Bill O'Reilly calls UCONN students nazis for not allowing Ann Coulter to speak

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512090009

O'Reilly, Coulter, College students, Nazis!

The world has gone nuts!

Who could ask for anything more??

 

What a nut job! He gets worse and worse! What can you expect from a phone sex fiend?



Abner

 

He is right. What did the Nazis do to their opposition? They shouted them down and refused to allow them freedom of speech.

These students, as well as the ones who shouted down Senator Clinton, were acting like Nazis!

 

Sheesh. Leave it up to O'Reilly to come up with the concept of "far left Nazis"! What an idiot! The Nazis are the far right (much worse, even, than Republcans)! And the far left is the Communists (much worse than the Democrats)!

 

The problem here is the messenger. Not the message.

The students that interrupted were wrong because they interfered with the rights of not only the speaker, but of the people that were there to listen what she had to say.

On the other hand, Bill O'Reilly can not call anyone else a Nazi, as all he is missing is their symbol in his sleeve.

 

Don't forget that the Nazis were also socialists!

 

The Nazis are actually so-called National Socialists, which is a total perversion of socialism and, in fact, at the entire opposite end of the political spectrum. And, besides, his point could have been made by saying "far left communists" or "far left socialists," as I'm sure there could be found in history many instances of communists and socialists suppressing dissent.

 

Actually, they were being a bit more civilized that the Nazis: Nazis would have shot you, knifed you, or sent you to the ovens if they disagreed with you.

 

Both the far left Socialists/Communists and the far right Nazis have done that!

 

Ted

I think his comparison was to the Nazis as they came to power. How the brown shirts terrorized people and business owners. It seems a fairly reasonable comparison to me. Anyone who attacks and keeps another from speaking merely because they disagree with them is NOT an American to me.

 

"Nazis" is still a tad too harsh a word (and on the wrong end of the political spectrum). Nazis kill you if they disagree with you. These people did not kill Ms. Coulter. If you're going to take up a career as a political controversialist, well, expect to get shouted down a few times or, well, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! As to the wisdom (or lack thereof) of shouting an opponent down, I say it's unwise because:
A: Allowing your opponent to spout off could allow him to show everyone else what a fool he is (and hopefully then he'll just be ignored).
B: Allowing your opponent to speak might give you ammunition to use against him later.
C: Allowing your opponent to speak might result in him actually saying a few intelligent things that might cause you to modify your position slightly.
D: Allowing your opponent to speak might, in rare cases, cause enough intelligent things to come out of his mouth to cause your wholesale conversion
E: Allowing your opponent to speak now - when he is unpopular - might cause him to remember you and intervene in behalf of your right to speak - should you yourself later become unpopular.

 

Very true Ted.


Abner

 

Hi Ted

Your response seems rather mixed. They shouted down someone they disagree with. They "killed" both her chance to speak and the audience's chance to listen and decide for themselves. Yet you seem rather supportive to them? Would you feel the same if it were Cindy Sheehan or Hillary Clinton being shouted down? It is one thing to disagree, it is quite another to prevent free speech. Again, that to me is unAmerican with a capital A.

 

I'm not sure why you think my response is "mixed." I did say that I think it unwise to shout down the opposition for the five reasons mentioned hereinabove. However, I also mention that I'm not surprised that the people did shout down Ms. Coulter nor should she have been. Nor is it surprising that, as Jimmy mentioned, Ms. Clinton herself got shouted down recently, nor should she have been surprised. "Killing" somebody's chance to speak is not at all the same thing as killing 6 million people by sending them to the ovens. "Nazis" remains far too terrible a term for these people. What I am saying is that my thinking it unwise to shout down the political speech of others and my not being surprised when others do shout down political speech is not in any way contradictory. The former is based upon a utilitarian notion of having a certain supply of ideas fight it out in the marketplace of free competition for the hearts and minds of men and women in the political arena. The latter is based upon what I know of how people behave in groups, especially when they are committed to a given cause.

 

Hi Ted

I guess I still feel like I am getting a mixed message from you. Saying something is unwise is not the same as saying it 100% wrong. It sounds like you support them despite their unamerican actions. I apologize if I am reading something other than what you intend. Have a great weekend.

 

The bottom line here is that not allowing one to express one's opinions in a public forum is wrong and can justifiably be called "Nazism" or "Fascism" or "Stalinism" or whatever.

Both extreme ends of the political spectrum detest varying opinions and suppression of ideas and speech is germane to both.

 

I'm not supporting their activities. I'm simply saying that I'm not surprised. Two different things. It is possible, for example, to not be surprised at the occurrence of yet another drive-by shooting in (name your least favorite inner city) without necessarily being in favor of killing people. Simply put, political debates can draw out very strong emotions in people. And certain types of people who hold very strongly to their political ideas can take extreme measures, like doing whatever is necessary to silence the opposition. Oftentimes, politics can take on a certain us vs. them mentality, so common in wartime, that leads to the demonization of the opposition, portraying them as being either "evil" or "stupid" for somehow failing to agree with you, failing to allow them the very rights that you would want for yourself. This is why it is not surprising.

In saying that Ann Coulter shouldn't have been surprised at being shouted down (and conceding that neither should Hillary have been surprised at being shouted down), I'm simply pointing out that everyone should be aware of the occupational hazards of their chosen careers and being shouted down is an occupational hazard of being a politician/political commentator.

 

Just for the sake of correctness, those who shouted down Ann Coulter were most likely Leninists and Stalinists while those who shouted down Hillary were most likely Nazis and Fascists.

 

Oh my, should have been "are" not "is."