Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

whereaminow (73.77)

When I Say Empty Suits and Empty Skirts

Recs

26

June 18, 2011 – Comments (12)

I'm talking about people like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.

Recently, O'Reilly and Coulter decided to attack Ron Paul. My first reaction was "oh boy, here we go again. It'll be slander and lies until every conservative runs back to Romney."  

Instead, what we got was hilarity on the level of O'Reilly calling your girlfriend and asking if he can rub her down with a falafel. (Note #1 below)

O'Reilly got into a debate about economics (he once heard of something called economics) with John Stossel.  He couldn't pronounce John Maynard Keynes' name correctly.  He appeared to believe that Keynes lived in the 1700s.  He said that raising margin requirements makes speculation more risky.  Stossel, solid as usual, tried not to laugh too hard. (Note #2 below)

Now comes a report on Ann Coulter, who recenetly attacked Ron for not believing that marriage is an institution of the state.  (Note #3 below)

Investment guru Porter Stansberry met Ann Coulter at a dinner several years ago. He wrote about her:

Ann Coulter had never heard of the gold standard. She didn’t believe us when we told her that in 1933 FDR seized all of the privately held bullion in the country, then devalued the dollar – probably the greatest financial crime in history. She didn’t even know it was illegal for citizens to own bullion up until 1974. Bretton Woods? Coulter thought we were talking about tennis rackets. She told me flatly “I don’t know anything about finance or economics.” Not even the basics, like how inflation affects prices or the key role paper money and progressive income taxes have played in building the welfare state. We might as well have been talking to a horse. Ann just looked at us, her long face turned sideways with incredulity.

Lacking anything intelligent to say, she decided to simply insult us. “I was a libertarian as a teenager, but I emerged from adolescence…”

Good one, Ann. What a zinger. 

HT to EPJ, of course.

Notes

1. O'Reilly's falafel fantasies (I'm not making this up!)

2. Stossel attempts to explain the basics of economic history to O'Reilly.

3. Coulter's anti-Ron Paul piece where she explains that the state is the only institution that can join a man and a woman.  And a nice, but needless, rebuttal.  Like I give a fruck what Ann Coulter thinks.

David in Qatar

12 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

David, I saw both of those debates, and they equally were comical. Or, rather, they would have been comical had they not been so embarrassing. It's amazing to me how many talking heads out there don't know basic economics.  I think sometimes O'Rielly tries too hard to appease the masses rather than try to decipher what Ron Paul was saying about the liquidity bubbles caused by the Fed over and over. One of those debates, I think the Stossel one, was spawed from the Ron Paul answer during Monday's GOP debate. Obviously Ron Paul's answer was too technical for the masses, but O'Rielly simply jumped on the fact it was too technical rather than try to understand what Ron Paul's point actually was. O'Rielly ought to stick to the Casey Anthony trial rather than talk about economics if he's going to be this clueless about what people learn in econ 101.  

Report this comment
#2) On June 18, 2011 at 12:45 PM, kdakota630 (33.34) wrote:

Far more annoying than than either of those two, as much as I enjoy (but don't necessarily agree with) Dick Morris, I can't stand when Morris will show a poll of the top leading Republican candidates, usually 8 or so, and totally omit Ron Paul every time.  Any other poll that Fox shows and they'll usually have Ron Paul somewhere in the top 5.

If either Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter had any understanding of economics they likely wouldn't be so dismissive of Ron Paul.

I still like Ann Coulter.  Again, I don't necessarily agree with her, but I do find her entertaining and she makes me laugh.

As for note #1 regarding O'Reilly's "falafel fantasy", it was pretty funny, but I have to dismiss it factually.

Report this comment
#3) On June 18, 2011 at 12:45 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

Ron Paul is going to get it harder this time from the established journalists, because his words are starting to gain a foothold with more people.  

I would really love it if he won.  I think the battle with congress would be enormous.  The only real tangible thing he could get done is bring troops home and be less hostile towards other nations.  Its a nice first step which none of the other candidates would ever do.

O'Rielly is a jerk, but I guess that is one way to get on TV. 

Report this comment
#4) On June 18, 2011 at 8:44 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Oh our Fox News is just like the others. All CFR members and toe the line. They are funny puppits just like our president. The CFR CIA and FED all dislike RON PAUL because they know they would have to Set up shop elsewhere.

Report this comment
#5) On June 19, 2011 at 7:48 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Ann Coulter is a racist.

