Joy Behar Coming Unhinged

Joy Behar adds another conservative “bitch” to her hate list

Michelle Malkin
October 26, 2010

I’m already a member of the club.

So is Sarah Palin.

And so is Michele Bachmann.

Now, Joy “If you disagree with me, you’re a BITCH!” Behar is trashing GOP Nevada senate candidate Sharron Angle as a “bitch” who is “going to hell” because of her staunch opposition to illegal immigration and the cult of multiculturalism. You will get a headache after watching this, but it’s worth watching — not just for Behar’s antics, but for the polite tittering and showbiz-as-usual camaraderie of Behar’s spew mates as they watch their foul-mouthed friend go off:

I can't stand this woman. She is the most inappropriately named woman in the world. "Joy" my ass. If this had been a conservative commentator the mainstream media would be ablaze with calls for the resignation of that commentator... because "Joy" is a hardcore progressive, nary a peep will be heard.

I can't stand this woman.

I can't stand ANYONE mentioned in the entire article, including the author herself. Could they do humanity a favour and lock themselves into a hermetically sealed room and argue with each other forever?

I enjoy looking at Elisabeth Hasselbeck myself.

Joy: the Glenn Beck of the left.

It seems to be that Joy is for illegal people because she knows her job is safe. Nobody is gonna climb over a fence and wanna be a talk-show host.
All illegal people do jobs that Americans should be doing (like picking fruits and such from fields) but we're too busy getting 40 million for hitting a ball or 400 million for sitting on our fat butts.

WTF was that? I have no idea what I just sat through. Who are those ghastly people?

Never heard of Joy Behar...

As much as I hate to quote Sting "There is no monopoloy of common sense on either side of the political fence".

As much as I hate to quote Sting "There is no monopoloy of common sense on either side of the political fence".

I notice that, as a centrist, you don't include yourself in that

BecMacFeegle wrote:WTF was that? I have no idea what I just sat through. Who are those ghastly people?

It's a day time television show here in America. It's on in the morning here. It caters mostly (maybe exclusively) to women.

This is the show where Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the set when Bill O'Reilly pissed them off two weeks ago.

We have our own version of that show, it's called "Loose Women". From what I gather, our version contains absolutely no politics whatsoever. I think it's better that way, if you are going to debate something (semi)serious, don't allow it to be turned into a pointless shouting match. That and I don't any of the British counterparts believe the world is flat:

BecMacFeegle wrote:WTF was that? I have no idea what I just sat through. Who are those ghastly people?

Those ghastly people, my dear Bec, are what we call liberals here in America... quite the tolerant bunch, eh? Three of the four people on that panel are Democrats, the other says she is a Republican (the pretty young blond thing), but she is a Republican in name only, or what we call a RINO.

Welcome to my world...

merkwurdigliebe wrote:We have our own version of that show, it's called "Loose Women". From what I gather, our version contains absolutely no politics whatsoever. I think it's better that way, if you are going to debate something (semi)serious, don't allow it to be turned into a pointless shouting match. That and I don't any of the British counterparts believe the world is flat

Yah, I remember seeing this video before. Why are stupid people aloud on the television? Seriously?

Loose Women is rubbish...I don't think it's quite as bad The View, but like you said, it doesn't have any pretensions of being a political opinions show. From the few occasions when I've been subjected to it, it appears to mostly be about celebrity with some social issues thrown in for good measure - being rowed over by a bunch of quasi-feminist-harridan-shrews.

Why are stupid people aloud on the television? Seriously?

Maybe because stupid people can't regulate the volume of their voices?
(Yes, I know what you really meant!)

dblboggie wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:WTF was that? I have no idea what I just sat through. Who are those ghastly people?

Those ghastly people, my dear Bec, are what we call liberals here in America... quite the tolerant bunch, eh? Three of the four people on that panel are Democrats, the other says she is a Republican (the pretty young blond thing), but she is a Republican in name only, or what we call a RINO.

Welcome to my world...

I was talking to Matt about this yesterday, and, lemme get the words right - he says that nowhere else in the world uses the term Liberal in the way Americans do. He said the American phrase is used to described something which is part fantasy, part exaggeration and total misrepresentation of what Liberalism actually is.

I'd call myself a liberal (small 'l' perhaps?) and I don't think I'm like those harpies. I'm a left of centre liberal, I suppose. Though every time I do one of those political quizzes it tells me I'm more liberal than Gandhi and more libertarian too.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

Why are stupid people aloud on the television? Seriously?

Maybe because stupid people can't regulate the volume of their voices?
(Yes, I know what you really meant!)

I had a tough day at work. I'm ALLOWED a few typos Though I think I've been making that one quite a bit recently. Oh, the shame!

BecMacFeegle wrote:I was talking to Matt about this yesterday, and, lemme get the words right - he says that nowhere else in the world uses the term Liberal in the way Americans do.

