Oct

6

Foxed Out

Written by

The quality of these is worse than ever, but the sound works — you can hear every attempted objection, interrupted stutter, swallowed point, and of course, the O’Reilly  bellow. Avi Zenilman of The Blue and White, Chris Kulawik of the Republicans, and protest organizers Eva Fortes and Monique Dols took on the Fox Network tonight. Did they succeed at shifting paradigms of the multimedia conglomerate, or did they unwillingly play their stereotypical roles and submit to the machine?

We report, you decide. Check out IvyGate for more cogent analysis.

Avi on O’Reilly:


Eva and Monique on Hannity and Colmes:


Meanwhile, Mr. T makes everything better. Quotes from O’Reilly’s later delirium-inducing interview with the star member of the A-team after the jump…

 

mrtFrom Mr. T:

“I got seven brothas! I got four sistas! My momma used to be a screw-up lady!”

“You know what I do to couch potatos? I mash ‘em!”

From Bill O’Reilly, after a bit of tongue-tied mumbling (apparently Mr. T talks too fast)



“I don’t know what I’m doing tonight!”

Tags: , ,

83 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    I just saw Eva and Monique on H&C and I was thoroughly impressed. They were clear, they were assertive, and they made Hannity look like a dick.

    It was kind of amusing to see Hannity arrogantly chuckling while he was talking down those two girls. Talk about inviting Eva and Monique on the show just to heckle them; Hannity ended up looking like a dick, while Columbia came out looking passionate and principled... and a little bit disobedient.

    Congratulations Eva and Monique, you have a spot in my heart.

    • ttan

      To be as fair (and balanced) as possible, Wang, here's my thoughts on the "message" each person carried.

      Bill O'Reilly: Columbia is nexus of a left-wing witch hunt which makes it unsafe for conservatives to voice their opinions on campus, as made clear by what happened at the Minutemen event.
      Chris Kulawik: I have a lot of faith in my peers, and in the past, they have behaved appropriately (and certain groups like the College Dems have condemned this), however after the Minutemen event, I have to wonder.
      Avi Zenilman: Columbia's really not like that. There may be liberal bias, but its not an overwhelming war like you described.

      No one got owned or anything. Bill O'Reilly advanced an idea that neither Avi nor Chris completely agreed with, namely, that Columbia was a left-wing jihad center. Avi, after all, didn't challenge O'Reilly assertion that if Columbia had brought a left-wing speaker to campus, students wouldn't have rushed the stage other than mentioning Norman Finkelstein, which isn't that fair of a comparison. I mean, Jim Gilchrist doesn't advocate killing Mexicans. But if - to beat a dead horse - say Nicholas De Genova had been given the podium, would students have rushed him?

      I think O'Reilly is just hung up on the idea that Columbia is the center of a left-wing witch hunt. Neither guest agreed completely. But then again, what's the point of debating someone who's hung up on an idea as it is?

      • Anonymous

        Tao how can you say that that was the message Chris put across? When O'Reilly asked Avi if he thought that the what went down at the Gilchrist event was the norm, he said no. When Chris was asked if he thought that Columbia indoctrinates its students to the point where it is the norm that dialogue breaks down, he said Avi saying anything to the contrary of that was irresponsible.

        I ask you Tao, do you honestly think that the Gilchrist event was the norm of the university? If yes, then we disagree, but if no, then you have to agree that it is false that his message was that he has faith in his peers.

        He responded that he has faith in his peers when asked if he fears for his safety. We all know Columbia is full of passive aggressiveness and there is very little if any confrontation that one would fear for your safety. I turn it is irresponsible for him to say that after the Gilchrist event he questions his safety. Absolutely ludicruous.

        I'm not saying that it is not difficult to convey a conservative message at Columbia, I'm saying Chris branded us all a bunch of far -left psychopaths and sold us out to the nation. We may be slanted to the left, but we are not a campus of violent protestors.

        • wtf

          really? we're not a campus of violent protestors? how do you explain the VIOLENT PROTEST that happened wednesday?

          • Anonymous

            maybe it's just me but I have a hard time sweepingly labeling the many students that orchestrate and attend protests on campus and all over the nation as violent protestors because of the actions of a a handful of people. Is it so hard to see this as an isolated incident? Are you a violent protestor that has been indoctrinated into the world of "fascist-liberal-anarchists"? Are your suitemates? Are your friends? Try to have a little respect for your peers.

        • you're using  

          o'reilly tactics stephen. you're switching terms and pretendign their the same. There is a difference between asking whether the gilchrist event is the norm (where there was violence and physical storming) and whether columbia's indoctrination is so overwhelming that having normal dialogues is very difficult, which is what chris agrees to, i agree to and i bet you a lot of conservatives on campus agree too. The fact that you don't understand how conservatives feel in terms of worry for their grade and public opinion if they even voice a point shows what a bubble you've been living in. Either way, trying to pretend what he asked avi and chris were the same is a cheap o'reilly/olbermann cheap debate tactic.

          As for safety, I don't know how chris felt when 20 protestors were charging at an angle at him and the table on stage. I'm not going to question about how he feels about physical safety. However if you ask former CR president ganesh about any physical altercation's he had because of his politics or matt sanchez for his service, you'll see again your peers aren't the angels you make them out to be.

          Finally. Chris didn't say you were a bunch of psychopath. He correctly said this violence wasn't the norm but this atmosphere for ideological rigidity definitely dominates this campus. Your civil browbushing as well as even bwog's (which has been sadly one of the best columbia media) continued chastisement and ridicule of conservatives as well as posting of accusations against them or leaking against them for no reason certainly doesn't help you any.

          At this point, conservatives and republicans are fed up. We're tired of you telling us to be silent and be happy about it becuase our views are inferior. It's not only the students either. I remember that history prof. who said conservatives couldn't pursue history. Not to mention de genova's and the rest. Wake up. Columbia deserves to have its reputation tarred.

          • Anonymous

            I'm simply responding to the video. O'Reilly's stance is that there is a climate at Columbia that makes it inevitable for events like what happened with Gilchrist to happen. He asked Avi if it was the norm, and he asked Chris if he agreed with Avi, except he asked a slightly different question. The motive was to blur the distinction between the two questions. The uprising at Gilchrist equated with indoctrination by a Columbia education. He even goes further to say that there is a left wing jihad, "jihad" if we use it in the way that modern commentators use it connotates physical confrontation, then he says Chris agrees and Chris just nods his head.

            I know it is difficult for conservatives to get their points heard on campus, I know that many are worried that papers they submit will be graded down because of their content, and I know they worry that they will be seen as social pariahs if their peers get wind of what they believe. I think it's perfectly valid and I've talked to many of my friends about this who expressed the same concern to me. You don't need to be a dick and try to pretend you know what I think.

  2. youre 100%

    wrong Stephen on the way Eva and Monique came off. Eva came off as someone who was rational, who probably had a valid point to make had she been given the time and who was trying to distance herself a bit from those who rushed the stage. I would have appreciated hearing more of her point of view.

    Monique came off as a lunatic, and she fell right into the trap that Hannity set for her. He got the reaction that he was looking for, especially given the target audience and the viewership of Fox. Those who would see the show will think she represents the left at Columbia and she doesnt. I would think Eva (despite the fact that I disagree wholeheartedly with her politics) is closer to the average Columbian politically.

    Its a shame she didnt appear alone, it would have gone a lot farther to balance the overall coverage of this tragic event.

    Oh and a note to Monique, if you rush a stage, put your finger in someones face and bait them into violence, you are going to get what you are looking for. It is entirely what they were looking for.

    I wonder if you were a Boston fan and rushed a bunch of Yankee fans at the Stadium, pointed your finger right into their faces and chanted Yankees suck, what the result would be???

  3. Anonymous

    congrats to avi. o'reilly proved how uninterested in truth he is; everytime avi tried to answer him honestly, o'reilly would shut him up so that he could continue his rediculous columbia-bashing with chris instead.

  4. proud  

    yaaay ahhhhvi! you got him mad!

  5. Anonymous

    I don't think Avi or Chris were actually participating in the disucssion with O'Reilly. O'Reilly does his thing and occasionally asks for input and then cuts off the input and replaces it with his own tirade.

    I mean, O'Reilly is ironically similar to the Gilchrist speech. Invite a speaker on the show/to the school and then don't let them say anything.

  6. wow

    What a disgrace. Those two girls just acted like whiney children and did even more damage to credibility of the Columbia student body. I'm ashamed that two students who should have the capacity to present a coherent argument acted like little school girls throwing non-sequitur statements out and contradicting their own statements as well as the plainly obvious reality of the event shown on the video.

    How can they claim that their actions didn't shut Gilchrist up? Reality is going to come down on these kids like a ton of bricks someday. Unfortunately I won't be there to see it.

    I'm utterly ashamed to be a liberal Columbia student when this is our public face.

  7. david

    I agree - Eva and Monique did a fantastic job. I think Stephen said it best: they came out looking "passionate, principled, and just a little bit disobedient." Of course, the fact that they refused to be intimidated makes Republicans squirm and utter all kinds of nonsense about how they further "embarrassed" Columbia.

    I'm starting to realize that conservatives champion free speech only as long as it doesn't seriously challenge authority (directly or otherwise) or unsettle their neat, tidy precious little status quo.

    • wow david.  

      you are really and idiot s you thnk oh conservatives only want free speech when it doesn't question authority. nyc is likje 80% democratic. Columbia is flaming liberraal. You and stephen are representatives of 'the man' here, youre views are in the majoritarian bubble. And beautifully, becuase youo live in this protected bubble (whereas conservatives actually have the guts to attend a school like this) you'll never realize that there are so many people who believe in what conservatives do.

  8. david

    By the way, once again, unfurling a banner is not "baiting someone into violence." It's unfurling a fucking banner.

    If the Republican gorillas onstage can't hold back from throwing punches and kicks in response to being challenged by a piece of paper then they belong in a zoo and not on our stage.

  9. I disagree

    First of all the protestors had no, absolutely no business or right to be on stage. If they wanted to unfurl a banner they could have done that in the audience and probably would have had a number of people empathize with them.

    As well, it wasnt just a couple of people unfurling a banner onstage, again this would have been a one minute affair and they would have been escorted off. It was the other students who crashed the stage. There were certainly a score more of students who rushed the stage and if you look closely at the video, were waving their fingers in the face of those who rightfully had the stage, taunting and baiting.

    If you are going to be antagonistic, at least be factual.

  10. meee  

    * avi looked like a bumbling nerd
    * chris was a cock-sucker, yes sir
    * monique was an irrational crazy little bitch
    * eva was slightly normal

  11. reality

    Do you honestly think Eva and Monique did a good job representing Columbia? Monique completely lost what little composure she had, and Eva saved herself by not jumping at the bait so readily. Yet she couldn't just sit there and unfortunately most of her contributions weren't very helpful, especially calling Kulawik a liar out of nowhere. Even if he is a liar, the manner in which she said it wasn't that of an adult. As much as I disagree with Kulawik's politics, he did the best job staying composed and acting as a functional human being, but still a very disappointing performance. Avi obviously had a hard time getting his points across and O'Reilly was brutal to him and treated him like shit.


    Please, if you're going to represent Columbia, have cogent evidence to support your arguments, and if you're going to be on Fox News of all channels, know what you're getting into. They want to make you look immature and ignorant, and they surely succeded.

    • keb  

      I completely agree. It's sad that Monique wouldn't even stop a breath for one second and answer the questions that they were asking. They wanted to talk about the incident, she wanted to talk about the Minutemen. Everyone knows what the Minutemen are doing, she didn't need to waste our time telling us. She should have spent her time explaining what happened the other night, why it happened, and why she thinks it was the right (or wrong) thing to do.

  12. i thought  

    I thought they were all good. Hannity and OReilly are both assholes. Is this Kulawiks first time on the show?

  13. yah

    "No, you're interrupting me!"

    Doesn't that sting? To have people talk over you? But that's typical on a talk show when someone evades the question and responds with something irrelevant.

  14. nice

    The video's kinda blurry, but Monique looks pretty cute, especially when she's flustered.

  15. layoff  

    dude, lay off the crack. she was really well spoken, but cute?

  16. Wow

    Monique and Eva were pretty excellent. Hannity really is a prick, isn't he...

  17. Thank you

    Whenever I start doubting my own intellectual worth, another Columbia student opens their mouth and reaffirms my superiority.

  18. By the way

    Your boy Avi really is a dick. Why don't you play into O'Reilly's hands a bit more. You denounce anti-racist, anti-fascist protestors to this guy? You got your ass kicked by O'Reilly. Not because you're dumb, but because liberals share the same basic ridiculous framework as this insane motherfucker, and if you accept the underlying assumptions of this framework, the far-rights' conclusions make more sense than yours.

    This is why liberals lose every fucking argument to these people.

    Phil Oachs got it right, you people have been exactly the same for decades.

    http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html

    And frankly, you're just as responsible as Bush, if not more so, for the state this country is in right now.

  19. a moderate  

    i don't think you can blame liberals for the state of the country when they're not in power...and btw interrupting people does not mean you "win" an arguement. The point is that you try to get a coherent message across, butI think its impossible to do so on any partisan talk show/radio show cause their aim isn't to inform people but to make people like their theatrics.

  20. David  

    The sexism of the posts about the Columbia women who went on these shows has been incredible. I hope these are trolls from rightwing blogs and not actual Columbia students, because I hate to think I'd ever be forced into polite conversation with someone who would say shit like this. I'm glad none of the sexists provides emails, it leaves space for my hopes.

    "monique was an irrational crazy little bitch"

    "little school girls"

    "Monique looks pretty cute, especially when she's flustered."

    "She definitedly looks better than she spoke..."

    ... because the key issue was definitely the physical attractiveness of the Columbia women. "Bitch" and "girl" are appropriate and accurate ways to describe the problems with someone's actions. You disgusting fucking pigs.

    I haven't watched either video yet, but I don't need to in order to identify this for the despicable bullshit it is.

    • meee  

      david, i called monique "an irrational crazy little bitch" because because that's how she came across. these were also accurate. i am a columbia student, not a right-wing troll. i agree with you that "bitch" is an appropriate way to describe monique's appearance on h&c. watch the video and find out.

  21. Anonymous  

    I wonder whether this is going to die down quickly, or whether its going to take on a life of its own. After all, Mr. Bollinger *does* have $2.4 billion to raise by 2011.

  22. Anonymous  

    I just love how Hannity and O'Reilly are guilty of exactly what the protestors are being accused of doing: Refusing to even hear opposing viewpoints.

    • yeah  

      j train, they broke through a cordonond and stormed a stage from the left w/15 othere students (in what looked to students in the front like they were going for a physical attack) and also shouted out anythng eva and monique wanted to say for the entire time. if they really wanted to be like the protestors, they'd wear masks, scream at the two girls the entire show and then charge at them

