Where Does FOX Find These People?
In normal societies, people like this would spend their days stumbling through alleyways and yelling at deviant garbage cans. But in post-9/11 America, they are paid large sums of money to work as analysts on nationally-syndicated television programs.
Ladies and gentlemen (and Yosef), I give you the lovely Sandy Rios, a FOX News contributor who is defending Ann Coulter’s assertion that four outspoken 9/11 widows are “enjoying their husbands’ deaths”:
RIOS: Well, Bill, I think, I don’t disagree with your basic premise. I mean, it is certainly not my choice to attack people. However, we are living in strange times. And I think while everybody else is making nice, Ann’s words are laser-focused on truth. She says things that no one else dares say and it kind of made me think about, for instance, holocaust pictures. Do we have to see pictures of emaciated bodies to understand what happened? It’s kind of offensive. But, you know what? Yes, we do.
Take a deep breath and think about what Sandy is saying here. She is literally comparing Ann Coulter “exposing” the 9/11 widows as “harpies” who are “ejoying their husband’s deaths” to exposing the evil brutality of Nazi Germany. In other words, the “horror” of 9/11 widows who criticize Bush is on par with the horror of Auschwitz.
Where. Does. FOX. Find. These. People?
Sometimes I think Ann’s words, yes, as harsh as they are, they are like a clarion wake-up call, like cold water, like, “Stop it!” Because women have lost their husbands in an accidental bombing, which is tragic, and we have great sympathy for them, does not give them license to then criticize the commander in chief, to work against —
Uh. Bwuh. Guh. Ee. Dwuh.
OK. Hold on. Lost ability. To speak. English. Give Brad. One. Second.
…
Hot damn. OK, first off, I didn’t realize that 9/11 was an “accidental” bombing. That seems funny, since that tiny little oopsie at the World Trade Center has led our country to declare an open-ended war that will apparently last forever.
Second: this woman is a fascist. And no, I don’t mean that in some hyperbolic, Godwin’s Law sorta way. I mean it in a literal way: this woman is a figgity-fascist. Anyone who denies American citizens their right to speak out against the President of the United States is a gen-u-ine goosestepping f to the ascist- do not pass the Reichstag, do not collect 200 Reichsmarks along the way.
Amazingly, O’Reilly actually calls her out on this:
O’REILLY: Whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa. Hold it. They’re American citizens. They can criticize the commander in chief all day long.
And then he goes on this long rant about how he single-handedly discredited Cindy Sheehan with dignity, grace and falafel. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Let’s get back to Rios, who gets even crazier by the end of the segment:
O’REILLY: If you’re going to stand by that Sandy, then Ann Coulter writes in her book that these people are enjoying their husband’s deaths. Now, come on, you know that’s not true. That’s brutal to say something like that.
RIOS: It is brutal. But Bill, I would say this, I do think we’re living in a time where a lot of people enjoy the death of their loved ones. I know that sounds terrible.
Uh-oh… I can feel it happening again…
Right. Well, folks, I have to go do my gig as a floating space fetus now. I should be back in about four years or so, when I’ll tell you about something wonderful.
I’m afraid I can’t do that.
Don’t fuck with me, hal. Bradrocket ain’t no sensitive wimp like Dave.
The fact is that the left has twisted the words of Ann Coulter here.
Ann has a very legitimate point.
The left is not interested in debate. They put out people who respond to criticism by saying “I”M A VICTIM AND I CANNOT BE CRITICIZED” like Cindy Sheehan.
Ann’s style also involves a lot of exaggerated statements which reflect the inner truth of a situation.
While the leftist 9/11 widows didn’t literally enjoy their husband’s deaths, their actions after 9/11 have shown that they are exploiting their husbands deaths for their own personal agendas.
Rios isn’t the most coherant spokesman, but Bill O’Reilly’s producers cherrypicked her because they didn’t want to stand up for Ann Coulter. Bill O is pretty inconsistant when it comes to conservatism, especially when it comes to Iraq.
Fuck off Ruppert. “The left” didn’t “put up” Cindy Sheehan, or the 9/11 widows. As hard as it might be for you to imagine, they are human beings with minds of their own. Actually, it’s clearly not hard for you to imagine, since you accuse them of acting on their “personal agendas” (who doesn’t have a personal agenda and act on it, for fuck’s sake?). They can’t be both put up by “the left” and exploiting tragedy for their own personal agendas.
And I’m not even going to start on the chutzpah it takes to accuse the left of exploiting 9/11 to supress criticism.
gary ruppert, you should be ashamed of yourself.
O’REILLY: In respect for your father…
GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I’m doing?
O’REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.