The Spectator magazine has now jumped onto that wagon now.

He said the American phrase is used to described something which is part fantasy, part exaggeration and total misrepresentation of what Liberalism actually is.

It is for most part. But no more phrase is more misused perhaps then "socialism".

I'd call myself a liberal (small 'l' perhaps?) and I don't think I'm like those harpies. I'm a left of centre liberal, I suppose. Though every time I do one of those political quizzes it tells me I'm more liberal than Gandhi and more libertarian too.

I think I know which ones you mean, those quizzes are rubbish, they were originally designed with an inherent bias towards "libertarian" ratings by an evangelical for the ideological movement. I consider myself least an libertarian (on issues core to me anyway) yet I always get "strong" libertarian ratings.

A liberal in the USA isn't quite like in Europe. In many cases, our liberals are more to the right than the European liberals. But it depends on the issue, too. In any case, our country here is overall a center-right country whether people like it or not.

It's not a misrepresentation of the meaning of the word. It's just the difference between our culture and yours. That's all. Many liberals here in America are proud to call themselves liberal by name. So, it's not like it's a tag that conservatives have thrust upon the liberals here.

People shouldn't be calling themselves "liberal" if they do not know what the word means.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:People shouldn't be calling themselves "liberal" if they do not know what the word means.

My point is how words have different meanings across different countries. A fag in Britain is a slang word for a cigarette. You know what the word means here. It's things like this that I'm talking about. There's no right or wrong. Just a different divide.

That's different Tex, "liberal" has a specific meaning born out of 19th century philosophies of social liberalism and classical liberalism. You wouldn't describe a Positivist as a "Post-modernist by American standards" because those things means something specific and different. A post-modernist is a post-modernist and a positivist is a positivist and change the meanings in order to create a straw man or a figure to be mocked.

Besides, I don't trust Fox News to give me an accurate definition of any word :p

TexasBlue wrote:A liberal in the USA isn't quite like in Europe. In many cases, our liberals are more to the right than the European liberals. But it depends on the issue, too. In any case, our country here is overall a center-right country whether people like it or not.

It's not a misrepresentation of the meaning of the word. It's just the difference between our culture and yours. That's all. Many liberals here in America are proud to call themselves liberal by name. So, it's not like it's a tag that conservatives have thrust upon the liberals here.

As a liberal, I would agree with that. The problem is, beginning with Reagan, the word "liberal" was demonized and given false connotations (i.e. bleeding heart, tree hugger, weak on defense, lazy, hates America, etc). Unfortunately the media (doing what they always do), played along with it - thereby making the misrepresentation even more misrepresentative... But painting us like that is bull-plop! The fact is, like conservatives, there is a lot of room under the "liberal" umbrella. As for me, my "liberalness" mostly comes from social issues. I have no problem saying that, when people need (legitimate) help, there should be a way for them to get it... That's different from being an economic liberal though. Sure, things (i.e. social programs) cost money, but that doesn't mean all of us (liberals) want to raise your taxes to 90 percent. We're happy to look for other ways of finding the funds. But just because we may want to cut defense spending by 90 percent, doesn't mean we hate America. We certainly don't. We just want our fair share of the pie.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:The Spectator magazine has now jumped onto that wagon now.

Really? I don't think I've ever read the Spectator magazine in my entire life. What are they saying?

merkwurdigliebe wrote:It is for most part. But no more phrase is more misused perhaps then "socialism".

Oooh I know. Obama is a socialist? Yah, right. And I'm an anarchist. Although...the misuse of the word 'fascist' is up there too. Person A presses for political change that person B doesn't like, so person A is labelled a fascist. Grr. As for the meanings of words changing...sure, fine. With in reason. Words can't just mean something completely different because a group of people decided to hijack them. Liberalism is a well defined concept - it can't just mean something completely different because people think it should and have been using the word wrongly for a long time. Pick a new word! Gah!

merkwurdigliebe wrote:
I think I know which ones you mean, those quizzes are rubbish, they were originally designed with an inherent bias towards "libertarian" ratings by an evangelical for the ideological movement. I consider myself least an libertarian (on issues core to me anyway) yet I always get "strong" libertarian ratings.

I wondered why they were so skewed. I'll have to keep a look out for a new quiz.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:That's different Tex, "liberal" has a specific meaning born out of 19th century philosophies of social liberalism and classical liberalism. You wouldn't describe a Positivist as a "Post-modernist by American standards" because those things means something specific and different. A post-modernist is a post-modernist and a positivist is a positivist and change the meanings in order to create a straw man or a figure to be mocked.

Besides, I don't trust Fox News to give me an accurate definition of any word :p

You're correct. Today's liberal (here) isn't the same as the 1800's liberals... or even JFK for that matter.

I don't get my definitions (or any other "education") from FNC.