Just for Fun.

by on

Fox anchorwoman Julie Banderas stands up to anti-gay crusader-loon Shirley Phelps-Roper in a fiery interview. You can go to YouTube and watch the fireworks for yourself.

34 Comments for “Just for Fun.”

  1. posted by Bobby on

    Well, although she shouldn’tt have lost it, I admire her candor. I love Fox News because they’re not afraid to opine.

  2. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    So one screaming harpy engages another in a screaming blatherfest. This is “news?”

    I guess we’re supposed to applaud FOX because they’ve decided to tackle the Phelpses once it became politically correct — after the Phelpses began boycotting military funerals. Where were the outraged screaming unprofessional “news” anchors when Phelps protested at Matt Shepard’s funeral last century?

    Color me unimpressed.

  3. posted by kittynboi on

    I’m with NL. If they had never protested the funerals of soliders, Fox would never have protested.

  4. posted by Other Eric on

    I?m truly mystified here by what was supposed to be ?fun? about this. This was a bitter, high-volume exchange that did nothing. These people are immune to any rational discourse. The Phelpses are addicted to attention. Media coverage and public attention are the only true gods to which they prostrate themselves. Every sign they make, or talking point they have is specifically pitched to cause outrage. It?s all just a way of saying ?look at me.? By giving this spokeswoman a platform from which to spew her poison, Fox News is nothing more than an enabler.

  5. posted by Jorge on

    You know it’s serious when someone who’s usually a news-anchorperson (I think) opens up a can of O’Reilly on the air, although I think that show was the weekend edition of an opinion program (“The Big Story”). I was a little shocked.

    There’s a reason protesting at a military funeral is more obscene than protesting at a gay person’s funeral, and it has more to do with how much sacredness we attack to military deaths than anything else. It’s like kicking a pregnant woman. Assault is wrong, assaulting a pregnant women is beyond the pale. I don’t remember anyone worth remembering excusing the Westboro Church’s conduct, ever.

    Fox is Fox. I’ll take an overwhelming majority of outrage whenever I can get it.

  6. posted by kittynboi on

    Am I the only person left who thinks nothing is “sacred”?

  7. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    has more to do with how much sacredness we attack to military deaths than anything else

    If military deaths are so “sacred” and so odious, how come George W. Bush and the Republicrats have been so willing to cause so many thousands of them over the war in Iraq — started over a lie?

    The best way to honor the military is not send them off to die in order to win an election — not sic an irrational, screaming “news” moron on one of the Phelps attention-seekers.

  8. posted by Randy R. on

    And if so sacred, why has George Bush failed to attend a single military funeral during the was he caused? But I digress.

    This is the second time Fox has had that horrible woman on. So they knew what they were getting into. I agree with others: Fox is only doing this because they are protesting the military funerals. It has nothing to do with a new found sympathy for gay people.

    Bottomline? Ratings, ratings, ratings….

  9. posted by Bobby on

    Hey Libertarian, if Bush caused the deaths of all those soldiers. What about FDR and Truman? What about Korea? Vietnam? WW2? How come no one blames them for those deaths? And don’t tell me we had to get involved in those causes.

    And what about all the liberals that want US troops to die in Sudan? What’s the matter? It’s not ok to die in a country full of oil but it’s ok to die in a country full of nothing?

    On the other issue:

    “I’m with NL. If they had never protested the funerals of soliders, Fox would never have protested.”

    —Journalism 101. Phelps protest an AIDS funeral is no longer news. Phelps protests a military funeral is news. Or as my teacher told me, “more people care about man bites dog than dogs bites man.”

    Besides, military funerals are more sacred because they represent people who put themselves willingly in danger for the country. Remember Mark Bingham? He wasn’t even a soldier but because he stopped the terrorists from crashing that plane into the White House, he’s a hero.

  10. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    Phelps protest an AIDS funeral is no longer news

    But it never was news outside of the gay press. . . whereas Phelps’ protests of military funerals were news outside of the military press.

    military funerals are more sacred because they represent people who put themselves willingly in danger for the country

    This bizarre sort of religious cult language around the military disturbs me. Military people no more put themselves at danger willingly than factory workers, or police officers, or even teachers in inner city school districts. The entire effort to create a sacred militaristic cult and elevate some people above others in “esteem” is profoundly unAmerican.

  11. posted by Jorge on

    Digression indeed. I am a strong supporter of the War in Iraq, and there’s probably no use arguing over it.

    Randy R., your criticism really needs to be that President Bush doesn’t do enough, not an implication that he does nothing, because he does do something. He meets personally with many family members of the fallen. This was publicized by the Cindy Sheehan case, in which we learned that he had already met with her once, as well as many other grieving family members opposed to the War in Iraq.

    As overwhelmingly inadequate and inappropriate as it might be to show respect for our fallen soldiers by meeting and praying with their family members in a private location, it is not a hypocritical.

    I’m with Bobby on why military deaths are more sacred, although I think it’s also because there is something about the military (especially combat) experience that is so horrible that civilians simply can’t understand it. It’s both about sacrifice and service to the nation.