GLICK: Oh, please don’t tell me to shut up.
O’REILLY: As respect — as respect — in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians…
GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government…
O’REILLY: Out of respect for him…
GLICK: … not the people of America.
O’REILLY: … I’m not going to…
GLICK: … The people of the ruling class, the small minority.
O’REILLY: Cut his mic. I’m not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.
While the leftist 9/11 widows didn’t literally enjoy their husband’s deaths, their actions after 9/11 have shown that they are exploiting their husbands deaths for their own personal agendas.
If their personal agendas include “get Osama” then I gather that’s tough shit.
C’mon, guys. I know it’s hard, but you can resist feeding Gary.
Ya know, old-school troll, metatroll or just plain loathesome excuse for a human being. Gary does have a point. The 9/11 widows do have an agenda that was spurred on by the deaths of their husbands. Their agenda is a simple one: bring the rest of the country’s attention to the Bush Administration’s flat-out pathetic excuse for a reaction to the events of 9/11. From preventing the attack to the response on that day to answers to how and why it happened to the smoke-and-mirrors sense, the Bush Administration has shown to be either incompetent or just plain uninterested (hell, this whole deal is making them and their comrades cash, so what do they care if little people get killed or lose loved ones).
So, yeah, these women do have an agenda. And, yeah, the Irrational Bush Worshipers like our Mr. Ruppert do wish that every dissenting voice was silenced. Remember, we’ve been told for the past six years that any dissent from The Boy King’s agenda is tantamount to murdering 3,000 innocent people and the very victims of that tragedy don’t have the right to speak out. More and more people are siding with people like the 9/11 widows, people who won’t shut up just cause the government tells them to. They’re not cowards like Gary or Coulter or this Rios woman.
My question is…Gary, what are you personally doing to stop these evil women from hurting your beloved president? In other words, you got the sack to stand up for your convictions, or do you want the government to keep fighting your “battles” for you like a typical flag-sucking facist?
Sandy Rios, former president of Concerned Women for America and current president of Culture Campaign. The Culture Campaign site is a real trip. One of the site’s various gems: a handy diagram of the Culture Shaping Giants Rios and her CC Relay Teams are up against.
My God, it’s full of stupid….
Ann’s style also involves a lot of exaggerated statements which reflect the inner truth of a situation.
And this is a legitimate mode of discourse? So if I call the President a cokeheaded chimpanzee who lied to get us into a war in the Middle East so he could slip billions of dollars of business to the cronies who got him elected, and who — along with his handlers — is intent on subverting the Constitution and consolidating all power in the hands of an unaccountable Executive Branch… well that’s just a lot of exaggerated statements which [sic] reflect the inner truth of the situation, right?
Wow, JeremÃas. Not only is Culture Campaign’s “vision” a trip, it explains a lot.
I find it very reassuring when I can get a handle on just what kind of crazy we’re dealing with. “Oh, I get it, they’re not just garden variety Bush-loving fascists — they’re fundamentalist fascists.”
These people are fundamentally (heh) no different than the Shia running Iran. Unless you think the members of Culture Campaign are above a little holy war. Sandy’s probably jealous of Khamenei; he’s already got a country to impose religious rule upon.
The rules are quite simple. Republican arguments consist entirely and solely of ad hominems and break down as follows.
If the critic of Maximum Leader has been directly harmed by the Son of Heaven’s policies, such as a mother of a slain soldier or a 9/11 widow with personal criticisms of the war on terror, defuse them as follows
1 – directly harmed victim is exploiting their experience for financial gain / sell a book
2 – directly harmed victim is crying victimization in a victim culture of trial lawyers, like a woman suing over spilled hot coffee
3 – victim wasn’t that harmed and is probably faking it anyways (ie. Max Cleland still has one limb)
If the critic of God’s Anointed On Earth is NOT directly harmed by the policies, then defuse them as follows
1 – Critic is not connected to policy and was not harmed by policy anyways so what’s the problem
1a – since policy did not harm critic, critic is unqualified to discuss it and policy’s negative ramifications probably don’t even exist (“I’ve never seen any problems with illegal wiretapping”)
2 – Critic is not an expert in the field (“celebrities should stick to acting”)
2a – if Critic
3 – Critic is trying to sell a book / get elected
It’s easy, and works in all cases, and allows Republicans and their supporters to get on with the business of slaughtering foreigners and making money.
-Escape hatch
Sometimes the ad hominems don’t work, the last ditch response when all else fails is “Clintondidit” or in extreme cases “Chappaquiddick”
doh, forgot a bit there.
