Isn't the real issue here words that have been written by Markos himself? O'Reilly might take issue with some of what the posters have to say (I don't agree with him) but most people are going to take issue with what the site prorietor writes. To use the logic of this poster, if O'Reilly is wrong because he intends to have provocative guests who say evil things on his show, isn't Kos to be held to account for the things he has written himself?

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga practically expressed joy over the gruesome deaths of four of his fellow citizens:

"That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

Many here will defend such words but wishing ill on the dead, and insulting their surviving family members as a result, is shameful. He should not be defended anymore than Ann Coulter should for doing largely the same.

Long after making the statement, Kos 'apologized' to the satisfaction of no one. He did so by invoking his military background, implying the contractors were merely mercenaries and that he, of course, respects those who fight from the US Armed Forces. Kos should have studied up on the honorable dead he was insulting. Three of the contractors were former military, at least one a former SEAL. They had honorably served their country - as Kos had - and they deserved his respect.

I'm glad *someone* in the Democratic field isn't afraid to pick a fight with a conservative dipshit. (memo to the Edwards campaign: even the South Park guys went after Bill Donohue for being a crazy-Catholic goon; it wouldn't have killed *your* campaign to recognize that when he was attacking you)

So DailyKos is a town square. Uh, actually not. It's a website, has an owner, and employs people. They can delete anything they find offensive, if they want. Very much like a talk show host can disinvite someone he finds offensive.

“They can delete anything they find offensive, if they want. Very much like a talk show host can disinvite someone he finds offensive.”

Total Nonsense. First of all, there’s nothing stopping someone from creating a new username and logging into a website twice (except some IP filters that are easy to get around). Second, unlike newspapers and TV, comments on a discussion board are not edited before they appear on the site. Third, space for comments on the internet is cheap and virtually limitless (unlike print media and air time), so there is far less concern about editing for content (despite the fact that some of the content seems to offend his delicate sensibilities).

Face it, BillO has to present random trolls on the internet as the “opposing view”, because he is a liar, and he knows it is unlikely that his geriatric viewers can make distinctions between the web and the MSM.

I used to think that, for all his problems, O'Reilly as a step above clowns like Sean Hannity. He seemed a little more reasonable than many others, both in the way he approached the ideas of others and in the way he considered his own views. I'm not sure that's the case any longer. Perhaps it's because I don't watch Fox on a regular basis, but the little bits I've seen of him over the past few months indicate he's gone off the deep edge.

"He should not be defended anymore than Ann Coulter should for doing largely the same."

The fact that you have to reach back four years for one quote you find objectionable, when a medium-sized volume could be assembled of Coulter's bile, proves you are utterly dishonest in any attempt at equivalency that you make.

And, until I see you actually complaining about Coulter's vile comments, you are better off just shutting the fuck up, asshole.

"Very much like a talk show host can disinvite someone he finds offensive."

Then why doesn't O'Lielly disinvite the monsters he routinely features on his show, shit for brains?

brewmn:

More fodder for O'Reilly! "Gee, O'Reilly is making hay out of posts with vile content - why don't I help him along by seeing how many 'fucks' and 'shits' I can get into my next one!"

Thank goodness that I now know your words don't (necessarily) represent the views of Tapped and The American Prospect. Ezra cleared that up for me.

I didn't reach back four years to find one objectionable quote; I used his MOST FAMOUS objectionable quote. You know, the one where he says screw them about four contractors who were tortured, mutilated, burned, strung up, and cut into pieces? These ex-members of the US Armed Forces who Kos says he repects?

And if it means that I can continue to criticize Kos if I criticize Coulter - I hereby criticize Coulter. She has said mean things for which she should apologize.

The equivalency point has nothing to do with the total volume of their hurtful comments; it has everything to do with disrespectful comments about the dead that hurt remaining family and friends.

I'll now wait anxiously for your next post which promises to include at least one fuck and two shits ...

After reading these comments I think I'll get a tetanus shot.

"The equivalency point has nothing to do with the total volume of their hurtful comments; it has everything to do with disrespectful comments about the dead that hurt remaining family and friends."

Well, there is no equivalency between Kos’ citations and Coulter's nonsense, that’s for sure.

Just because Kos said something nasty once does not mean he is in the business of hate speech. I challenge you to find a list of list of Kos’ quotes as nasty as these.

Apologies, it looks like links are not supported:

Coulter’s citations: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070002
Coulter’s hate speech: http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/quotes.html