  12. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    As overwhelmingly inadequate and inappropriate as it might be to show respect for our fallen soldiers by meeting and praying with their family members in a private location, it is not a hypocritical.

    Ah yes, and here we have the epitaph for the Bush administration when it ends in a few more years:

    “Dubya: At least he cared enough to not do nothing.”

  13. posted by kittynboi on

    Journalism 101. Phelps protest an AIDS funeral is no longer news. Phelps protests a military funeral is news.

    So, when that WAS news, did they have a problem with it?

  14. posted by kittynboi on

    I’m with Bobby on why military deaths are more sacred, although I think it’s also because there is something about the military (especially combat) experience that is so horrible that civilians simply can’t understand it. It’s both about sacrifice and service to the nation.

    My issue is that I can’t see anything as “sacred” because the very term implies religion and the supernatural. Those concepts lead to the soil being drenched with the blood of the innocent. Religion and notions of sacredness are nothing but pure death and pure evil.

  15. posted by Zhora on

    Booby was right about liberal warwhores, but that doesn’t make the illiberal ones any better! A plague on both, okay?

  16. posted by Jorge on

    kittynboi: If that’s your objection, then I’m sure you have your own way of describing it that feels right to you. I see religion as a source of moral guidance and meaning in the world, and more to the point, I really don’t think we should leave it to religion or spirituality alone to attach a greater than human significance to certain things.

    I’d have used the term “politically correct” but… yeech!

  17. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    I see religion as a source of moral guidance and meaning

    Whereas an increasing number of rational people realize it’s a source of immoral guidance, used by common men to justify their otherwise irrational hatreds and wishful thinking — a crutch to deny reality.

  18. posted by Randy R. on

    Religion can be a source for moral guidance — many people can attest to that. It can also be a source for immoral guidance — and the crimes of the various churchs can attest to that as well.

    It’s all about the person, not the religion, in my opinion.

  19. posted by kittynboi on

    Star Trek can be a source of “moral guidance” too. And it doesn’t ask anything in return except the cost of a DVD set.

  20. posted by Randy R. on

    Good point, Kitt! In fact, your own conscience can often be the best moral guidance., often better than most religions. And you don’t even have to buy a DVD!

  21. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    It’s interesting how any criticism of religion inevitably sparks a firestorm — usually from people who complain that they cannot discuss certain issues which are “politically incorrect.” The Anglicans, Catholics, Baptists, etc. are just giant corporations who have significant financial and political interests in the various places they act within. Strip away the mysticism built around them (usually composed in order to deceive small minds into ceasing all rational analysis and erupt in a rage at critics), and they’re just as corrupt — if not moreso, than Enron, Global Crossing, etc. And they’re just as much into self-enrichment.

    The cathedrals of the biggest religious corporations are far more ornate than any corporate complex I’ve ever seen — and I’ve travelled around the world. All it takes is a dose of rational thinking, sans political correctness, to realize this.

  22. posted by Bobby on

    “your own conscience can often be the best moral guidance., often better than most religions.”

    —Then what about Michael Jackson? I’m sure his own conscience justified the alledgedly horrible things he did. Including his admission to sleep in the same bed with kids!

    There’s lots of psychos out there whose conscience doesn’t say a goddamm thing.

    “It’s interesting how any criticism of religion inevitably sparks a firestorm”

    —When a teacher is threatened by the ACLU for taking her public school class to watch Charles Dickens “A Christmas Carol,” then you can understand the firestorm.

    And by the way, there’s lots of things that spark a firestorm. Ann Coulter has been called a dyke, a tranvestite, an anorexic, a bitch, a cunt, and other words by her enemies on the left. Words she doesn’t use, not even when describing her enemies. So don’t lecture me on how bad religious sympathizers are. There’s plenty of blame to go around.

  23. posted by Randy R. on

    Notice I can said that your own conscience CAN often be the best, not that it always is for every person.

    I would venture to guess that there are a lot of parents whose conscience tells them to love their gay children, but feel that they cannot due to religious pressures.

    All the time? No, of course not. However, a person soundly grounded in the great works of the philosophers, from Socrates to Camus, a person who has studied comparative religions, and also is grounded is history, ancient and modern, CAN often come up with better solutions to moral complexities than religious dogma.

    Unfortunately, many religions or religious people view the study of philosophy, history and comparative studies with suspicion. These tend to be the more fundamentalist types, of course, but not always.

  24. posted by Randy R. on

    On a side note, let me share an incident that happened not long ago. A friend of mine was talking with the Minister of Education from Tunisia. She mentioned to him that it is remarkable that Tunisia doesn’t have any problems with fundamentalist Muslims, and that they have a fairly stable and sane population. She asked how they can manage that, while surrounding states have various problems.

    The Minister said that it is quite easy. In their schools, the great philosophers are taught, so students learn at an early age that few issues can be resolved in black and white answers. Many issues require complexity, nuance and shading.

    So when a religious group comes in and says it has all the answers, and that the answers are all clear, the people just laugh and ignore them.