2a – if Critic IS unquestionably an expert in the field, then they are just a partisan extreme left liberal atheist homosexual with an axe to grind, regardless of the number of Republican administrations they have worked for in the past
Just a thought– Isn’t “I am a victim and I cannot be criticized” the US’s actual response to the rest of the world in the years since 9/11?
9/11 hurt this country and killed people. But the reason it hurt this country is that it killed people. Only a sociopath or a facist would get that backward. Ann Coulter seems to be both.
[…] Sadly, No! – Where Does FOX Find These People? [T]his woman is a fascist. And no, I don’t mean that in some hyperbolic, Godwin’s Law sorta way. I mean it in a literal way: this woman is a figgity-fascist. Anyone who denies American citizens their right to speak out against the President of the United States is a gen-u-ine goosestepping f to the ascist- do not pass the Reichstag, do not collect 200 Reichsmarks along the way. […]
That’s high comedy. Ann Coulter reminds her of holocaust pictures. I’m grateful that someone was fearless enough to point out her dire need of a feeding tube. If we all join in prayer she may even regain, someday, the basic functions of her cerebral cortex.
Where. Does. FOX. Find. These. People?
That’s easy. They just lift up a big rock and -Hey Presto! Right there with the other slimy, unmentionable things.
Where I think Coulter, Rios, Malkin and their ilk should go – preferrably NOW.
Dammit, I know I closed that tag.
Hal? Can you help a sista out here?
george w bush is not the commander in chief to non military citizens. are these wingnuts imagining themselves as soldiers or something?
cool italics. how did i do that?
It was me. I broke it.
Now you see why we can’t have nice things…
You sound upset, celticgirl. Why don’t you take a stress pill and lie down?
It is a bit odd that Bill O’Liar should question the veraciy Sandy Rios (latino sounding name if I ever heard one – someone should check her pubes) given the trouble that he is having with the truth at the momemt. Part of the conservative media playbook is that you never admit mistakes. I know a conservative American who believes what he hears on Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Rielly because the “liberal press is always publishing corrections so how do you know what is true?”
Watch that clip to the end. I swear you can see steam coming out of Olbermann’s ears.
Oh HAL, that is SOOOOOOOOO typical. Now, STFU and open the pod bay doors!
Where do these guys even get the impression that the widows demanded that no one respond to them? Did they have a press conference or something back in ’01 to say that their arguments were hereafter irrebuttable on the basis of their personal relationship to 9/11?
Seriously, what are the conservatives hanging this hat on?
Seriously, what are the conservatives hanging this hat on?
Straw. Large piles of it.
Blowback: As part of your research into Latinos and hair color, check out Michelle Bachelet. Her case might prove instructive.
I sure wish I had invested in straw at the beginning of the neocon movement. I’d have enough money to buy Ann Coulter!
Jesus, Bush had Lisa Beamer speak for him several times, and Coulter never complained about how “self-obsessed” or “celebrity-seeking” she was. Cheryl McGuinness campaigned for Bush in 2004, and I don’t recall Coulter shreiking about it. How can it be that the “self-obsessed … celebrity-seeking … people enjoying their husband’s deaths so much” are only the ones who speak out against Bush, while the ones who speak out for him are none of those things? It’s like a miracle.
“we’re living in a time where a lot of people enjoy the death of their loved ones”
What kind of crazy is this? This is a new one for me.
Dan Someone said,
June 9, 2006 at 7:14
Ann’s style also involves a lot of exaggerated statements which reflect the inner truth of a situation.
And this is a legitimate mode of discourse? So if I call the President a cokeheaded chimpanzee who lied to get us into a war in the Middle East so he could slip billions of dollars of business to the cronies who got him elected, and who — along with his handlers — is intent on subverting the Constitution and consolidating all power in the hands of an unaccountable Executive Branch… well that’s just a lot of exaggerated statements which [sic] reflect the inner truth of the situation, right?
I’m sorry, Dan. Where was your exaggeration?
And Brad, I’m going to recommend PP give you 10,000 points.
How wingnutty does one have to be before Bill O’Fucking Reilly calls you out?
Gary Ruppert, when exactly did Cindy Sheehan say, “I�M A VICTIM AND I CANNOT BE CRITICIZED�?
Please supply a link.
And also, Gary, why are political pronouncements that feature pro-Bush 9/11 survivors OK?
Was Rios once engaged to Lloyd Grove?
Where. Does. FOX. Find. These. People?
In the insane asylum.
And you should be thanking Rupert Murdoch that he’s finally found a way for these people to be productive, employable members of society.
Typical whining liberal! Glass is always half-empty with you people.
