Kincaid: Fox News Fires Marc Lamont Hill
You won't be seeing this scene again soon.
Cliff Kincaid over at Accuracy in Media (AIM) announces Fox News has fired Marc Lamont Hill. Cliff represented AIM at NewsCorp’s annual meeting. (“Accuracy in Media is a News Corp. shareholder.”) AIM reports that he asked Rupert Murdoch why someone with Hill’s radical views would have a role as a Fox News commentator:
Before Kincaid completed the background for his question, News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch interrupted Kincaid to say that he appreciated Cliff’s work on this matter, and that Hill had been “fired” last week.
We look forward to confirmation of this report. If accurate, it is a major improvement to Fox News and cable news in general. (UPDATE: Hill confirmed this to The Huffington Post.) People of every side of the political spectrum should appreciate a robust debate, but radicals of Marx Lamont Hill’s ilk do not merit a seat on the highest rated program in news, The O’Reilly Factor.
David Horowitz started the ball rolling when he questioned why Bill O’Reilly interviewed Hill, a “hip-hop culture” expert, for an entire segment about Iran. Then NewsReal bloggers, Cliff Kincaid, and others began digging…
You can see NewsReal’s extensive coverage of Hill’s pro-cop-killer radicalism here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
If the coverage of NewsReal, AIM, and others has helped place the radical left-wing views of Hill outside the bounds of the mainstream, it is another victory for conservatives and the blogosphere in general.
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- Comment of the Day: Thomas Sowell Has More Important Things to Do Than Be on Fox News | Prayer And Action
- Comment of the Day: Thomas Sowell Has More Important Things to Do Than Be on Fox News | Prayer And Action
- Comment of the Day: Thomas Sowell Has More Important Things to Do Than Be on Fox News « Prayer, News & Action
Pseudo-intellectual hate mongering advocates of the parasitic left like Hill need to be swept from the floor of legitimate, constructive political discourse like anachronistic debris they show themselves to be.
Thanks to Fox for raising the level of the discussions on OReilly
Pseudo-intellectual hate mongering advocates of the parasitic left like Hill need to be swept from the floor of legitimate, constructive political discourse like anachronistic debris they show themselves to be.
Thanks to Fox for raising the level of the discussions on OReilly
Wonderful news. Fox News finally realized that Marc Lamont Hill does not deserve to be taken seriously. The fact that he possesses a PhD behind his name and teaches at Columbia is an indictment of the current “mainstream” university cultural milieu. Who will replace him? Any suggestions? If it has to be a so-called man of color—why not Thomas Sowell?
Wonderful news. Fox News finally realized that Marc Lamont Hill does not deserve to be taken seriously. The fact that he possesses a PhD behind his name and teaches at Columbia is an indictment of the current “mainstream” university cultural milieu. Who will replace him? Any suggestions? If it has to be a so-called man of color—why not Thomas Sowell?
Mr. Horowitz, in his inimitable, rational manner, is simply revealing (yet again) the double standard applied to “experts” as utilized on TV news…and in particular on Mr. O’Reilly’s program. In this case, when an “expert” is “a person of color” (AND unabashedly marxist) his/her professed area of expertise is unimportant and moot. The fact that he/she has a sheepskin seems to be the ONLY qualification for opining. Contrarily, caucasian “experts” (especially those who are remotely “conservative”) are held to a higher standard, with a far more rigorous vetting process.
Truly, it’s risable to view the good Dr. Hill’s opining. Neither logic, rationale, nor deep mentation reside in THAT cranium. And when paired with the likes of Ann Coulter, Dr. Hill gets intellectually “served” every time. (Have you seen her quizzical expressions and looks of total exasperation as Hill inevitably digresses to the race card?) A far better expert and “person of color” to contractually consult for Mr. O’Reilly would indeed be Dr. Thomas Sowell. Read his “Conquests and Cultures–An International History” to become better acquainted with HIS areas of expertise!
In essence, when “serious” TV news applies little or no standards of expertise for “people of color”, then ‘Lil Wayne or TO will do just as well.
Mr. Horowitz, in his inimitable, rational manner, is simply revealing (yet again) the double standard applied to “experts” as utilized on TV news…and in particular on Mr. O’Reilly’s program. In this case, when an “expert” is “a person of color” (AND unabashedly marxist) his/her professed area of expertise is unimportant and moot. The fact that he/she has a sheepskin seems to be the ONLY qualification for opining. Contrarily, caucasian “experts” (especially those who are remotely “conservative”) are held to a higher standard, with a far more rigorous vetting process.
Truly, it’s risable to view the good Dr. Hill’s opining. Neither logic, rationale, nor deep mentation reside in THAT cranium. And when paired with the likes of Ann Coulter, Dr. Hill gets intellectually “served” every time. (Have you seen her quizzical expressions and looks of total exasperation as Hill inevitably digresses to the race card?) A far better expert and “person of color” to contractually consult for Mr. O’Reilly would indeed be Dr. Thomas Sowell. Read his “Conquests and Cultures–An International History” to become better acquainted with HIS areas of expertise!
In essence, when “serious” TV news applies little or no standards of expertise for “people of color”, then ‘Lil Wayne or TO will do just as well.
My mother told me many years ago choose your friends wisely your reputation can only be ruined once.
I guess Marc Lamont Hill’s Mom didn’t give him the same advice (or he didn’t listen).
My mother told me many years ago choose your friends wisely your reputation can only be ruined once.
I guess Marc Lamont Hill’s Mom didn’t give him the same advice (or he didn’t listen).
My problem with Dr. Hill was that he seemed to be stuffed with talking points, and was almost never willing to look at evidence that contradicted his viewpoint. He seemed to find racism in almost everyone and in everything. Dr. Hill was a one trick pony, rather than a genuine intellectual. Fox News was correct in showing such a person the door. It is one thing to have someone on like Dr. Hill for an interview, and quite another to have him as a contributor.
My problem with Dr. Hill was that he seemed to be stuffed with talking points, and was almost never willing to look at evidence that contradicted his viewpoint. He seemed to find racism in almost everyone and in everything. Dr. Hill was a one trick pony, rather than a genuine intellectual. Fox News was correct in showing such a person the door. It is one thing to have someone on like Dr. Hill for an interview, and quite another to have him as a contributor.
I am so delighted to see this communist off my airwaves. I DID call foxnews to complain…think they listened to me? HEE HEE..wish those several temporary Congressmen I have typed into my speed dial would.
I am so delighted to see this communist off my airwaves. I DID call foxnews to complain…think they listened to me? HEE HEE..wish those several temporary Congressmen I have typed into my speed dial would.
Hold on, let’s not get too hasty with criticizing Dr. Hill. I agree that it’s for the best that he’s no longer on the O’Reilly factor, but don’t insult his intelligence – he is a notable, important, and successful scholar. I’m getting a sense of scorn directed at his studying hip-hop culture, but it’s foolish to deny that such a field is worthy of study. Hip-hop culture is rich, engaging, and immensely important to understanding the United States, and to claim that he tarnishes the prestige of the Ph.D or Columbia University is completely unfounded and ridiculous. On issues of race and black culture, I find him to be a rather compelling foil to O’Reilly, and it’s clear that O’Reilly respects Dr. Hill’s opinions and enjoys their (rather lively) debates. Indeed, O’Reilly is sometimes a bit too reluctant to confront racial issues in the U.S., while Dr. Hill sometimes jumps the gun too rapidly and makes something a racial issue when it really isn’t; this clash in viewpoints often makes for interesting conversation.
He has a pretty funny response to people who tarnish his academic credentials on his website:
“[An email from a reader] After hearing you talk, I’m convinced that someone like you could never have a real Ph.D. Did you even attend graduate school?