      don't try false moral equivalency julia..we know your true colors

  23. cu alum

    i watched both and the only reason that kulawik may seem a bit more composed than others is because (as bwog put it ever so beautifully) fox is his friend. eva and monique have two different takes on the argument, as apparent by bwog's interview. it seems like eva is more moderate and was not in favor of the stage rushing but hannity & colmes weren't willing to hear it. and monique is right to yell at him for interrupting - i doubt he would have interrupted chris kulawik. same with o'reilly - avi was not chris's "opposition", per se, but because he was saying the truth o'reilly shut him down. if chris feels "unsafe" on campus he should just leave and everyone will be happy - i know other repubs that were on campus when i was there, such as previous prez schmelzer and at least we could talk to them and they wouldn't cry to daddy fox to help save them... kulawik is a looney and is the true disgrace to cu. avi was right and maybe his message would come across more clearly had o'reilly not been such an ass; he knew his stuff but o'reilly decided that rather than questioning him, he'd quote numbers from his "research" into the journalism school (?) because clearly we all chill with the journalists.

    avi & the bwog rock and as everyone else says, these fox people are doing just what they accuse cu students of doing - shutting down free speech if they don't want to hear it.

  24. i'm with david

    Thank you, David. I've been trying to figure out how to say it, but I've been bothered by the sexism, too.

    Whether or not I agree with them, Karina, Eva and Monique (among recent posts) have been taking a brave, articulate, principled stand--and for that to be reduced to "cute", "bitch", "school girls", etc is slightly disgusting.

    Also--calling Chris Kulawik a "cocksucker"--not cool. Also, it's not a very impressive taunt: more than half of the people reading this have sucked at least one cock.

    It's like calling someone evolved-from-apes or hairy-head. Except homophobic.

    • yeah

      Calling him "Clay-Aiken-look-alike", " Nordic cheekboned-nutcase", or even just "well-tweased windbag" let's you skip over the homophobia piece and point out that he looks like what would happen if a character from Zoolander was possessed by Satan.

  25. commenting  

    on karina's good looks doesn't take away from her points necessarily. in so far as bwog is a gossip column, that should be fair game. it might be patronizing to comment that she was stupid or inadequate but looks make up for that, but simply to say that karina is a cutie is speaking the truth :)

  26. bwog  

    has no ground to stand upon in terms of asking for no personal attacks. between kulawik, columbia chick lit writer, and dasgupta its well known on campus that despite the occasional good quality of the bwog, its staff are pretty much a group of jerks in a pretentious clique

  27. avi

    zenilman is an arrogant tool. and got owned. simple as that.

    • Bill  

      O'Reilly is an arrogant tool. The difference here is that Avi actually had a right to be arrogant because he was the only person on the show that knew what he was talking about and didn't have to sit there and reference his "research" on the Journalism Department. Avi, you were great, and I just wish that you hadn't been interrupted every time you spoke.

      • Frances Holworth

        Calm down, little girl. No one has a right to be arrogant, no matter how much they think they know what they're talking about.

        • oh,  

          and also, if no one has a right to be arrogant, maybe you should tone down the patronizing and not call me "little girl" (sorry to post this on the general discussion, I would send a personal message if my critic had provided an email address)

  28. Anonymous  

    the answer is to bring o'reilly to campus ... that would settle the issue once and for all

  29. tf1  

    "bollinger should be here, talking to the cameras--not his students" o'reilly your show is an ABSOLUTE JOKE. what a douchebag.

  30. avi,  

    O'Reilly was never going to let you look good, but you did great. Thanks for standing up for Columbia.

    • cogent?

      Come on. O'Reilly is a tool. He's basically saying that since Bollinger doesn't feel the need to "face the cameras" on Fox News, that Bollinger can't possibly be doing anything about this. If you're the president of a university that just had a riot, wouldn't you have much more important things to do than to go on stupid shows like "The Factor" where you will only get yelled at for being part of the "Left Wing Jihad"?

  31. Prezbo

    Don't invite O'Reilly... just HANNITY. That'll be a nice kick to ol' Billy Boy's ego.

  32. dsi5

    One point that one of the Columbia women (I believe it was Eva) made explicitly on Hannity that seems worth repeating: they came to talk about immigration and were drawn into a fight about free speech.