The Racist Origins of Government Marriage in America Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on June 18, 2011 09:48 PM

A reader sends along this link, and notes:

Marriage licenses came about in the late 19th century to prevent mixed-race marriages. That should be appalling to anyone, and is in my opinion the strongest argument to privatize marriage.

The linked article makes many points similar to those I made in my article from Friday. And it notes that:

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.

At the heart of it all, predictably, is the urge to control the lives of others. White people might marry black people! Horror of horrors. Therefore, the state must get involved. No doubt these arguments in favor of more government meddling were made with an overlying patina of "freedom." Just as the modern anti-immigration crowd today argues that we must destroy freedom in order to save it, the old racist proponents of government marriage likely argued that we must abolish freedom in marriage or the "Negro agitatuhs" and their dusky-skinned allies will destroy freedom. Conservative "logic" at its best.

 

Report this comment
#6) On June 19, 2011 at 7:52 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

I never realized how much of a Communist Bill O'Reilly is.  But it is amazing isn't it?

He harps on and on about gangsters. The old robber baron line. Did he pull that out of the Marx playbook?  Do you know that the Robber Baron story is a total myth?

And then he goes on about scary Iran?  Boogity boogity boo!

Who is more terrifying?  America is bombing all of Iran's neighbors.  Who is Iran bombing?  When was the last time Iran attacked another nation pre-emptively?  When was the last time America did that?

O'Reilly is a classic empty suit.  If you watch this man's television show, you should be ashamed of yourself.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On June 19, 2011 at 8:30 AM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:

"Like I give a fruck what Ann Coulter thinks.

David in Qatar"

:) 

You got me laughing on that one....  Tears in my eyes..

Sky Pilot

 

Report this comment
#8) On June 19, 2011 at 2:39 PM, motleyanimal (97.81) wrote:

"3. Coulter's anti-Ron Paul piece where she explains that the state is the only institution that can join a man and a woman."

 

My experience is that you only need a copious quantity of beer to join a man and a woman.

Report this comment
#9) On June 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, FleaBagger (33.08) wrote:

I like the rebuttal, because I come from a background where the difference between being free to practice your religion and your religion being endorsed by the State was muddled at best. Our practice of our religion, like everything else, would be greatly improved by being rescued from State assistance.

By the way, I need some attention. Comment on my blog!!! 

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/jamie-olivers-school/604416

Report this comment
#10) On June 20, 2011 at 10:44 AM, kdakota630 (33.34) wrote:

whereaminow

O'Reilly is a classic empty suit.  If you watch this man's television show, you should be ashamed of yourself. 

I do watch his show.  It gives me the chance to get a glimpse of what's going on around the world and see what some guest's opinion of that is, maybe another story or two, and often times he does have interesting guests.  Mostly I watch it for John Stossel and Dennis Miller, and I have it on when I'm in bed.  Either that or Futuarma, depending on when I fall asleep.

Honestly, the stuff I don't like I just don't let bother me that much. I certainly don't take it as gospel.  I still enjoy Fox & Friends in the morning but can't watch it anymore.  With four kids that are all 6 or younger, too often they were reporting something that I couldn't have them watch, so now the TV is either off or tuned into kids shows.

Report this comment
#11) On June 20, 2011 at 5:35 PM, rfaramir (30.55) wrote:

The problem that conservatives have is that getting things 75% right blows away the leftist opposition so they don't have to shoot any higher. It's as if they were playing baseball where .750 batting average is ginormous, instead of at school, actually learning things necessary for life and getting a C.

I see hope only in the Republican Libertarian Caucus. Liberty lovers working from within to reform/outlive the RINO dinosaurs, while educating the young and enthusiastic small-government tea partiers. The Right knows in its heart that Liberty is the answer, but hasn't applied it to everything, yet. It is too different from the socialist statist quo to easily get your head around. But they are teachable.

Ann is fun to watch just for the skewering she does. It's phenomenal. But it's not always intelligent, as you pointed out, especially in the economic area.

Bill is better than your average talking head, but that's a pretty low bar, and he's not where I'd go for economic or political education, either. John Stossel or Judge Andrew Napolitano or Tom Woods or Robert Murphy or Ron Paul or mises.org or fee.org or ....

Report this comment
#12) On June 20, 2011 at 5:40 PM, kdakota630 (33.34) wrote:

rfaramir

I'm in agreement with your first two paragraphs, and you crystalized my thoughts perfectly with your next two paragraphs.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement