Skip to comments.Heated Juan Williams/Michelle Malkin Shoutfest Gets Personal With Eyerolls, ‘Snotty’ Accusations
Posted on 06/13/2012 7:06:03 PM PDT by andyk
Juan Williams patience expired fairly openly on Hannity tonight after an attack of elitism from Michelle Malkin that stemmed from a debate about Attorney General Eric Holder where Williams took offense at Malkin saying Williams and other liberals only blamed Bush for President Obamas failings, to which he initially replied Im a real reporter, not a blogger out in the blogosphere somewhere.
All you can say is Plame, Plame, Plame; blame, blame, blame; Bush, Bush, Bush, Malkin told Williams as he argued that the current national security White House leaks were not different from what had transpired in other White Houses. Williams took offense to that, telling Malkin that he was a real reporter, not a blogger out in the blogosphere somewhere, which in turn visibly offended Malkin, who retorted, right, because Im not a real reporter. Williams completed his point that reporters did not get any classified information, over both Hannity and Malkin, before Hannity gave Malkin the last word.
She used that last word against Williams. The American people are sick of the kind of snotty condescension from liberal elite journalists like Juan Williams who tell us that the rest of us are not doing our jobs, when the point is that when Eric Holder was shamefully approved and nominated and approved to be Attorney General At this point, after a heavy eyeroll and mouthing Oh my God, Williams interrupted to inform her that she was way off topic and not talking about what were debating here tonight on Seans show. Hannity interjected when Williams tried to repeat that nothing different had happened in the Bush administration, and Williams and Malkin coolly thanked each other at the end of the segment.
This is the kind of ridiculous (and easy to disprove) post that lurkers single out to "prove" that everyone on FR is an uninformed redneck sh-tkicker. Off the top of my head: Williams vocally sided against Obama in the Skip Gates controversy, and took heat from the left for doing so.
That being said, I'm not sure why your posted to me. My contention had been that Williams was not an intellectual lightweight. But since you brought it up, it is quite possible to be both a genius and a racist.
Your intellectual dishonesty and propensity to resort to personal attacks upon people you do not agree with is completely and clearly on display.
You tried to disprove my point about Williams always having been an intellectual lightweight by saying he came out in favor of Thomas twenty years ago as if that was some miraculous and overwhelming display of his intellectual acuity, when it merely was a normal position given the ridiculous and vicious attacks by the Left and Anita Hill.
You complain about my level of intellectual ability and then you have continued to display your superior debating skills by violating one of the key tenets of FreeRepublic, that of not engaging in personal attacks, but calling me a “dumbass” and an “idiot”.
Now I see you are continuing your abusive pattern with other Freepers who just happen to disagree with you.
Perhaps this forum is just beneath you and you would be happier elsewhere, where there are more people of your obviously superior intellectual caliber, and where your unique debating style of insult and name calling can be better appreciated.
I'll bet when Juan Williams was growing up he never thought he'd be on national TV someday being accused of being an elite... (which by the way - he is)
Incorrect. You said he had always been an intellectual lightweight. I corrected you (factually), and rather than admit you made a mistake, you wasted our time trying to direct the debate towards topics that where we didn't disagree (Williams is a liberal, Malkin is smarter than Williams, etc.). Now your feelings are hurt because I made an honest assessment of your intellect, based on the way you handled yourself. You've got your thesaurus out, on the assumption that a few big words can cover up faulty logic. It can't. This is a big boys' forum. When you make a stupid point, somebody is always going to be around to call you on it. When this happens, the best advice is to follow Ben Franklin's advice and remain silent and be thought a fool, rather than opening your mouth (in this case, continuing to post) and removing all doubt.
Hannity is never up to the task...I admire his enthusiasm, but geez he is dense.
You corrected me of nothing.
Juan has always been an intellectual lightweight.
Your “disproof” of that consisted solely of saying his came out in defense of Thomas. I replied that that was no proof of intellectual ability, as anyone could see Thomas was being railroaded.
You obviously think me to be your intellectual inferior.
If that is so, why do you waste so much time answering my posts? That says more of you than it does me.
Here’s a quote from Ben Franklin for you:
He who falls in love with himself will have no rivals.
I corrected what you said, and then tried to ignore for the sake of a better argument. Here it is four an unprecedented FIFTH time on this thread:
"Juan Williams is, and has always been, an intellectual lightweight."
Again, had you read Clarence Thomas' autobiography, you would know that the two had been close friends since Thomas worked in the Reagan Administration, and that Thomas does not suffer fools.
Stay down Rock.
Mr. Thomas suffers fools everyday at work. Where have you been?
Your statement is proof of nothing—you linked two clauses and it is only your opinion of what Mr. Thomas.
Corrected post 69:
Mr. Thomas suffers fools everyday at work. Where have you been?
Your statement is proof of nothingyou linked two clauses and it is only your opinion of what Mr. Thomas thinks.
BTW, you need to learn the differnce between an opinion of what Justice (say it "Justice," not Mr.) Thomas thinks, and an obersvation of what the Justice has himself said, which is a matter of public record.
You are the one being obtuse.
You cannot make the distinction between a “fool” and an “intellectual lightweight”
You, not me, are saying that Sotomayor, or the liberal justices are intellectual lightweights.
I compared them to fools that Thomas has to suffer daily.
That has been a distinction you have confused from the beginning of our conversation.
I have said Juan Williams is and always has been an intellectual lightweight. To me, he has no intellectual firepower, becasue he constantly sees things through his liberal and black glasses. He has done that consistently through his career.He is constantly schooled by his intellectual betters whenever he debates them, whether it is Hume, Malkin, or Krauthammer.
Fools are not necessarily stupid. Many are highly educated and intellectual heavywwights—but they are still fools none the less, becasue they believe in things that are folly.Book knowledge does not translate into intellgience or ability in all cases.
You have made the two things—fools and intellectual lightweights— equivalent, confusing the issue, and blaming me for your inability to make the distinction.
Sotomayor and Kagan are still fools for what they believe, for they believe in liberal lies instead of the truth and the law.
They have mastered intellectual reuirements for the positions they hold, but can anyone in their right mind say they are objective Constitutionalists? So they are intellectual heavywieghts, but fools nonetheless.
Now you may go back to being a Master of the Put-Down Universe, a role which you have heavily practiced.
Sounds to me like you are having difficulty making a distinction between "fools" and "intellectual lightweights," which is, of course, ironic. Your definition of a fool appears to be anyone who consistently takes a liberal position. I can accept that, but since you are concerned with forum etiquette, I remind you to read the thread before posting. It has already been pointed out that Williams has, in fact, regularly taken positions that were not consistent with the liberal agenda. He has been criticized by the left for doing so, eventually costing him his job. However, as this disagreement stems from your use of the term "intellectual lightweight," a territory that should feel very familiar to you, I will remind you that you seem to grasp that this is a very different concept.
And speaking of foolish, your last "point" was that "[Justice] Thomas suffers fools everyday at work." Now you are saying "You, not me, are saying that Sotomayor, or the liberal justices are intellectual lightweights." Really? Then who were these "fools" you were referring to?
Now, I know you'd love to waste more time trying to direct this conversation towards a position that's easier to defend. I know you'd love to waste more time trying to direct this conversation towards a position that's easier to defend. Unfortunately, you are your own worst enemy. You concede your point when you admit:
They have mastered intellectual requirements for the positions they hold, but can anyone in their right mind say they are objective Constitutionalists? So they are intellectual heavyweights, but fools nonetheless."
It is clear that you struggle with the correct use of the English language, but the logical deduction there would have been that Juan Williams and Justice Sotomayor are obviously not intellectual lightweights, but they are fools nonetheless. Undoubtedly you are both, but this much, at the very least, you should be able to understand. "They have mastered intellectual requirements for the positions they hold, but can anyone in their right mind say they are objective Constitutionalists,"
Suffice it to say that you still have missed my point, and I cannot make it clearer.
You have your own agenda in mind, which is to disparage the views I made.
I have no need to concede anything to you. Your last response is proof that you did not carefully read my post 72,as your response showed a continued reliance on your misunderstanding of the terms we are using, so there is no point in continuing the discussion.
Making up your own definition for a term does not help your argument. In the case of Sotomayor, there are plenty of valid criticisms anyone (even a moron apparently) can make about the woman, but it is factually incorrect to characterize anyone who manages to graduate suma cum laude from Princeton, and edit the Yale Law Review as an “intellectual lightweight.” Thus, your definition of the term is demonstrably flawed, and the underlying basis of your opinion is demonstrably incorrect. We can keep doing this forever. The facts won’t change.
I called Sotomayor a fool, not an intellectual lightweight.
You are the one confusing the terms.
he has no intellectual firepower, becasue he constantly sees things through his liberal and black glasses. He has done that consistently through his career.
We have documented exceptions to this rule three times on this thread, so your point is factually incorrect. You are making up your own "facts" to back up your opinion. The man is a liberal, but he is willing to learn from those he disagrees with, and modify his thinking based on what he learns.
There are no documented exceptions to my “rule”, as you call it, let alone three of them.
If you catch Williams on tonight’s O’Reilly re: Obama and immigration, I only have four words to say:
I rest my case.