Coulter is not regarded as a serious journalist by much of anyone, is she?
I suppose she has more gravitas than Stern, yes.
But the analogy is: Stern:Lauer::Coulter:Thomas.
Let me break it to ya, pal. :rolleyes: There have been a number of counterexamples on this very board.
yeah and by claiming a false equivalency between an entertainment personality and someone who is touted as a political commentator, you magically enhance your point where it otherwise falls flat.
I mean, shit, why not just say
Bozo the Clown:Bob Woodward::Coulter:Thomas
It’s been 62 years. How many of the former inhabitants are still alive?
It’s clear to me.
However, if you express hatred of Israelis as a people, and not the actions of the Israeli state, then you’ve crossed the line. Saying Israel should withdraw from the Territories immediately is not racist. Saying Israelis should be driven from their homes, is.
Does it matter if it is racist or not, it is pretty offensive to tell anyone to go back to where they came from.
Yeah, that works, too.
Especially if they ARE where they came from.
Exactly. Not to mention the fact that she “invites” them to go back to a place where genocide was perpetrated against them. And within the memory of people who are still living! You can nitpick over the meaning of the word “racism” all day long, but I can’t think of anything that’s more anti-a-group-of-people than that is.
Again with the “racism”. I’m not saying that irrational prejudice directed against Israelis is “rasism”, I’m saying it is also bigoted, even if it isn’t “racism”.
I don’t see what she said as even remotely comparable to opposing the actions of a state. Perhaps you can tell me differently.
For example, ‘The Americans should get out of Afganistan’ = clearly meaning the US Army should withdraw from Afganistan. That’s a political statement, having essentially nothing to do with the people of the US.
‘The Americans should get out of America’ is different. It’s a statement about the people, not the government’s actions.
Didn’t she also mention the USA as somewhere for them to go? Or are we just ignoring that?
-Joe
No need to ignore it. Her point was obviously that American Jews should go back to America, Polish Jews should go back to Poland, German Jews should go back to Germany. So, no matter where they were “from,” and no matter what kind of treatment they got there that made them leave in the first place, that they should go back. Nice.
Helen Thomas is an object lesson is why no one, not anyone, should still be on the job at 90 yrs of age. It is pure hubris to think you are not affected by the ravages of time. A commendable career comes to a shameful close as a result. I blame the people who employ her, they should have had the cahones to speak up to her. I know she’s a pit viper, and all, but come on, she’s a ninety year old woman, grow some damn stones.
The Jews survived, among other things, truly horrible occupation and oppression, no one disputes that. But currently Israel is the occupier, Israel is the oppressor. An odd twist, to be sure, but true.
Both parties have centuries old, ties to the land, surely. Peace in the middle east can only come from one source and that’s the Middle East, in my opinion. These two groups have to tire of war, conflict, death, and hatred. To the extent that they refuse to sacrifice another generation to it. So far, that hasn’t happened. Both sides are happily raising sons and daughters filled with blind hatred for the enemy. Both sides are willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters to their ‘cause’. Until that stops, no amount of diplomacy or boycotts or withdrawal of funding will make any difference.
The sad truth is that if you want peace, you have to choose peace, in a thousand ways each day. Every day. There’s just the one formula, really.
In my defense, I attacked your choice of words because it sucked, and attacked your knowledge because you showed none. Both are relevant to this discussion.
Anyway I think I covered this point already. You said the interviewer pulled a bait and switch and assumed facts not in evidence, and my point was that he didn’t switch anything or assume anything. He picked up on something that was clearly implied by her answers, and asked her if she was talking about Jews in Israel. She confirmed that she was.
An actual bait and switch would be something like this:
or
#1 is a bait and switch because the answerer gives no indication that she thinks anybody deserves to die. So the interviewer is making a baseless assumption and trying to put the subject on the defensive, probably to smear her. (And no, I don’t think Helen Thomas actually believes anything like that.) #2 is a bait and switch because there are no specifics given about what kind of campaign finance reform the subject supports, and the interviewer is apparently trying to pidgeonhole the subject as a hypocrite. I’m sure there are more subtle ways to do this than these examples I just made up, but the point is that they are fundamentally different from what happened in the conversation we’re talking about.