[Answer] Thank you for that sincere and penetrating question. In all honesty, I only use “Dr.†for commercial purposes, sort of like “Dr. Pepper†or “Dr. Dre.†I do, however, hold honorary doctorates from the most prestigious schools in Venezuela, Iran, and Kenya, where I’m sure you believe our president was born. Please don’t tell anyone!”
All this being said, I do agree with the fundamental point that he’s not a particularly good overall pundit. He’s clearly intelligent enough to be one in the future, but he doesn’t seem to know much more about foreign policy than I do, and I think it serves both him and Fox News better for him to focus on his academic career.
Hold on, let’s not get too hasty with criticizing Dr. Hill. I agree that it’s for the best that he’s no longer on the O’Reilly factor, but don’t insult his intelligence – he is a notable, important, and successful scholar. I’m getting a sense of scorn directed at his studying hip-hop culture, but it’s foolish to deny that such a field is worthy of study. Hip-hop culture is rich, engaging, and immensely important to understanding the United States, and to claim that he tarnishes the prestige of the Ph.D or Columbia University is completely unfounded and ridiculous. On issues of race and black culture, I find him to be a rather compelling foil to O’Reilly, and it’s clear that O’Reilly respects Dr. Hill’s opinions and enjoys their (rather lively) debates. Indeed, O’Reilly is sometimes a bit too reluctant to confront racial issues in the U.S., while Dr. Hill sometimes jumps the gun too rapidly and makes something a racial issue when it really isn’t; this clash in viewpoints often makes for interesting conversation.
He has a pretty funny response to people who tarnish his academic credentials on his website:
“[An email from a reader] After hearing you talk, I’m convinced that someone like you could never have a real Ph.D. Did you even attend graduate school?
[Answer] Thank you for that sincere and penetrating question. In all honesty, I only use “Dr.†for commercial purposes, sort of like “Dr. Pepper†or “Dr. Dre.†I do, however, hold honorary doctorates from the most prestigious schools in Venezuela, Iran, and Kenya, where I’m sure you believe our president was born. Please don’t tell anyone!”
All this being said, I do agree with the fundamental point that he’s not a particularly good overall pundit. He’s clearly intelligent enough to be one in the future, but he doesn’t seem to know much more about foreign policy than I do, and I think it serves both him and Fox News better for him to focus on his academic career.
Good work NewsReal. I knew from jump street that Hill was put there as an attempt to appear fair and balanced. It failed he was not up to the task. Then I believe O’Really got comfortable with him because his ineptitude made Bill look good. But it dragged the whole program down.
Miss Ogyny I noticed the very same expressions you did and it cracked me up. I just watch certain segments of his show now. Surely they can find a worthy representive of the black liberal position.
Good work NewsReal. I knew from jump street that Hill was put there as an attempt to appear fair and balanced. It failed he was not up to the task. Then I believe O’Really got comfortable with him because his ineptitude made Bill look good. But it dragged the whole program down.
Miss Ogyny I noticed the very same expressions you did and it cracked me up. I just watch certain segments of his show now. Surely they can find a worthy representive of the black liberal position.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste…Our educational system has certainly wasted Marc Lamont Hill’s mind…An obviously intelligent, yet impressionable, young man led down the Marxist path of communal contingency, flavored along the way with racial imperatives…We are looking at the final result of a liberal, progressive, agenda to produce such under the guise of diversity…
David Horowitz has challenged that agenda, and in my opinion he has chosen the right fight, a fight we must win if we are to continue as a nation of free men, free minds, and free markets…
A mind is a terrible thing to waste…Our educational system has certainly wasted Marc Lamont Hill’s mind…An obviously intelligent, yet impressionable, young man led down the Marxist path of communal contingency, flavored along the way with racial imperatives…We are looking at the final result of a liberal, progressive, agenda to produce such under the guise of diversity…
David Horowitz has challenged that agenda, and in my opinion he has chosen the right fight, a fight we must win if we are to continue as a nation of free men, free minds, and free markets…
It’s about time. If I never see or hear this radical again it will be too soon.