Once again, more stupid fucking wingnuts invoking the “commander in cheif” position. Hey asshole, if you are not in the military Shrub is NOT your commander in cheif and he sure as shit isn’t mine. So, when we civilians criticize him, it isn’t insubordination, it’s our right and our patriotic duty. Keep your fascist fantasy to yourself and fuck off.
I feel better.
shit………”chief” (next time preview)
“RIOS: It is brutal. But Bill, I would say this, I do think we’re living in a time where a lot of people enjoy the death of their loved ones. I know that sounds terrible.”
this statement is the living, breathing personification of wingnuttery.
please somebody explain these words to me! i am alternating between chuckles and exasperated head shaking and there is no end in sight.
seriously, this might be the CRAZIEST THING EVER UTTERED. i can’t even begin to fathom what was intended by this ill begotten string of symbols, that i was taught early on in my life, were supposed to have some connection to experiences shared by the users of the symbols.
like when i say, “my fucking car broke down,” you know exactly what i’m fucking sayin’. right? but if i say, “unfortunately we’re living in a time when alot of people are growing fins and gills and are taking to the ocean,” you’d be like, “what the fuck? where’d you hear that, asshole and why are you saying it on national tv? oh yeah to prove a point about how elderly people are ruining the oceans with their wrinkly skin flakes.”
see i can be crazy too. dear fox, please hire me to say these things on your network news programs. things like, “elderly people are ruining the oceans with their wrinkly skin flakes and unfortunately we’re living in a time when alot of people are growing fins and gills and are taking to the ocean.” see, that is why old people should stick to land. it’s all so fucking simple.
From Sandy Rios’ Culture Campaign:
B) Human sexuality is a God given gift that uniquely combines the mind, body, and soul of one person and binds them to another. It is the one act between two consenting individuals that can bring life and/or death, extreme pleasure and/or extreme pain.
I don’t think she is doing it right.
This is part of an organized campaign by the right to equate Democrats and liberals with Nazis. It is no coincidence that several people have recently compared Al Gore to Hitler and Goebbels. It’s part of the same campaign. No matter what the issue, the word has gone out : compare liberals to Nazis at every opportunity. If it gets repeated often enough, people will start to believe it.
this statement is the living, breathing personification of wingnuttery.
please somebody explain these words to me! i am alternating between chuckles and exasperated head shaking and there is no end in sight.
seriously, this might be the CRAZIEST THING EVER UTTERED.
Well, to be fair, she might have a not-entirely-unwarranted idea that HER family would be pretty much enjoying the death of one particular ‘loved one’. Just a theory. So, you know, it might not be the craziest thing ever uttered. If she thought that.
Of course, I have no way of knowing what, if anything, she was thinking when she said that. Still doesn’t mean she’s not batshit crazy, of course. FWIW, I think Coulter is, too. She looked really strung out and twitchy in the video I saw. Maybe she always looks like that, I don’t know, have only seen still photos of her before.
Let’s face it. They’re just amazed, shocked and everything that these 9-11 widows are NOT ON THEIR SIDE! Gasp. How can that possibly be? “Accidental Bombing?” WTF?
Coulter is dogshit with maggots -she revels in being as disgusting as she can be.
She is a mouthpiece whore whose job is to spread fear and loathing.
O’Reilly is a sexual pervert and a rat-cunning bully.
Bush the moron and his cabal are murdering war criminals who are all guilty of treason against the US.
I’m glad someone is defending Ann Coulter for taking on the scourge of widows and grieving mothers.
Um, I must be missing something here. If it’s so forbidden to criticize those widows, how is it that Coulter did it in her “book” and on national TV? So when do the jackbooted Democratic Party operatives break down her door–and those of all the nutjobs that are defending her–and cart her off to Gitmo?
Once again we come up another article of righty faith: Democrats are evil oppressors and keep everybody from doing what they want to do, despite the fact that they HAVE NO POWER!
The worst part of all this is that Coulter has successfully gotten a shitload of free publicity for her latest piece of trash.
Wow, when Bill O’Reilly thinks you’ve gone too far right, you’ve gone too far right.
So, um, who the hell is this woman and why is she on TV?
“Ann Coulter says things nobody else will say.”
There are several damn good reasons noboby else will say them:
1) They are personally hurtful.
2) They represent a political position which is certfiably insane.
3) They lower the level of political discourse.
Ann is aware of all these qualities. She counts on all of them to sell her book and keep her in the media spotlight.
By the way, if the “elite media” is so bad for this country (as Sandy Rios would say), why make your living from it, Ann?
Doesn’t that jump out at anybody as, oh, I don’t know, hmm, let me see here if I can come up with a phrase to describe it…oh yeah…THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY?