
Thanks for sharing.
ps. I did not see the movie, only the entrailers.
;-)
And they say burlesque is dead. Well you've got guts to post something like that.
That seems a rather viscera-l reaction, but I'm glad you had the intestinal fortitude to vent your spleen.
Hate to make it worse Neon.
Yah gotcher exocannibals, ya got yer endocannibals. Respectivily (choke!), eating people you don't know, versis eating people you do know, socially. Always a temporary condition with the later.
lol,
I think their bible and the christian "old testament" are not quite the same thing.
The AC should read the jewish bible perhaps.
Iflurry,
Not to be nitpicky but the people who wrote the old testament are dead. :-)
God dictated the Old Testament to Moses, who is dead. God, however, is not dead (unless you believe Nietzche) so maybe you are being a little nitpicky.
I'm not sure I get flurry's comment either, but the point was, it's pretty condescending of Coulter to accuse Orthodox Jews of being 'somewhat familiar' with the Old Testament, which is the basis of their religion.
I could say that evangelical christians 'sort of' understand the bible. I'm sure that would piss off James Dobson and Pat Robertson and Dead Falwell.
Thanks for pointing out that Moses and Falwell are dead. I appreciate discussions with people who have a knack for stating the obvious.
However, not to burst your bubble or anything, but I rather doubt if those living evangelical preachers you mentioned really care what you say. :-)
"Look, me saying, 'Good morning' -- they'll load it up against me and start demanding that no one have me on."
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."
"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."
"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."
"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."
"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."
"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."
"I have to say I'm all for public flogging."
"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."
"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."
"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
"I think airlines ought to start advertising: 'We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.'"
Yes, poor provocateur Coulter, we're all just waiting for you to say "good morning" so we can jump on you. The only thing worse than a loud mouthed hate-monger, is a self-pitying loud mouthed hate-monger.
Owwweeeee- I'm burned, I threw gas on that fire and it burned me!! Mommy, why does the fire hate me? Make it stop.
I don't subscribe to the idea that, if people who disagree with her ignore her, she'll just go away. She tosses out enough red meat to the rabid right that she'll stay in the public eye no matter what we on the left do or say. That's why it's worth reminding people of her nasty track record when she pulls this poor-harmless-me routine.
I agree with you, I was jsut paraphrasing in an inanely childish voice so the less literate would understand.
She reminds me of the time I threw white gas on another boy scout troop's fire, got my assed pounded and then accused them of hurting me. I learned my lesson, she has not. Probably because of the double standard that disallows beating up girls. Some where in her youth she discovered that she can say mean awful remarks and not get beat up because she is/was a girl. Or, as many believe, he realized if he had a sex change then he could say whatever and stop getting beat up. Now I'm confused again.
Pithaughn: After posting, it did occur to me that I misread your metaphor. Was Anne the one throwing gasoline on the fire or was it us doing it by reacting to her? I now see you meant the former but some on this thread have been arguing the latter, hence my reaction. Thanks for the clarification.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Defamation?? Ok, she is a transvestite? right?? I mean she is an anorxic transvestite with a sociopathic personality? right??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
O'Reilly: "We don't do personal attacks here."
O'REILLY: "All right. I don't want to mention his name. He's just a twerp."
MMFA: O'Reilly later said, also presumably referring to Deutsch, "I don't want to mention his name. He's just a twerp."
O'Reilly Tomorrow: WAAHHH! The far-left Soros gestapo at Media Matters personally attacked me again! WAAHHHH!!!
EXACTLY!!!!!!! Read it and weap trolls. BO logic in a nutshell.
"Fox News did not rule out having her on as a guest again, but a network executive said if she came on she would be pressed about her statements."
Yeah, old bull dog Bill wouldn't let go of that bone.
Coulter's "Orthodox" support comes from a character named Yehuda Levin, who has made a career out of sucking up to conservative Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Levin
Fox News suits love this leg-crossing, spinster skank: She's a Fox blond and a conservative. This boney broad is always welcomed at the Fox News studios.
Don't buy this broad's book. Instead, donate the money to a worthy charitable cause: Boys and Girls Club, high school band or booster club, Humane Society, etc.
And don't bother watching Fox Business News. It's a spin-off of Fox News.
The question is to whom O'Reilly was referring when he said, "No matter what you say they're going to load it up you. You know that." Who are the "they" O'Reilly is referring to? We all know, of course. His anti-Semitism is as bad as Coulters.
How many people think the world would be better if no one was Christian?
I dont know. Let me ask a more relevant question. How many people think the world would be a better place if no one asked meaningless strawman arguments that are completely irrelevant to what is being talked about?
I just heard, on audio, the MOST HORRIBLE statment from a US Congressman from California, today on the House floor... I urge real Dems and Repbs to listen to the most outraging comments I have EVER heard. Worse then Murtha, Reid and all the Libs combined. This makes the Rush "Phony Soldiers" comment mute. This is a disgrace and I bet NOT ONE comment will be posted here in Media Matters about the lies and horrible distortions by this Congressman... I am so angry atm, and when more AMERICANS of all parties hear the hate, the absolute wack job this man is they will TURN ON DEMS and demand his removal from Congress. Thank you Dems for makeing this so easy to show how over the top, filled with American hatred your side really is... I bet someone on this worthless blog will even defend his "right" to say such horrible things while condemming Colter and Rush... We will then see MUCH CLEARER the BIASED AGENDA of so called "main street" Democrates... Again, spoken on the House floor today, the comments of the SCHIPS veto overide by the Congressman from California. I will try to find a link and post. I am OUTRAGED and HORRIFIED if these type of Liberals get fully into power in the USA.
Kultur (Anglo-European) native culture, held to be superior to that of other countries and subordinating the individual to national interests.
One of the objectives of kultur is to subordinate the public to national interests, it being in the interest of government subverting propagandists to divert attention from the substantive or world event as much as possible. The socialist interest is in a dumbed down bourgeois whose political, economic and social opinions are to be concerned with property values and conventional respectability (having a green lawn) or trite, unsophisticated theological platitudes. ‘Leave the thinking to the ‘experts’ who know what’s best, don’t think, accept the soundbyte economy of cutting out the public and representative, accountable government.’
So when we see kultur struggling to displace aggressive media-watch subsidized by our waver of its taxable status to 501 c 3, (Ann Kultur is a failed lawyer and would remember every hard lesson), we should interpret it for ulterior purposes, is it trying to impede substantive media analysis that un-riddles the Big Lie or is it really trying to promote itself with the worst frivol imaginable? Is it not for profit or is the system being defrauded again? Where is equal public representation in the panels selected by mediamatters?