It’s about time. If I never see or hear this radical again it will be too soon.
Man, I am glad Marc Lamont Hill is gone because any other viewpoint besides those held by the current power structure is just wrong.
Man, I am glad Marc Lamont Hill is gone because any other viewpoint besides those held by the current power structure is just wrong.
I am not sure Marc Lamont should have been fired. You may not like his views but this just plays into the hands of those who believe that fox news isn’t fair and balanced. I did like seeing some of his opinions debunked by O’Reilly. I love Fox news, but they do have to keep it fair with opinions from both sides so that they can debate the other side and prove their point.
I am not sure Marc Lamont should have been fired. You may not like his views but this just plays into the hands of those who believe that fox news isn’t fair and balanced. I did like seeing some of his opinions debunked by O’Reilly. I love Fox news, but they do have to keep it fair with opinions from both sides so that they can debate the other side and prove their point.
It’s not clear exactly why Hill was fired. Was it his political views? His race? His competence? Fear that people would stop watching Fox once Hill’s lunatic views became better known?
As far as I’m concerned a company can fire anyone it chooses for any reason it chooses but I would like to know why.
I rarely watch O’Reilly. He’s a pompous idiot posing as the protector of the masses. I’ve seen Hill on the Fox Business Channel (a very underrated channel) mostly on “Bulls and Bears” where Hill’s Marxist views were pummeled on a regular basis. He was humiliated so thoroughly and so often that the host, Brenda Buttner (a very smart, very attractive redhead) usually thanked Hill for “being a good sport” even though she pounded his views as hard as anyone.
I may actually miss watching that idiot Marxist get his butt handed to him but Fox has plenty of other lefties to take his place.
By the way, Fox’s Neil Cavuto is one of the best interviewers around. He gets a wide variety of guests and grills them all pretty well. Even though he’s highly opinionated he makes sure that his guests get their views across and doesn’t let any of them, even the ones with whom he agrees, get by on cliched sound bites.
It’s not clear exactly why Hill was fired. Was it his political views? His race? His competence? Fear that people would stop watching Fox once Hill’s lunatic views became better known?
As far as I’m concerned a company can fire anyone it chooses for any reason it chooses but I would like to know why.
I rarely watch O’Reilly. He’s a pompous idiot posing as the protector of the masses. I’ve seen Hill on the Fox Business Channel (a very underrated channel) mostly on “Bulls and Bears” where Hill’s Marxist views were pummeled on a regular basis. He was humiliated so thoroughly and so often that the host, Brenda Buttner (a very smart, very attractive redhead) usually thanked Hill for “being a good sport” even though she pounded his views as hard as anyone.
I may actually miss watching that idiot Marxist get his butt handed to him but Fox has plenty of other lefties to take his place.
By the way, Fox’s Neil Cavuto is one of the best interviewers around. He gets a wide variety of guests and grills them all pretty well. Even though he’s highly opinionated he makes sure that his guests get their views across and doesn’t let any of them, even the ones with whom he agrees, get by on cliched sound bites.
I looked at Hill as a guy who got the typical Harvard PhD in nonsense. I will miss his personification of Left Wing irrationality, obfuscation and illiberalism.
I personally thought he was a good example of what some people are paying big bucks for their brats to go to an Ivy League university. Hill is the rule not the exception.
I looked at Hill as a guy who got the typical Harvard PhD in nonsense. I will miss his personification of Left Wing irrationality, obfuscation and illiberalism.
I personally thought he was a good example of what some people are paying big bucks for their brats to go to an Ivy League university. Hill is the rule not the exception.
Hill and Obama both speak well. Some call Obama an”orator.” He wouldn’t know oration if it kicked him in the butt.
Hill has his talking points memorized. Obama has to have a Teleprompter.
Neither have any real ideas of their own.
OReilly shouts from the housetops about how wonderful his research team is. Best there is, according to him. How did they miss by so much on Hill, Billy-boy?
Hill and Obama both speak well. Some call Obama an”orator.” He wouldn’t know oration if it kicked him in the butt.
Hill has his talking points memorized. Obama has to have a Teleprompter.
Neither have any real ideas of their own.
OReilly shouts from the housetops about how wonderful his research team is. Best there is, according to him. How did they miss by so much on Hill, Billy-boy?
Thank you very, very much David Horowitz and Cliff Kincaid. I could never understand this combination of Fox News and Marc Lamont Hill.
Thank you very, very much David Horowitz and Cliff Kincaid. I could never understand this combination of Fox News and Marc Lamont Hill.
This is the best news I’ve heard all year!
This is the best news I’ve heard all year!
Hill made me sick with his”Jesus wouldn’t have a problem with late term abortion” commen, made on air while speaking with Mr.O!
So Mr. Hill was fired. That is no doubt a good thing. Even before I knew of his background I couldn’t stand his unreasoned style of argumentation nor his rapid near incoherent manner of speaking. The real issue for me is that my opinion of Bill O’Reilly’s show and Mr. O’Reilly is still damaged by the repeated inclusion of Mr. Hill. What does this say about the intellectual capacity of O’Reilly who nightly says “the spin stops here” and that he’s “looking out for you”. Obviously it doesn’t and he isn’t.
Jeff
I dunno…one of the things I like about Fox is their diversity of opinion. of course Fox skews right in general–omg, how could one possibly skew LEFT of channels like MSNBC?!–but I like the fact that Juan Williams and Mara Liasson are regulars. and I liked seeing crazy Prof. Hill trying to argue with O’Reilly. he just makes the Left look even more clueless than they are, and that’s not a bad thing.
I never agreed with Hill’s take on things but I liked the guy. He’s personable in contrast to most of the brain-dead lefties who couldn’t think their way out the front door. Better Hill than that vapid Medea Benjamin who O’Reilly seems to respect for some unknown reason.
Genuinely intelligent people think fater than they can speak. Hill was the opposite. His lips moved faster than his brain. If you listened carefully, you could heat the vacuum created in ih cranium.
Truly intelligent people think much faster than they can speak. Hill’s lips could out run his brain. That’s why you could always hear that sucking sound from the vacuum cvreated in his cranium.
So glad he’s gone. His insipid commentary and response to O’reilly was so predictable. Every single time he was on O’Reilly, I’d email and tell O’Reilly what a windbag Hill was and that I was turning off his show and just hoped I’d remember to turn it back on when Hill was gone. Of course, I never got any response. Guess I should have emailed Murdoch.
So Marc Lamont Hill was fired by Fox!!!
Good riddance. It is time that truly democratic organizations open their senses and start closing their doors to their enemies.
I ask: Why do we have to give them the opportunity to shoot us on the back, while they close every venue to those who don’t think like them?
I believe that Fox News still needs to clean house a little bit more.
If the Communist symphatizers want to talk and propagandize against us, they can go to Cuba or Venezuela, where their friends Castro and Chavez would receive them with open arms.
So Marc Lamont Hill was fired by Fox!!!
Good riddance. It is time that truly democratic organizations open their senses and start closing their doors to their enemies.
I ask: Why do we have to give them the opportunity to shoot us on the back, while they close every venue to those who don’t think like them?
I believe that Fox News still needs to clean house a little bit more.
If the Communist symphatizers want to talk and propagandize against us, they can go to Cuba or Venezuela, where their friends Castro and Chavez would receive them with open arms.