    Would that our own educational system was so wise….

  25. posted by kittynboi on

    Then what about Michael Jackson? I’m sure his own conscience justified the alledgedly horrible things he did. Including his admission to sleep in the same bed with kids!

    There’s lots of psychos out there whose conscience doesn’t say a goddamm thing.

    Oh THANK you for bringin up Jackson! Just imagine how ironic this reads, since you can replace Jackson with the name of a number of catholic priests who did THE EXACT SAME THING HE DID, and then ask what their RELIGION did for them??

    Man, you just handed that one too me.

  26. posted by Randy R. on

    Not to mention the fact that Michael Jackson is a member of Jehovah’s Witness, which, last time I checked, is considered a religion.

  27. posted by kittynboi on

    Indeed, and a VERy conservative religion by most any standard.

  28. posted by Hershel on

    “whose conscience tells them to love their gay children, but feel that they cannot due to religious pressures.”

    —What about homophobic secular parents? What’s your excuse for them? Will you blame secularism for their behavior?

    “a number of catholic priests who did THE EXACT SAME THING HE DID, and then ask what their RELIGION did for them?”

    —That has nothing to do with religion, the Catholic Church protected them. There are child abusers in all religions, but most religious institutions call the cops.

    Besides, I doubt Jackson was serious about the Jehovah’s Witness, he might have grown up with that faith, but in his later life, the only god Michael Jackson has was himself.

    You people are funny. When a secular bad person does something, you say “shit happens.” But when the person who did it was religious or claimed to be, then religion in evil.

  29. posted by kittynboi on

    That has nothing to do with religion, the Catholic Church protected them. There are child abusers in all religions, but most religious institutions call the cops.

    I think you fail to realize that the important angle on that is that those people being religious did not prevent them from doing it. So it’s hardly the perfect source of “mawl” (imitation of ignorant redneck drawl) guidance that people think it is.

  30. posted by Hershel on

    Well, although I no longer participate in any organized religious events, I think “thou shalt not steal” has kept me from stealing. I’ve had opportunities, money left on table, an open cash register, etc. And there’s always the curiosity of doing something I’ve never done. But my moral values (which initially came from religion, later on from O’reilly and Coulter) stop me from doing something as illegal and immoral as that.

  31. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    Ann Coulter has been called a dyke, a tranvestite, an anorexic, a bitch, a cunt, and other words by her enemies on the left.

    This is, indeed, outrageous. Ms. Coulter is certainly not a lesbian, and I’m sure that inferences as such are offensive to most lesbians.

    I am also certain that transvestites, bitches, cunts and anorexics around the country also don’t appreciate the affiliation with Ms. Coulter. The lefties owe them all an apology as well!

  32. posted by Randy R. on

    No, Hershel, what I said is this: “Religion can be a source for moral guidance — many people can attest to that. It can also be a source for immoral guidance — and the crimes of the various churchs can attest to that as well. It’s all about the person, not the religion, in my opinion.”

    So I never said religion is evil — it no doubt helps many people. Where I draw the line is the assumption that religious people always have a better moral compus than non-religious. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they don’t.

    The funny thing, though, is that when it comes to so-called moral values, almost no one mentions the one commandant of Jesus. And Coulter and O’Reilly certainly don’t follow that commandant.

  33. posted by Bobby on

    Hey Randy, good post. On the Jesus thing, he didn’t have one commandment, but many. Jesus is more than “love thy neighbor as yourself.”

    I think the episode of “The Practice” puts it clearly. Bobby Donnell doesn’t look at the Catholic Church as united way, but as a spiritual place, and because of the catholic sex scandal, he’s leaving the church.

    The reason I don’t participate in any of the branches of judaism is that they all dissapoint me. They’re too liberal on the issues I’m conservative and too conservative on the issues I’m liberal.

    As for Coulter and O’reilly, I think they do follow that commandment, their actions have made my life better. They have made me think. I’m reading her book and while I don’t like some of the things she said about gay extremists, I can’t disagree with her, I’ve seen gay extremism to know that the criticism is warranted.

    O’reilly also condemmed a football player who used the word “fag” in reference to someone else.

    Besides, O’reilly and Coulter cover points of view that are often ignored. In the past, conservatives were insular and liberals open minded. Now, liberals are the ones with the closed minds, when they debate any issue, they only cover it from different leftwing perspective, not from a rightwing, a moderate, libertarian and centrist perspective.

    I think you should read her book. You don’t even have to buy it. Go to Borders, pick up the chapter on 9/11 and give it a read.

  34. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    I’m reading her book and while I don’t like some of the things she said about gay extremists, I can’t disagree with her, I’ve seen gay extremism to know that the criticism is warranted.

    Coulter is burlesque. She doesn’t believe what she says, and she says it mostly for the reactions she receives, both good and bad. I choose simply to ignore her — what basis does she have for telling me how to live my life? She’s a failure at love, a failure at mainstreaming and a failure at socializing. Why would I want to take her “advice?”

Comments are closed.