I know how to conduct an interview. 
Thomas was not prepared for the interview, sure, but it was an impromptu conversation. She had every opportunity to decline or excuse herself if she wanted.
Whatever. My experience is that you’re a shrill nitwit who thinks people who disagree with you are evil. It’s annoying to be called a liar by such a person, but you’ve already proved that you don’t understand what you’re talking about and lack the ability to actually evaluate someone else’s honesty. So I’ll treat this as the meaningless accusation that it is.
The irony is killing me.
I didn’t say you had. I said you made up a bunch of crap about badgering, baiting and switching, elder abuse, and so on. You failed to support that, and because you can’t do so and generally don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re adding moral turpitude to the list.
He didn’t follow her around. He spoke with her in one location.
He did not change her wording. Asking for clarification - ‘When you said this, did you mean this?’ - is not changing someone’s wording, and she did not object to his version of her statement.
I didn’t have a problem with that, actually. Moore went to Heston’s home and asked for an interview, and Heston said yes. If you think that’s an ambush, you’re pretty hopeless. It’s not an ambush just because the person being interviewed does not like the questions. If I remember correctly, Moore’s questions made some factual errors that made his questions unfair. If so, he was wrong for presenting an unfair interview. And he’s never been the classiest guy. But going to someone’s house, getting permission to interview him, and asking tough questions about an extremely public part of his life is not an ambush or unfair. Heston later disclosed that he had Alzheimer’s disease, but that was not publicly known at the time.
So now it’s an ambush because the guy didn’t ask nicely. (“Any comments about Israel?” is not nice, I guess.) Since he didn’t ask nicely, senile old Helen Thomas was forced to participate in the video against her will, same as if he’d held her at gunpoint. And maybe he did! Certainly as a member of the press for most of the last century, she’s never heard the words “no comment.”
I’ve referenced the entire thing. You, on the other hand, have ignored the meaning of most of Thomas’ answers and made some unfounded assumptions about her mental state, as well as repeatedly ascribing ill intent to her interviewer. There’s no proof of that either.
In context and out of context it means the same thing: it means she’s talking about Jews, because the people who came to Israel from those countries were Jewish. I do not think she is saying those Jews should have been killed in the Holocaust, or that they should go back because they deserve to be victims of antisemitism. But the quote is firm evidence she’s talking about Israeli Jews. We’re focused on that because some people have inexplicably tried to argue that she wasn’t talking about Jews.
Oh, please tell me you take these same pains to parse out other middle east governments, bonna fide terrorists, and everyday arab citizens where no one else draws the distinction :rolleyes:
If you parse the sentences that way, they don’t make much sense because it’s obvious propaganda. If you parse it like so
then who is “occupying” whom is a matter of opinion. However, it’s preposterous to claim that the people who currently have death threats against them written into the mission statements of their enemies are the ones doing the oppressing. And the ones who believe they should be destroyed are not oppressing. Mind-boggling.
The distnction here is hardly subtle. She’s calling for ethnic cleansing (quibble aside over whether Israeli Jews are an “ethnicity”).
ethnic cleansing (as the term is typically understood in everyday speech) requires that, you know, they get dead. Or are you suggesting that that’s what she really wants now? Or are you using the “forced removal” meaning of the term? Which she wasn’t really advocating, either. But I digress.
regardless, the point is that Alessan demands some crystal clear distinction between criticizing a body politic (in a democracy, no less) and criticizing the people (who make up that politic, in a democracy) as it pertains to this situation. And if you fail to distinguish, you are a racist.
I’m just checking to see if he demands that distinction in every other international relations-esque interaction, where conflation of the government and the people is routinely made.
And here’s your Moment of Zen, from the Moonie Times:
“Editorial: Hag Gagged”.