The fact remains, John, that Hill should never have been on Fox or any other legitimate news/opinion show in the first place. I have stated here before: Hill was on BOR show because he is black. And that is fine, correct for diversity, and a good face-off for lightweight O’Reilly. Hill has a perfect right to his opinion, and he knows that. But to spew what he did, and the provocative manner in which he did it, was irresponsible, especially in these fragile times. Had he produced solid arguments, stated them forcefully and with reason, maybe he could have taken the top spot on The factor.
The fact remains, John, that Hill should never have been on Fox or any other legitimate news/opinion show in the first place. I have stated here before: Hill was on BOR show because he is black. And that is fine, correct for diversity, and a good face-off for lightweight O’Reilly. Hill has a perfect right to his opinion, and he knows that. But to spew what he did, and the provocative manner in which he did it, was irresponsible, especially in these fragile times. Had he produced solid arguments, stated them forcefully and with reason, maybe he could have taken the top spot on The factor.
Thomas Sowell, wouldn’t that be more of the same?
The Right hate the “thought police” but they hate open minded thinkers even more.
Right Wing hypocrisy at its finest.
Thomas Sowell, wouldn’t that be more of the same?
The Right hate the “thought police” but they hate open minded thinkers even more.
Right Wing hypocrisy at its finest.
Sowell is brilliant but he’s too valuable to waste his time playing the part of “Fox’s Black Economist”. He writes books and columns that are much more important than a few hours a week on TV.
On the other hand, someone ought to be touting his books on TV especially his book on the housing debacle. If Fox is willing to give him enough time to actually explain economics to people, say as a regular guest on John Stossel’s coming show, then he could really be valuable. Sowell is highly intelligent and highly personable, qualities that make him a good teachers and a pleasure to watch.
Sowell is brilliant but he’s too valuable to waste his time playing the part of “Fox’s Black Economist”. He writes books and columns that are much more important than a few hours a week on TV.
On the other hand, someone ought to be touting his books on TV especially his book on the housing debacle. If Fox is willing to give him enough time to actually explain economics to people, say as a regular guest on John Stossel’s coming show, then he could really be valuable. Sowell is highly intelligent and highly personable, qualities that make him a good teachers and a pleasure to watch.
I will be a dollar to a donut that you have NO real examples of the Hill you are describing.
But I could be wrong.
I will be a dollar to a donut that you have NO real examples of the Hill you are describing.
But I could be wrong.
Produce an example of the Dr. Hill you are describing. I’ll wait.
Produce an example of the Dr. Hill you are describing. I’ll wait.
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/04/the-marc-lamont-hill-affair/
Do you support Ward Churchill, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Assata Shakur also?
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/04/the-marc-lamont-hill-affair/
Do you support Ward Churchill, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Assata Shakur also?
How is Hill open-minded?
How is Hill open-minded?
no, in my opinion thomas sowell would not “be more of the same”. i suggest you look up his academic credentials, compared to dr. sowell (ph.d.) hill runs very far back in the pack, and sowell is not handicapped, as hill is, by doctrinaire marxism. his degree is in economics and he believes in a free market, both in ideas and the economy.
no, in my opinion thomas sowell would not “be more of the same”. i suggest you look up his academic credentials, compared to dr. sowell (ph.d.) hill runs very far back in the pack, and sowell is not handicapped, as hill is, by doctrinaire marxism. his degree is in economics and he believes in a free market, both in ideas and the economy.
Sowell is a true thinker, nothing pseudo about it.
People on the right tend to think through the issues more than the left, even the leftist “intellectuals”. You can see that when you try to have a discussion with them. They have emotions and very few facts. The intellectuals are Marxists, and don’t care what they have to do to further their agenda.
The right also has an agenda. That is the keep us free from government tyranny.
Another general difference is the current constant racist comments and race bating from the left.
I don’t know them, but if I did what direct impact would that have on your life? And can you please tell me who I am allowed to support because I’d rather make you happy than think for myself.
I don’t know them, but if I did what direct impact would that have on your life? And can you please tell me who I am allowed to support because I’d rather make you happy than think for myself.
