Skip to comments.Fox News Chief Roger Ailes: Jon Stewart Is ‘Crazy’ And NPR Executives Are ‘Nazis’
Posted on 11/18/2010 9:31:03 AM PST by Nachum
Part Two of Howard Kurtzs interview with Fox News chief Roger Ailes is out today, and based on his frank and candid assessment of Jon Stewart, NPR and a defense of conservative bias, no one should ever call Mr. Ailes a shrinking violet.
His provocative comments are sure to predictably raise eyebrows, but one could just as easily read the enlightening Q & A as a plain-spoken conversation in which one of the most powerful media figures of the day isnt afraid to speak from the heart, and perhaps confirm what everyone already thinks about him.
As usual, the the interview is a must-read and one should read it in all its detailed glory, but two big take aways:
On Jon Stewart, Ailes that The Daily Show host is smart but makes that the media-critic/comedian makes a lot of hay out of conservatives. Oh, and he also says:
Hes crazy. If it wasnt polarized, he couldnt make a living. He makes a living by attacking conservatives and stirring up a liberal base against it.
I tried to interrupt.
He loves polarization. He depends on it. If liberals and conservatives are all getting along, how good would that show be? Itd be a bomb.
On NPR executives decision to fire Juan Williams:
Then he turned his sights on NPR executives.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
No, I think “Nazi” fits NPR pretty well.
Tu quoque, Roger.
The immaturity our so-called leaders sometimes display. Wish Ailes had been able to leave the name-calling to the leftists.
I fail to see the problem
Carelessly hurling around words makes one look silly and greatly improves the odds of your views being dismissed.
Pretending words have different meanings than they do for the pc silliness that hides from the truth because you think it's makes you nice does too
"/prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups."
Change a word or two in either of your post, and it could be another DU "Reductio ad Hitlerum" thread.
If you want to understand what's going on in the world, a great place to start is Paul Johnson's "Modern Times". "Intellectuals and Society" is pretty darn good also. Corporatism, of the RINO and Democratic, variety are the enemies.
What would you call NPR and those like Steward and the left if not embrotic nazi’s. Been around since the 30’s. Am aware what nazi’s do. The name fits the democrats and liberals exactly also a couple of Rino’s. McCain didn't like free speech it took almost 10 years to get rid of it and the scary part was it was a 5-4 decision in the SC. By the way, you should read some Rex Stout books, that is my reading suggestion to you....
I really had a laugh on you for suggestions D U. you seem to be more acquainted with it than I as I have never been on that sight...hope you have fun over there..
A person will use big words when they are trying to impress someone, and your post does not impress, nor as I said before answer the simple question I put to you.
Your entire post reads like a DU poster ...there are times when analogies the Nazi’s are appropriate.
Ummmm....take a really deep breath and then go back and read the entire conversation. Specifically post #2.
Although Jon Stewart and NPR hold socialist, corporatist, syndicalist, etc philosophies, their beliefs don't encompass ultra-nationalism, let alone nationalism, and therefore they are most definitely not Nazis. Further, their views primarily rest on a foundation of class struggle versus race. That being said, it doesn't mean for a moment that they don't support any number of other very bad things. In retrospect, it wasn't even accurate for me to describe them as "small f" fascist in post #7.
What a pity you've never heard of or have an interest in the works of Paul Johnson (a close associate of Lady Thatcher) or Thomas Sowell (author of Intellectuals and Society).
BTW, as I recall Rex Stout/Nero Wolf was a detective novel writer who held largely progressive/New Deal views. Was there a particular book you could recommend? Unfortunately, or should I say fortunately, there are so many books and so little time.
Yep, I have no desire to read Lady Thatcher, tho I admired her much...I don't read, nor have I read any book on politics except when I had to at university for a philosophy class...Plato's republic was the closest I have ever come to reading a book on politics...it sucked big time and it took him 3 pages of argument to make one point. And as my paper I had to write on it, he argue's for a slave society, Philosopher King and sounded a lot like the democrat party and the ruling elite... boring as hell.
UMMMMMM Red dog #1, now you take a real deep breath and look up Nazi in the dictionary, also fascist...both are socialist partys, with government in control National Socialist German Workers party. But then for you socialist probably means nothing...Also can be called Fascists. The left has tried to rewrite nazi's as right wing, but its not true....This country is more fascist than communist so far...the difference being fascist don't own business's they just regulate all trade....Italy during WW2. Communist own and regulate all business...
>>>>>>>>>>>Although Jon Stewart and NPR hold socialist, corporatist, syndicalist, etc philosophies, their beliefs don't encompass ultra-nationalism, let alone nationalism, and therefore they are most definitely not Nazis. Further, their views primarily rest on a foundation of class struggle versus race...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To hold socialist views is nazi with a small a until they get enough power as Hitler did in the 30's......
Prattling on about class struggle is communism neither of the other 2. Class struggle is Marx and the rest of those murdering dogs. I would think you would know the difference with all those books you read..
Unlike you probably, I read Nero Wolfe for pleasure not finding politics in every written word...It was mentioned in passing in a couple of story's, but if you think it was the totality of Nero Wolfe, you missed a lot.
Bye the way, you can also try to find some politics in Erle Stanley Gardners, Perry Mason. I like popcorn for my brain and thats the books I read...Now back in my early years it was Frank Slaughter and Frank Yerby /sp. Also liked Daphne deMorea /spelled wrong and don't care to look up the proper spelling...) A book *Frenchman's Creek* made into a movie in the 1940's.
Tis a pity you don't like the same kind of books I do...but thats life...
PS I don't care to reread this thread again, but you are welcome to memorize it if you so choose....and Frenchmans Creek was definitely a book for gals not guys...
My mother read Frenchman's Creek, gave it to my older sister to read and when she was done I got it...Gave it to my daughter, the youngest of my 5, she loved it and when she was done gave it to my granddaughter. She also loved it and now its been read so much it fell apart a few years back...
I am on Nero Wolfe for the second time around. Its been decades since I read all of his books and they are like new reading to me as my memory started to get sloppy when I turned 70...:O) Just finished *Might as Well be Dead* and am on to the next. The Mother Hunt....Any Louis L'Amour is great, especially the Sackett Series..Good place to start LOL