Coulter Cleans O'Reilly's Clock!

[amicus]

Coulter Cleans O’Reilly’s Clock!


Billy O’Reilly of Fox News and Chris Mathews of MSNBC news (sic), are two of the most voracious talking heads on cable television. Go ahead disagree with that?(There are others but way too far left for me to watch)

Following the Chris Mathews appearance a few days ago, from which I predicted the ‘Edward’s’, wife, which was a set up from the get go, would top the news; it has as Edwards needed something, anything to rejuvenate his failing campaign.

During the debate and discussion with Chris Mathews, Ann Coulter won all points, hands down and had Mathews slobbering on his chin.

Not to be outdone, Bill O’Reilly invited Ms. Coulter on his program, although for a shorter duration and with disastrous results for the credibility of one Bill O’Reilly.

The first segment concerned the twelve million (sic) illegal aliens currently in the United States, mainly from Mexico. Ms. Coulter suggested ignoring the political considerations, that the democrats want amnesty because Hispanics vote overwhelmingly left wing, that the Republicans want the cheap labor provided by immigrants willing to work for lower wages.

Her point was clear and simple and easily understood. I paraphrase: People who sneak into the country as illegal’s have no right to be here. Our immigration law is clear and need only be enforced. Those who are here illegally should leave and be forced to leave; the borders should be protected so that people cannot enter the United States without permission.

It does not matter what your politics are, left or right, nor the ramifications of evicting those twelve million people, either we are a nation of laws and follow our legal precedents or we do not.

We have millions of people from all over the world waiting in line to become legal residents of the United States by following the rules; if we need more immigrants, loosen the laws, do not permit ‘illegal’s’ to corrupt the legal system.

O’Reilly could simply bluster and stutter.

Segment two was even better. O’Reilly addressed the ‘set up’ phone call on MSNBC when the wife of Presidential Candidate John Edwards pounced on Miss Coulter.

O’Reilly began lecturing and besmirching Coulter on her statements concerning the use of the word, ‘faggot’ and her other less than politically correct assertions about political figures. Miss Coulter, again, not quite as calm and cool as usual tried to explain the use of ‘syllogisms’ to the befuddled O’Reilly and finally gave up, realizing he was not intellectual competent enough to comprehend the concept.

At the end of Coulter’s appearance, O’Reilly gestured defeat with his hands and the befuddled look on his face was priceless as he knew he had been bested. By a pretty blonde girl, no less.

Whether you appreciate Ms. Coulter or not, I dare you to name another individual that could intellectually embarrass Mathews and O’Reilly, on their own turf.

Well done, Ann!

The one whose name shall not be spoken on ignore.

Amicus…

 

[Liar]

Coulter Cleans O’Reilly’s Clock!


Billy O’Reilly of Fox News and Chris Mathews of MSNBC news (sic), are two of the most voracious talking heads on cable television. Go ahead disagree with that?(There are others but way too far left for me to watch)

I had to look up what the hell voracious means (I'm a forriner, so whithout the dictionary at hand, I'd be lost on a regular basis.)

But yeah, that we can ceratinly agree on. And if there's one thing Coulter never is, it's speechless. I don't like her and I don't like her ideas, but up against other chest pounding pundits in the same game, she's damn entertaining. But what you miss, ami, about winning a pundit battle is that it's not the best or the sanest that wins, but the one who talks the loudest and hits the hardest and eventually take the discussion so close to implosion that the others give up and shake their heads. And Coulter is the grand mistress of that.

I'm not all that aware of Chris Matthews, he doesn't pop up as much in the media flow over here, so I can't comment on that.But as for O'reilly and your challenge:

Whether you appreciate Ms. Coulter or not, I dare you to name another individual that could intellectually embarrass [Mathews and] O’Reilly, on their own turf.

I know a guy who embarrass O'Reilly on a regular basis. He looks like this:
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/mi_liar/theoface.jpg

 

[amicus]

I had to look up what the hell voracious means (I'm a forriner, so whithout the dictionary at hand, I'd be lost on a regular basis.)