I don’t know – I am only assuming – he seems like a guy who might consider gay marriage, amnesty, health care for all, more or less taxes, social programs, etc., etc.
I don’t know – I am only assuming – he seems like a guy who might consider gay marriage, amnesty, health care for all, more or less taxes, social programs, etc., etc.
Agree that Cavuto is by far the best interviewer anywhere today.
Considering that Shepard Smith ratings fall off immediately after Bret Baier and pick up with O’Reilly (I agree with you as he, Beck and Hannity have trouble listening to experts without interrupting with their shallow opinions)I suggest they can Smith and replace him with the vivacious, brilliant, humorous Martha MacCallum. Fox’s rating would really go off the charts and I wouldn’t be switching to watch the often confused but never wrong Lou Dobbs.
Agree that Cavuto is by far the best interviewer anywhere today.
Considering that Shepard Smith ratings fall off immediately after Bret Baier and pick up with O’Reilly (I agree with you as he, Beck and Hannity have trouble listening to experts without interrupting with their shallow opinions)I suggest they can Smith and replace him with the vivacious, brilliant, humorous Martha MacCallum. Fox’s rating would really go off the charts and I wouldn’t be switching to watch the often confused but never wrong Lou Dobbs.
It is clear why Hill was fired. He was fired for his defense of cop killers and racists.
It is clear why Hill was fired. He was fired for his defense of cop killers and racists.
As far as interviewers on Fox go, I’m leaning more and more toward Greta Van Susteren.
If that’s why they fired Hill, great. It’s just that I haven’t seen the formal reason given by NewsCorp or Fox News.
If that’s why they fired Hill, great. It’s just that I haven’t seen the formal reason given by NewsCorp or Fox News.
Which episode did he do that in? How long ago – because I watch the BOR Factor almost ever night and I’ve never seen it.
Which episode did he do that in? How long ago – because I watch the BOR Factor almost ever night and I’ve never seen it.
More of the same conservative
nonsenseopinions.More of the same conservative
nonsenseopinions.Neil Cavuto is the most smug condecinging piece of trash I have ever had the misfortune of watching.
Neil Cavuto is the most smug condecinging piece of trash I have ever had the misfortune of watching.
Why is it o.k. for the thought police to arrest Marc Hill but they can’t do the same to Rush Limbaugh?
I’ve never had any part of my life affected by anyone who was considered a “radical.”
I
thinkKNOW the Right is filled with stuff in their pursuit to rid the world of “radicals.”Why is it o.k. for the thought police to arrest Marc Hill but they can’t do the same to Rush Limbaugh?
I’ve never had any part of my life affected by anyone who was considered a “radical.”
I
thinkKNOW the Right is filled with stuff in their pursuit to rid the world of “radicals.”There are no solid sane arguments for Marxism.
I missed the “obvious” intelligence of Hill. I found him to be a person who couldn’t think straight, couldn’t process nuances.
Barry, I’m not so sure you thinking, or thinking for yourself. Perhaps if you read the referenced blog post… I believe David’s premise behind his question is that a good person wouldn’t support murderers, liars, plagiarists and those opposed to liberty. Of course you are “allowed” to support such people. But if you do, and you are on a forum like this, you may be asked to explain your position further.
Don’t you think Fox could have hired a more thoughtful person for a more interesting and less irritating discussion?
Come on Barry… you don’t even know what this discussion is about. But you do take energy from us, so no more responses to your silly comments.
Do the homework.
I have a better idea, instead of us trying to prove a negative, I’ll be two dollar to you doughnut that you do not have examples of the hill you are describing … direct quotes and all.
Oh, please, I’ve worked with extremely intelligent people – engineers and scientists all my life, and have never seen any indication that they speak any faster than the general population. Conversely many fast talking people don’t have brains enough to tell their mouths to slow down. I suspect that’s the case with Hill, who didn’t exhibit much intelligence on Bill O’Reilly. He was just an irritation.