    What a pity that was. These endless tugs-of-war over who can shout what standing where waving what sort of implement, though perhaps important, are also mind-numbingly tedious. But, especially in these sound-bite driven programs, that's the argument that we end up having again and again. Monique's understandable desire to focus the discussion on Minutemen's violence on the border ended up seeming hotheaded ("she's changing the subject!"). Avi and Eva, who came off as a little cooler, didn't get a chance to say much of anything--they had essentially agreed to take the weaker side in an argument about table manners.

    Columbians with opportunities to participate in these sorts of programs might want to give some thought in advance to what sort of discussions they want to engage in, and what sorts they expect they will actually be having.

    • i don't care  

      what they thought they came to talk about. the minutmen though they were going to talk about immigration, not get harassed off a stage. eva is a brownshirt and i have no sympathy for her.

  33. uh, Bwog?  

    why does IvyGate have better video on this story than you do?

  34. meee  

    Let's be clear... Monique and Eva were NOT invited to talk about immigration. Who gives a f*** about their thoughts on immigration?! They were invited to talk about the rushing off the stage that suppressed Gilchrist's right to free speech. By defending this action, they came off as two little brats.

    Dsi5 is right: it was an argument about table manners. Clearly the unshaven less-than-human leftists who stormed the stage have none. That might work at Columbia, but it won't with the rest of the country whether Republican or Democrat. And it makes Columbia look like shit.

    Chris and Avi also make Columbia look like shit, but that's down to cock-sucking and bumbling. At least they didn't try to justify the left-wing 'radicals'.

    To those who stormed the stage: FUCK YOU.

    We all know why Columbia was such a shit place in the 70s and 80s. Recently it's been doing well. As a student, I don't want to see it fall again.

    Heads need to roll.

  35. Frances HOWORTH  

    If you're going to put my name down, you might as well spell it correctly. And I obviously believe that anyone who knows what they're talking about has the right to be arrogant about it, even if it gets on your nerves. That being said, Avi didn't seem arrogant to me, just intelligent and well-spoken.

  36. dear avi  

    I was disappointed in your inability to counter o'reilly's contention that columbia was the centre of a "left wing jihad"; it's painfully obvious that his formula could be applied to virtually any university, though. by making this assertion, you would have either forced o'reilly to back down or to denounce most of higher education outside of, what, liberty university and BYU? either position would have looked bad for him.

    signed,
    an ex-debater

  37. Avi  

    Avi you did a great job. Personally I find this whole issue to be incredibly stupid. Anyone with two bits of brain matter can figure out that Columbia is not the center of a "left wing jihad", whatever that means. And if individuals are too pigheaded to realize that and believe every word OReilly and Hannity put out, thats too bad! The only people I see who have been indoctrinated into anything are these rabid conservatives calling for "heads to roll" and the reputation of the university to be "destroyed" because of some hangups of theirs. You go Avi! Keep it up!

    • yeah  

      seriously. imagine their silly 'hang ups'-- having their speeches terminated by crazed protestors (this isn't hte first time idiot)

      having a history professor telling them they can't pursue serious scholarly study

      having to listen to an anthro prof and a bunch of others rail at a teach in which presented no other view and called for teh death of millions of american soldiers

      having seen a milvet member assaulted

      having bwog and even the supposedly more in touch w/real world columbia outlets continue to berate and mock them

      hey shithole. if you hate us so much just stop accepting us or give us identification of some sort so you don't have to be in our presence

      p.s. go avi. enjoy the fellatio of a liberal ivy school where you'll presumably spend the rest of your life!

      • well  

        In response to the "conservatives cant study history" thing. I certainly dont abide by that viewpoint, however you cant expect the university to cater every aspect of academia so that it suits everyone fine. Certain aspects of studying present certain truths which may clash with beliefs. For example, if you believe in creationism, I would doubt your ability to pursue the study of evolutionary biology to any real extent. Similarly, certain fields tend to lead one towards certain viewpoints. I have no experience with the COLUMBIA history program, but my brother went from being a determined conservative to a liberal basically from his studies of historical academia. On the flip side, the Columbia econ program made me to a large degree (at least economically) very conservative. Those things happen. Quit being a kid.

        • youre  

          really just trying to hide the fact you don't care. These things don't happen. The head of teh history dept doesn't tell the student newspaper that conservatives can't puruse history, especially after other kids write opeds listing a shitload of qualified historians. As for economics and history, another stupid, stupid analogy. The reason views in economics may actually gravitate is that to an extent it purports to be a quantitative study which is based on empiricism. I agree with you creationists and their ilk aren't candidates for sciences, but only based on that criteria. History is nothing of the sort. Neither is philosophy. Neither, usually, is political science. Thus not only is youre analogy w/o any basis, but you've revealed you're exactly the type of person who makes it impossible for conservatives to even try in certain subjects. Furthermore, you one anecdote doesn't excuse the idiocy of the history prof and doesn't present an argument which counterbalances repeated poor treatmen of conservatives.

  38. Tonight  

    Chris Kulawik will debate Monique on OReilly.

  39. Anonymous

    gosh and it seems like just yesterday that gay Columbia students had to deal with homophobic graffiti.

    Having my friend recieve threatening emails from another student because of her vocal stance on women's reproductive choice. That student was later suspended.

    Are they indicative of the Columbia population at large? Are they drinking the Kool-Aid of an indoctrinating conservative atmosphere and upbringing that is exists outside of the ivory towers of Columbia? No, I don't think so.

  40. anon  

    1. Honestly, the girl on the left looks as though she took something before appearing on the show.
    2. Why couldn't it have been a peaceful debate? You don't fight someone because you disagree with him, you argue intellectually, or walk away.
    3. Thank you for doing such a wonderful job in representing Columbia

  41. ugh  

    I hate how columbians pretend to be intellectually astute and then fall into the trap of the posititional binary of american politics. congratulations, guys. way to let your heard instinct trample your intelligence.

    • the variation  

      amongst candidates and within the parties along with geographical differences in ideology ensure that the party system eventually pretty much resembles coalition systems. you'll see this is cross party alliances on party votes or the fact that many red/blue states have governors of the other party

      what your post really suggests is that either you're a disgruntled supporter of a minority party so unpopular that you resort to this false argument or your an elitist international or just an elitist who has an arrogant sense of self satisfaction w/what you percieve to be your superior intellectual ability

    • wow

      I'm glad someone else sees this for what it is. That makes like 5 of us at Columbia.

  42. this  

    is pretty scary http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=331255 but seems to suggest that a lot of white power groups don't like gilchrist either

    • wow  

      Thats probably not the best link. While a few disagree with Gilchrist's decision not to allow open White Nationalists to be in his group, the majority support him as pushing forward their agenda. Avi Zenilman was also attacked on there for being Jewish.

      • its not a  

        good link for the issue for sure, but even w/in your statement you can now see that gilchrist definitely repudiated his group and that just becuase a group supports a view, it doesn't mean their specific reason for supporting it is the reason the majority of supporters support it

        for example, i doubt many doctors and patients suffering for painful diseases support legalization of marijuana for the same reason that the majority of potheads in college do

        so maybe its time to be more careful about conflating different support groups of an issue

        for example some quotes about gilchrist from the discussion:

        "Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist, who beats his breast about how he is not a "racist" and routinely denigrates WN's, was physically mobbed when he tried to speak at Columbia University on October 4, 2006. He was denounced as a "racist" "fascist" etc. Maybe he will finally figure out that the communists will not respect him just because he denounces white people. They will hate him and attack him regardless of how "diverse" his organization purports to be."

        "Gilchrist made a huge mistake when he decided to diversify his organisation and rail against his fellow Whites. He alienated what WN and White support he might have rallied."

        "I'd have to see the quote, where he "denounces white people."

        Saying that he doesn't want neo-nazis and their uniforms on the border with his outfit, or allowing black Nam vets to do so, isn't denouncing white people."

        "But, Mr. Gilchrist has denounced White supporters, amongst them, WN, who are not btw all Neo-Nazis sporting attire.

        When he denounced them, he took away a portion of strong support amongst Whites."

        "
        Exactly! And IIRC there was a member here who tried to join either his group, or Save Our State, and was told, "We don't need any help from you Nazi's" or something similar to that! What gall.

        So I figure it's our right to laugh and point fingers at this idiot when he gets attacked!"

        "
        I have a friend that many of you know here on SF who tried to join the Minutemen...but was TURNED DOWN because he was a member of a "racist" organization (National Alliance) at the time. (a few years back)"

        "Gilchrist didn't use deceit. He plainly stated that "racists" were not welcome. Ignoring it, talking around it, that's one thing. Insulting Whites is a totally different ballgame.

        Gilchrist chose his side and paid the price. Maybe, he'll rethink. I doubt it."

        and the list goes on. actually i don't see how this doesn't show the white power movement does actually largely dislike gilchrist becuase of his choice to not associate w/them.

    • fukumori's

      a nutjob ISO fanatic anyway.. i bet he gets hatemail on a regular basis

      my solution:
      take him and all the ISO idiots and give them an unpopulated territory in the US southwest with which to build their "socialist paradise".. we get ride of all those fools and plus the buzzards will be very well fed

  43. can of diet pepsi  

    oh god, why did the president of the fucking republicans end up looking the best?

    avi...the man called it JIHAD. WHY DID YOU JUST GO WITH IT? not only did he use the term incorrectly but he also used it to provoke you. you could have really gotten him on that.

    eva and...monique (?) were better suited to go on tv but looked like a bunch yapping idiots towards the end. it is important to create a contrast between the insanity of the hosts and the intelligence of the guests and this was not achieved. in the end, everyone was yelling at everyone. well done, we looked just as bad as the hosts.

    i have no idea why these people chose to go on fox. by going on fox, you only acknowledge it as a news source...as something worth debating over. if columbia disregarded them, they would have had nothing to work with but the conservative opinion on the issue, which after a while would become redundant and the issue would disappear. the only way you can fight idiots like this is challenging their their arguments, which was poorly done. again, i can't believe avi dismissed the term JIHAD. oh my god. and why didn't anyone bring up the use of "21st century KKK" and "fascist liberal anarchists"? these are some of the most ignorant statements i have ever heard.

    i am sad to say that columbia looks so much worse after these appearances than it did before. if i were bollinger, i would stay under that desk.

    fuck o'reilly. fuck him hard.
    despite my harsh commentary, thank you for your efforts avi, eva, and monique. you were truely courageous.

  44. David

    Unbelievable that anyone who claims to believe in free speech would be proud of that event. Compare left and right behavior. The Right doesn't do this to the Left. The Right welcomes and reasons with oppsoing or differing views. The Left shouts over them, emoting and chanting. The Left has whiny brats like Monique as their spokespeople.

    So you disagree with the Minutemen... how about enriching yourselves and listening to every word they say? Are you afraid you might agree? When will you children learn that it is not dangerous to listen to and show respect for differing points of view? Your emotions and mouths rule you. Common sense and decency apparently do not attend Columbia. What a disgrace. Anyone watching the video (not news coverage of it) -- and with an ounce of maturity -- can see that the students were WAY out of line.

  45. David

    'Fuck him hard'?

    That is just gross. You eat with that mouth? What in the world do you THINK with?

  46. Stanley

    Who cares what Monique and the other moonbat wanted to talk about. It's not their show. They were invited there to talk about the protest not thier uber liberal views. But in typical leftofacists style they kept interrupting and changing the subject with thier bullshit propaganda.

    I find it amazing that anyone can take Monique Dols seriously.

    She is a smug, self rightous little twit who has no respect for anyone who doesn't share in her view in her commie vies.

    Fuck her!

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.