But yeah, that we can ceratinly agree on. And if there's one thing Coulter never is, it's speechless. I don't like her and I don't like her ideas, but up against other chest pounding pundits in the same game, she's damn entertaining. But what you miss, ami, about winning a pundit battle is that it's not the best or the sanest that wins, but the one who talks the loudest and hits the hardest and eventually take the discussion so close to implosion that the others give up and shake their heads. And Coulter is the grand mistress of that.

I'm not all that aware of Chris Matthews, he doesn't pop up as much in the media flow over here, so I can't comment on that.But as for O'reilly and your challenge:
I know a guy who embarrass O'Reilly on a regular basis. He looks like this:

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/mi_liar/theoface.jpg

~~~

Thanks for the comment Liar, beginning to think few if any were interested, or maybe I should change my deodorant, eh?

Seems like a hundred years ago since I did my very first radio show. I had practiced long and hard, knew all the turntable thingies, switches and dial, times for station id, weather and news, figured I had it down.

Opened the microphone to give the name of the song I had just played and found my voice would not obey me, not even a squeak.

Since I was one of those, 'talking heads' on radio and tv, and did talk and interview radio and television for a long time, I feel called upon to defend the profession to some small degree.

Television, like radio or newspapers and magazines, or even the internet, like here, are just a platform for ideas and thoughts. Some express them better than others and often not a lot is of much import, but sometimes, great things can happen any place at any time.

Television is perhaps the most difficult, with all the lighting, cameras, technicians and the earplug to the producer and director of the show. I offer that it takes a bit of hubris just to step into a studio, let alone perform well, regardless of the topic or issue.

Thanks again...


amicus....

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip]
Television is perhaps the most difficult, with all the lighting, cameras, technicians and the earplug to the producer and director of the show. I offer that it takes a bit of hubris just to step into a studio, let alone perform well, regardless of the topic or issue.
Thanks again...
amicus....

On this point we agree, Amicus.
Although, I must point out that the 'talking heads' don't have to walk to a certain spot (hit their marks) while opining on the topics of the day. It's amazing how the slightest task can throw one's focus into complete disarray. I suspect that's why Coulter wears the same little black dress to every interview and hasn't changed her hairstyle since... forever. The more comfortable one is with the basics, the more one can concentrate on the more complex issues.
Having said that, Coulter is undoubtedly a harpy.

 

[amicus]

On this point we agree, Amicus.
Although, I must point out that the 'talking heads' don't have to walk to a certain spot (hit their marks) while opining on the topics of the day. It's amazing how the slightest task can throw one's focus into complete disarray. I suspect that's why Coulter wears the same little black dress to every interview and hasn't changed her hairstyle since... forever. The more comfortable one is with the basics, the more one can concentrate on the more complex issues.
Having said that, Coulter is undoubtedly a harpy.

~~~

Had to go to the dictionary for 'harpy', hmmm...thas pretty harsh and may have some degree of truth...but other than her on air appearance and her books...I have no knowledge.

I noticed that same little black dress and 'do', didn't make the connection to 'comfort zone', but I suppose that fits also. I was more pointing out that she appears in hostile territory most all of the time and seems unfluttered by it.

thanks


amicus...

 

[Liar]

Since I was one of those, 'talking heads' on radio and tv, and did talk and interview radio and television for a long time, I feel called upon to defend the profession to some small degree.

It's not the profession per se, but a certain genre whithin it that I'm berating. Every talk show host and guest isn't a pundit bandit (my term, I think I should copyright the thing), and not all pundits (in the traditional, neutral sense of the word) is of the bandit variety.

I don't know which kind you were, but if the style of your posts here is anything to go on, you are far too long winded, and build your arguments more on discource than punchlines, to make it as a pundit bandit. Maybe you're just too old school, belonging to the time when television allowed for people to talk until they reached the end of their sentences?

I think Wikipeida sums it up nicely, with a good roundup of some of the worst pundit bantits out there today:

---
The term, however, increasingly refers to popular media personalities who express opinions without necessarily holding recognized expertise in the area on which they opine. In recent years in the US, with the increased popularity of prose, television and radio personalities such as Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, pundits are increasingly seen not as experts, but as ideological partisans who tend to do more ranting than measured commentary. They are often accused of being politically biased, and of using informal logic in fallacious ways.
---

 

[amicus]

It's not the profession per se, but a certain genre whithin it that I'm berating. Every talk show host and guest isn't a pundit bandit (my term, I think I should copyright the thing), and not all pundits (in the traditional, neutral sense of the word) is of the bandit variety.

I don't know which kind you were, but if the style of your posts here is anything to go on, you are far too long winded, and build your arguments more on discource than punchlines, to make it as a pundit bandit. Maybe you're just too old school, belonging to the time when television allowed for people to talk until they reached the end of their sentences?

I think Wikipeida sums it up nicely, with a good roundup of some of the worst pundit bantits out there today:

---
The term, however, increasingly refers to popular media personalities who express opinions without necessarily holding recognized expertise in the area on which they opine. In recent years in the US, with the increased popularity of prose, television and radio personalities such as Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, pundits are increasingly seen not as experts, but as ideological partisans who tend to do more ranting than measured commentary. They are often accused of being politically biased, and of using informal logic in fallacious ways.

---

~~~

Rather well said, Liar, interesting. 'Old school', yes, I suppose that identifies me both stylistically and chronologically.

One has the luxury of being 'long winded', on a forum such as this, such is not the case on a live microphone, at least in my early radio days.

Just as a matter perhaps of widening your spectrum, I try to let you into the world of talk radio I discovered way back when it was just beginning.

I quickly found out that every word I spoke was heard. My grammar was criticized, my context and sentence structure was thrown back at me, and god forbid if I used a word I was uncertain as to the meaning of.

One learned rather quickly that the other end of that telephone may contain a history professor, or an English grammar teacher, a political scientist or a nuclear scientist.

And with the early, 'open line', concept of talk radio, anyone could expound on any subject they wished to.

And of course to not appear ignorant or uneducated, a radio talk show host or moderator, was required to have a vast reservoir of wide ranging familiarity with just about everything.

I read a dozen newspapers daily, subscribed to several news magazines, watched and listened to all news sources to attempt to remain, 'current', in all things, and conversant with the history and past of all things, a never ending quest for information which curses me to this day.

I got rather good at my job, was paid well and seldom had a caller stump me on a subject that I had no information about.

I can almost see the thought process working in Ann Coulter's face and demeanor as she listens to whatever assault is being launched against her and it is seldom complimentary, at least on the venue's I have seen her appear on.

There is a central thought to all this; one cannot be, 'expert', in everything, just impossible as there is always someone who knows more than you do about a particular subject or event.

Those who do learn all there is to know about one area of expertise are often ignorant of most of the rest of the spectrum, not all, but most. Which is why global warming scientists seldom if ever appear in the media, only the, 'pundits', interpret their work.

I have noticed on this forum many who claim to be computer programmers, who also have many opinions on many subjects. Computer programming is an area of expertise, I surmise, that is all consuming, leaving little time or energy for fundamental knowledge in other areas, thus, they must take the word of others to explain their positions and outlook, usually influenced by political or religious beliefs.

I, personally, made a choice, a long time ago, to not burrow into one field and become an expert, an authority, in that field. Rather, I sought to know as much about everything as I was capable of doing.

I have a great deal of professional respect for Ann Coulter and even the style with which she sallies forth; she is probably the best in the business at what she does at this moment.

Long winded, god, I guess, sorry....dunno how I could have said it more briefly.

thanks


amicus...

 

[Liar]

You make some good pointe there, and I might get back to it later, but I'm late for work already...

However, just a short comment on this:

I have noticed on this forum many who claim to be computer programmers, who also have many opinions on many subjects. Computer programming is an area of expertise, I surmise, that is all consuming, leaving little time or energy for fundamental knowledge in other areas, thus, they must take the word of others to explain their positions and outlook, usually influenced by political or religious beliefs.

Quite the contrary, actually. Computer programmers have, in my experience, unusually versatile minds for people who are experts in their one field.

Because their assignments often consists of "Write a program that does X" where X is a function in another line of business, let's say the automotive industry, that uses computers. So in order to write a program that does X, the programmer needs to read up on X is and get an understanding of how it works in order to do their own job well. Plus they're pretty good formal thinkers, who can spot a logic crack in an argument and juggle syllogisms with the best of them.

 

[S-Des]

It's not the profession per se, but a certain genre whithin it that I'm berating. Every talk show host and guest isn't a pundit bandit (my term, I think I should copyright the thing), and not all pundits (in the traditional, neutral sense of the word) is of the bandit variety.

I don't know which kind you were, but if the style of your posts here is anything to go on, you are far too long winded, and build your arguments more on discource than punchlines, to make it as a pundit bandit. Maybe you're just too old school, belonging to the time when television allowed for people to talk until they reached the end of their sentences?

---

That is the big thing that makes these shows both compelling and so annoying that I often turn them off to do something (anything) else. There are good interviewers and bad ones in all formats (Larry King and Jay Leno are awful, while Conan & Letterman can be really insightful and get more out of their guests). I like O'Reiley because he is even handed with guests who disagree (at least moreso than some of the others), and will challenge people who are aligned with his viewpoints. It doesn't make him any less of a jerk (and often dufus), but at least I get to hear what the guest has to say and hear them answer a few challenging questions.

My biggest problem with Coulter as a commentator is that she doesn't really answer direct questions. When faced with something that she can't intelligently debate, she just reverts to name-calling or faux joking (pretending that she's being funny). It's very dishonest and makes her lose much of her credibility to me. The claims that she is too mean are just ridiculous. I can find far nastier things said by people on the Left (not commentators, but actual influencial politicians) on a regular basis. The difference is the amount of media attention the comment garners (although the comment about the 9/11 widows was frighteningly undefendable). Obviously she says a lot of shit to get attention. It's her right, but being a caricature does have it's downsides.

 

[amicus]

That is the big thing that makes these shows both compelling and so annoying that I often turn them off to do something (anything) else. There are good interviewers and bad ones in all formats (Larry King and Jay Leno are awful, while Conan & Letterman can be really insightful and get more out of their guests). I like O'Reiley because he is even handed with guests who disagree (at least moreso than some of the others), and will challenge people who are aligned with his viewpoints. It doesn't make him any less of a jerk (and often dufus), but at least I get to hear what the guest has to say and hear them answer a few challenging questions.

My biggest problem with Coulter as a commentator is that she doesn't really answer direct questions. When faced with something that she can't intelligently debate, she just reverts to name-calling or faux joking (pretending that she's being funny). It's very dishonest and makes her lose much of her credibility to me. The claims that she is too mean are just ridiculous. I can find far nastier things said by people on the Left (not commentators, but actual influencial politicians) on a regular basis. The difference is the amount of media attention the comment garners (although the comment about the 9/11 widows was frighteningly undefendable). Obviously she says a lot of shit to get attention. It's her right, but being a caricature does have it's downsides.

~~~

I realize this was not directed at me and I am not picking a fight, but since I am defending and promoting Ms. Coulter...

I have read a couple of her books and listened to as many interviews as I find convenient and never found her unable to intelligently debate any subject or issue.

There are many reasons for not 'answering direct questions'; uppermost is a 'chess game like', encounter when you know that to directly answer a question leads you down a slippery slope and that is never a prudent choice.

A 'direct' question has implications, it can be and often is a trap, to lead a discussion in a certain direction. Sensing that, one avoids that avenue and takes another.

On the '9/11 widows' issue, which you purport to be 'undefendable', I do defend it and easily.

While no one, not even Coulter, diminishes the losses suffered by those who lost loved ones in that terrorist act, to use the aftermath to political advantage is a travesty.

Those 'widows' were used by the anti-war left, by the 'Pink Ladies', and 'Move on.Org', to further a political agenda. No one was willing, because of 'political correctness', to point that out.

Ann Coulter did.

Defend her? I applaud her.

A more complicated matter of 'name calling'. The left, is so esconsced in a morally superior bubble as to think they are untouchable on social issues, such as social security, national health, women's rights, gay rights, as to think they are unassailable.

They are indeed,'true believers'. The only way to even get their attention is to call them pussies.

And they are, just that, PUSSIES.

Besides myself, Ann Coulter does that about as well as it can be done.

The ecology nuts, the global warming freaks, the 'kill a baby today'. advocates, the 'gay pride' contingent, a whole host of truly aberrant advocates need to be called what they are, rabid, radical left wing nut cases.

Read what she writes, listen to what she says.

amicus...