# Juan Williams Loses Job At NPR For Telling The Truth



## Mad Scientist

See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1



> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  Muslim dilemma.  Mr. OReilly said,  The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of  books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.


----------



## 2Parties

I feel horrible for him.


----------



## Oddball

George Soros must be a racist!!!!

George Soros&#8217; Millions Buying &#8216;Political Reporters&#8217; for NPR - Big Journalism


----------



## Revere

Google "Shirley Sherrod" and NPR for shits and giggles.

Remember all the hand-wringing over her firing?


----------



## AquaAthena

Mad Scientist said:


> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  Muslim dilemma.  Mr. OReilly said,  The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of  books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.
Click to expand...


I can't stand to listen to Juan Williams, but I feel badly for him, losing his job for making a non-PC remark. I admired him for telling the truth that most of us agree with anyway. Sad. The man works hard for a living....


----------



## uscitizen

Be afraid or be unamerican.


----------



## hjmick

NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.

That's what I've read anyway...

NPR Tells Fox News: Please Don't Associate Juan Williams With Us


----------



## Revere

I thought Fox News was the one who was supposed to dump on the black guy?


----------



## AquaAthena

hjmick said:


> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> NPR Tells Fox News: Please Don't Associate Juan Williams With Us



Mara Liasson from NPR is also affiliated with Fox and I *heart* hearing that woman speak. She is often on Special Report with Bret Baier and my all time fave Fox pundit, Dr. Charles Krauthammer. Love to look at CK in those clothes he, or someone, puts together for him to wear. So classy.. Mara always looks classy too. Very professional, each.


----------



## Oddball

hjmick said:


> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> NPR Tells Fox News: Please Don't Associate Juan Williams With Us


Looks like you're either with the bureaucratic bourgeoisie or against them.


----------



## Care4all

except NOT ONE of the 19 Muslims (jihad) that brought the world trade center and Pentagon down, were WEARING Muslim garb...

i feel sorry for him too...


----------



## edthecynic

Oddball said:


> George Soros must be a racist!!!!
> 
> George Soros Millions Buying Political Reporters for NPR - Big Journalism


Soros Derangement Syndrome


----------



## hjmick

Oddball said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> NPR Tells Fox News: Please Don't Associate Juan Williams With Us
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you're either with the bureaucratic bourgeoisie or against them.
Click to expand...


I think he's been having trouble with NPR since 2008 when they turned down a White House interview with GW. The WH wanted Williams to do the interview, NPR said no, so he did the interview... for Fox.

Ooops...


----------



## Ozmar

I agree with Juan Williams.


----------



## Revere

The pressroom _Stasi_ at the White House are smiling broadly at NPR.


----------



## GWV5903

Mad Scientist said:


> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  Muslim dilemma.  Mr. OReilly said,  The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of  books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.
Click to expand...


He is better off not working for NPR based on this alone, Fox will take care of him anyway, first class org at Fox......


----------



## Revere

Poor old black Juan strayed off the liberal plantation, and got a Clarence Thomas styled high tech lynching.


----------



## Revere

"I said to myself, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this."
-Michael Tuohey, who processed Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari's tickets on 9/11.


----------



## Kat

Mad Scientist said:


> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  Muslim dilemma.  Mr. OReilly said,  The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of  books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.
Click to expand...




WOW That really sucks. I like Juan!


----------



## DiveCon

Revere said:


> "I said to myself, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this."
> -*Michael Tuohey,* who processed Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari's tickets on 9/11.


well, clearly he is a racist


----------



## Foxfyre

Revere said:


> I thought Fox News was the one who was supposed to dump on the black guy?



Black guys who don't toe the liberal line aren't 'black' any more than women who don't toe the liberal line are 'smart' or 'capable'.

What frosts my tush is that our tax dollars subsidize a large chunk of every NPR station and there's nothing we can do about the liberal bias.  Or the sudden liberal fascination and love affair with Muslims for that matter.  Apparently Muslims are the new protected class and nobody is allowed to say anything at all critical or truthful about them.  If one does so, that person is immediately branded racist, bigot, and intent on destroying the First Amendment.

Makes you wonder if they'll get as much mileage out of that as they got out of accusing anybody critical of the President of being racist.

I wish Williams would sue for breach of contract or something.


----------



## uscitizen

I would fire anyone who worked for me that appeared on Bill O's show.

It would show a major fundamental flaw in their character.


----------



## DiveCon

uscitizen said:


> I would fire anyone who worked for me that appeared on Bill O's show.
> 
> It would show a major fundamental flaw in their character.


so your gonna fire Obama?


----------



## fyrenza

DiveCon said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would fire anyone who worked for me that appeared on Bill O's show.
> 
> It would show a major fundamental flaw in their character.
> 
> 
> 
> so your gonna fire Obama?
Click to expand...


Good GAWD, man!

Don't dazzle him with any verifiable FACTS!!!

You KNOW what that does to 'em...


----------



## mdn2000

The Rockefeller's fund NPR, maybe NPR is a tool of corporations, after all corporations get rich selling green energy by government mandate and NPR has stories about green energy.

NPR is funded by government and corporations, money, nothing like money, only thing better than money is lots of money.

What does an oil fortune gain by funding NPR, oil is used to make green energy, as well as oil money is invested in all the green technologies, one must consider the possibility.


----------



## editec

They're _ALL _funded by corporations, folks.

_G-zeus keyrist on a crutch_, that isn't OBVIOUS to ya'll, _yet?!_


----------



## chanel

> The subject of political correctness burst into the news again Wednesday night when NPR fired commentator Juan Williams for saying he gets nervous on planes when he sees Muslims on planes "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims." And before that CNN fired Rick Sanchez for his comments.
> 
> But here's an interesting result from the Rasmussen research:* Nearly three out of four Americans say they think that political correctness is a problem.
> *
> And a poll last year found that 63% of respondents said they believed that political correctness prevented military authorities from confronting a Muslim, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, before he killed 13 people and wounded many others at Ft. Hood, Texas.
> 
> However, nearly one in four of our countrymen (23%) think the country isn't sufficiently politically correct. We need to be even more careful about what we say to each other, lest someone gasp.



<em>Psst!</em> A majority of Americans sees too much political correctness; even more say it's a problem | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Gee whiz.  Another poll stating how out of touch the left is with the rest of America.  

I love Juan Williams.  This makes me sad.


----------



## Lumpy 1

I wonder why they didn't just send him to a liberal (PC) re-education camp...

I heard he also stopped drinking the kool-aide a while back..


----------



## California Girl

I'm not bothered by Muslims "in Muslim garb", I'm suspicious of those that are not.


----------



## JiggsCasey

I can't wait to see all you guys at the "Rally to Keep Fear Alive!" ... I know you'll all do USMB proud with your vocal support, racial profiling and spooky language.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

I am not surprised, afterall this is NPR we are talking about.
He committed the ultimate crime in the liberal world - he said something that only conservatives are supposed to say.


----------



## Lumpy 1

JiggsCasey said:


> I can't wait to see all you guys at the "Rally to Keep Fear Alive!" ... I know you'll all do USMB proud with your vocal support, racial profiling and spooky language.




Yup, You're Right....

The Democrats have used all the cards in the deck ... this go around...


----------



## Ravi

Mad Scientist said:


> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  Muslim dilemma.  Mr. OReilly said,  The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of  books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.
Click to expand...

That's kind of funny. I wonder what he thinks about people wearing "black" garb?


----------



## Ravi

Revere said:


> "I said to myself, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this."
> -Michael Tuohey, who processed Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari's tickets on 9/11.


Seriously? What a coward, I wonder if he can be charged.


----------



## daveman

JiggsCasey said:


> I can't wait to see all you guys at the "Rally to Keep Fear Alive!" ... I know you'll all do USMB proud with your vocal support, racial profiling and spooky language.



Meanwhile, just keep ignoring the fact that the left insists we have to be afraid of conservatives.


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I said to myself, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this."
> -Michael Tuohey, who processed Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari's tickets on 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? What a coward, I wonder if he can be charged.
Click to expand...

With what?


----------



## sarahgop

soros  just  contributed several million to NPR to buy  some  journalists there and  juan williams, fox  news  contributor was  canned.

merged-del


----------



## WillowTree

By Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Thursday, October 21, 2010; 8:20 AM 

Veteran journalist Juan Williams was fired from his job as senior news analyst for National Public Radio late Wednesday because of comments he made about Muslims and terrorism on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel. 

NPR said in a statement that Williams's remarks--including that he gets "worried" and "nervous" when he sees people dressed in Muslim-style clothing on airplanes--"were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR." 

Williams, 56, made the remarks after the show's host, Bill O'Reilly, asked him whether he thought the United States was facing a "Muslim dilemma." "The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet," O'Reilly said. 

Williams, who is African American and writes and speaks frequently on race, told O'Reilly that he agreed with his assessment. 

washingtonpost.com


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

So much  for tolerance.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

sarahgop said:


> soros  just  contributed several million to NPR to buy  some  journalists there and  juan williams, fox  news  contributor was  canned.


Gee.....one less person, *at FAUX Noise*, promoting *Teabaggerpalooza*.

Whatta _crime_......

​


----------



## masquerade

First off, why the hell are so many in this thread highlighting certain words in red?  Yes, I'm slightly confused so if anyone would like to clue me in.

I don't feel bad for Juan.  Out of this situation, I believe only good will come to him.  I believe this was a great move by NPR.  And good for Juan for being politically incorrect!

I watched Juan enough ( between Special Report & O'Reilly ) to know that I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I believe he brings a moderate sensible democratic voice to any argument.

Good luck on your new endeavors Juan!


----------



## Revere

He's still on Fox.  They didn't can a black guy for his views.


----------



## Stephanie

People better wake up in this country.

They are now stepping on our RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.


----------



## WillowTree

Mr.Fitnah said:


> So much  for tolerance.



Tolerance and the left have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Ravi

Stephanie said:


> People better wake up in this country.
> 
> They are now stepping on our RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.


Aren't you stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Its a talking point , a rallying cry.
I can see  us marching off to war under the banner of multiculture.


----------



## Stephanie

Ravi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> People better wake up in this country.
> 
> They are now stepping on our RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Click to expand...


OK then, maybe you can EXPLAIN it to me.
WHY was he fired again?


----------



## Capitalist

Next thing you know White Liberals will be knuckle punching black conservatives during debates. Oh wait.
*Desperate times call for desperate measures.*


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Its a talking point , a rallying cry.
> I can see  us marching off to war under the banner of multiculture.



We already do;  *UN Peace Keeping Force*


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a talking point , a rallying cry.
> I can see  us marching off to war under the banner of multiculture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already do;  *UN Peace Keeping Force*
Click to expand...


That building would be gone if you fuckers  knew how to fly.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Juan Williams seems like such a nice guy... but he is sooooooooooooooooooooo in the bag for Obama it is hillarious.  Up is down in Juan's World.


----------



## Claudette

masquerade said:


> First off, why the hell are so many in this thread highlighting certain words in red?  Yes, I'm slightly confused so if anyone would like to clue me in.
> 
> I don't feel bad for Juan.  Out of this situation, I believe only good will come to him.  I believe this was a great move by NPR.  And good for Juan for being politically incorrect!
> 
> I watched Juan enough ( between Special Report & O'Reilly ) to know that I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I believe he brings a moderate sensible democratic voice to any argument.
> 
> Good luck on your new endeavors Juan!




Totally agree Masq.

I also have watched Juan for years both on O'Reilly and Bret's shows. 

He's a liberal and he had  no problem getting his point of view across. 

I've always enjoyed him and wish him well.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Mr. Shaman said:


> Gee.....one less person, *at FAUX Noise*, promoting *Teabaggerpalooza*.Whatta _crime_......


Shaman ignorance on display. You obviously didn't read the article or the headline of this thread. Juan was let go from NPR for his statements on Muslims which most sane people find reasonable. He will still be on FoxNews spewing his Liberal talking points as he was last night.

There are at least three threads on this subject so you must be *trying to be willfully ignorant* of the facts.

Negged.


----------



## zzzz

*Proof once again that the news media is biased. *


----------



## Flaylo

Mad Scientist said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee.....one less person, *at FAUX Noise*, promoting *Teabaggerpalooza*.Whatta _crime_......
> 
> 
> 
> Shaman ignorance on display. You obviously didn't read the article or the headline of this thread. Juan was let go from NPR for his statements on Muslims which most sane people find reasonable. He will still be on FoxNews spewing his Liberal talking points as he was last night.
> 
> There are at least three threads on this subject so you must be *trying to be willfully ignorant* of the facts.
> 
> Negged.
Click to expand...



Juan Williams a fucking liberal? What fluid are you drinking?


----------



## VaYank5150

Shouldn't this be in the media forum?  Where are the MODs?


----------



## Revere

He's in the tank for every liberal cause, except Islamism.


----------



## Revere

Buy his books.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Juan-Williams/e/B001IO8FK4]Amazon.com: Juan Williams: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle[/ame]


----------



## Flaylo

Revere said:


> He's in the tank for every liberal cause, except Islamism.



Juan Williams isn't a fucking liberal, no liberals defend Bill O'Reilly.


----------



## Revere

I guess he just got kicked off the plantation.

Lynched.

Um, even conservatives don't always defend O'Reilly.


----------



## Capitalist

NPR/PRAVDA, what a thorough and complete waste of taxpayer dollars.


----------



## Truthmatters

You can lose your job for insulting customers.


He insulted all of their Muslim viewers


----------



## boedicca

When the Left starts attacking one of it's Media Spokes Models for stating the obvious, all they do is telegraph their paranoia and disarray.


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> You can lose your job for insulting customers.
> 
> 
> He insulted all of their Muslim viewers





Then Obama should be fired immediately for insulting Americans as being scared and only using their lower brain functions instead of following his higher cortical logic processes and Scientific Thinking.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a talking point , a rallying cry.
> I can see  us marching off to war under the banner of multiculture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already do;  *UN Peace Keeping Force*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That building would be gone if you fuckers  knew how to fly.
Click to expand...

Why would we do that?  

We like the UN


----------



## 007

If you ever do listen to NPR, you get exactly what you should expect... an ear full of ultra, cherry picked, biased, fanatical, politically correct liberal bull shit.


----------



## Truthmatters

Dont you know how elections work?


----------



## The T

AquaAthena said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior news analysts, after he made comments about Muslims on the Fox News Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a Muslim dilemma. Mr. OReilly said, The cold truth is that in the world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't stand to listen to Juan Williams, but I feel badly for him, losing his job for making a non-PC remark. I admired him for telling the truth that most of us agree with anyway. Sad. The man works hard for a living....
Click to expand...

 
Agreed. Mr. Williams was expressing the very same thing that most Americans think, and have expressed themselves. Let this be a lesson to the rest of the Lefist toadies here...TOW the _Statist Line...Or -ELSE-_

After all? The Left is the most tolerant of the bunch of us and truly belives in free expression. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Foxfyre

boedicca said:


> When the Left starts attacking one of it's Media Spokes Models for stating the obvious, all they do is telegraph their paranoia and disarray.



Which is why 'black' doesn't count if one is conservative.  "Strong, intelligent women' become ignorant loonbats if they are conservative.

Juan Williams is an intelligent liberal but he is a liberal and such are generally forgiven for saying something conservative every once in awhile.   It's okay for those 17 or so Democrat candidates to be bashing Nancy Pelosi right now for instance.

But Juan committed the unforgivable.  He agreed that radical Islam is the most dangerous force in the world today.  It is the truth.  But Muslims have become the new liberal darlings, the protected class.  And any criticism of them will quickly brand one as racist, hateful, anti-American, anti-Constitution, and unforgivable.


----------



## Flaylo

The T said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't stand to listen to Juan Williams, but I feel badly for him, losing his job for making a non-PC remark. I admired him for telling the truth that most of us agree with anyway. Sad. The man works hard for a living....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Mr. Williams was expressing the very same thing that most Americans think, and have expressed themselves. Let this be a lesson to the rest of the Lefist toadies here...TOW the _Statist Line...Or -ELSE-_
> 
> After all? The Left is the most tolerant of the bunch of us and truly belives in free expression. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...


Are you saying that most Americans are Islamophobic pieces of shit like Juan Williams? Speak for yourselves dipshits, don't lump all Americans with ignorance.


----------



## Truthmatters

This far right faction we have wants a war with the Muslim religion.


----------



## Flaylo

Foxfyre said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Left starts attacking one of it's Media Spokes Models for stating the obvious, all they do is telegraph their paranoia and disarray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why 'black' doesn't count if one is conservative.  "Strong, intelligent women' become ignorant loonbats if they are conservative.
> 
> Juan Williams is an intelligent liberal but he is a liberal and such are generally forgiven for saying something conservative every once in awhile.   It's okay for those 17 or so Democrat candidates to be bashing Nancy Pelosi right now for instance.
> 
> But Juan committed the unforgivable.  He agreed that radial Islam is the most dangerous force in the world today.  It is the truth.  But Muslims have become the new liberal darlings, the protected class.  And any criticism of them will quickly brand one as racist, hateful, anti-American, anti-Constitution, and unforgivable.
Click to expand...



Juan Williams said he gets nervous around Muslims, not around radical Muslims and Islamophobia by retarded batshit crazy people like you is not tolerated and should not be tolerated, you bigoted, stereotypical bullshit needs to be cut off, not valid criticism but you dumbasses really think your Islamophobia is valid criticism.


----------



## Flaylo

Truthmatters said:


> This far right faction we have wants a war with the Muslim religion.



The far right demonizes Muslims, blacks, gays, and anything liberal with their bigotry, lies, hate, and buffonery and cries they're being attacked for expressing valid and what what every American thinks and wants when they full of more shit cesspool.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> This far right faction we have wants a war with the Muslim religion.



Hey! Asswipe, there you are. Tell us what you think about New York and Illinois, (both heavily demonRat states) disenfranchising the soldiers!


----------



## Misty

Do you know who I feel sorry for?  Muslims who want to be crop dusters.  



I stole that joke from Brian Regan lolol


----------



## mal

Mad Scientist said:


> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  &#8220;Muslim dilemma.&#8221;  Mr. O&#8217;Reilly said,  &#8220;The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.&#8221;
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. O&#8217;Reilly.
> He continued: &#8220;I mean, look, Bill, I&#8217;m not a bigot. You know the kind of  books I&#8217;ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.&#8221;
Click to expand...


Newspeak... He stepped out of Line.

Liberals don't Like Thoughts that Counter their CW...

Even though probably ALL of the Employees of NPR are Ascared also when on a Plane with a Moooooslim...

Juan was just Honest about it.



peace...


----------



## kiwiman127

Anyone who watches Fox News consistenly and doesn't realize it's loaded with far right wingnut propaganda, is not qualified to judge what is or what isn't propaganda. The same goes for viewers of MSNBC.


----------



## The T

Flaylo said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't stand to listen to Juan Williams, but I feel badly for him, losing his job for making a non-PC remark. I admired him for telling the truth that most of us agree with anyway. Sad. The man works hard for a living....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Mr. Williams was expressing the very same thing that most Americans think, and have expressed themselves. Let this be a lesson to the rest of the Lefist toadies here...TOW the _Statist Line...Or -ELSE-_
> 
> After all? The Left is the most tolerant of the bunch of us and truly belives in free expression. [/sarcasm]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that most Americans are Islamophobic pieces of shit like Juan Williams? Speak for yourselves dipshits, don't lump all Americans with ignorance.
Click to expand...

 
Juan is a LIBERAL,  _dipshit_. I disagree with most of what he says on most topics. Thing is...he, [unlike YOU], tries to see the other side of things. That's what he is guilty of. And that NPR very likely didn't WANT him on FOX.

You are a narrow-minded shithead as the rest of those that pretend to _think_ as you FAILO.


----------



## del

kiwiman127 said:


> Anyone who watches Fox News consistenly and doesn't realize it's loaded with far right wingnut propaganda, is not qualified to judge what is or what isn't propaganda. The same goes for viewers of MSNBC.



merged


----------



## The T

Flaylo said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> This far right faction we have wants a war with the Muslim religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The far right demonizes Muslims, blacks, gays, and anything liberal with their bigotry, lies, hate, and buffonery and cries they're being attacked for expressing valid and what what every American thinks and wants when they full of more shit cesspool.
Click to expand...

 
-TOW THAT STATIST LINE FAILO-!


----------



## Flaylo

The T said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Mr. Williams was expressing the very same thing that most Americans think, and have expressed themselves. Let this be a lesson to the rest of the Lefist toadies here...TOW the _Statist Line...Or -ELSE-_
> 
> After all? The Left is the most tolerant of the bunch of us and truly belives in free expression. [/sarcasm]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that most Americans are Islamophobic pieces of shit like Juan Williams? Speak for yourselves dipshits, don't lump all Americans with ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juan is a LIBERAL,  _dipshit_. I disagree with most of what he says on most topics. Thing is...he, [unlike YOU], tries to see the other side of things. That's what he is guilty of. And that NPR very likely didn't WANT him on FOX.
> 
> You are a narrow-minded shithead as the rest of those that pretend to _think_ as you FAILO.
Click to expand...


Shut your fucking face retarded asshat, Juan Williams isn't a liberal, he's just good ol Juan Williams, do you know what fucking liberal is?


----------



## Intense

Mad Scientist said:


> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  Muslim dilemma.  Mr. OReilly said,  The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of  books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.
Click to expand...


Big mistake. I may not usually agree with Juan, but I respect his honesty and integrity. He's a good Soul.


----------



## bodecea

From what I've read and heard about this situation, firing him was incredibly stupid.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait to see all you guys at the "Rally to Keep Fear Alive!" ... I know you'll all do USMB proud with your vocal support, racial profiling and spooky language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, just keep ignoring the fact that the left insists we have to be afraid of conservatives.
Click to expand...

That's Right! Only CON$ are allowed to demonize people. Just ask them, it's THEIR Constitutional right.

*Epic Monologue: The Greatest Threat America Faces Is Liberalism*
April 15, 2008
RUSH:   I popped up, and I said, "If I may be so bold, I totally agree with you that we have a major threat and that it's going to be a threat that we have to deal with for quite a while. *I don't deny that Islamofascism is huge. *I have to tell you guys something--" we had 15 of us sitting around. I said, "I have to tell you guys something. *Without question the biggest threat facing this country is liberalism*, and I went on a 20-minute riff. I wish it had been recorded. I totally ad-libbed this thing, it was similar to monologues that I do here behind the Golden EIB Microphone, but I went on for 15 minutes.

The next day, they were still buzzing about it, and they said, "Rush, if you'd have told us to turn around we're marching into the ocean, we'd have followed you."

Liberalism has destroyed the black family

*Liberalism is the greatest enemy this country faces,* because too much of this country is ignorant. It's the most expensive commodity we have, ignorance.

*Liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces.*

July 7, 2010
RUSH:  * The left is* relentless.* The left is who it is.* They are who they are, and they are dishonest as they can be.* Trying to deal with them the same way you would deal with one of your recalcitrant children is not gonna work.* I mean, we're dealing with *true, evil,* diabolic deviousness here.*

They are to be defeated.* They are not to be gotten along with. I hate that phrase. I'm having a mental block.* They're not people to have friendly relationships with.* You don't have to be unfriendly, but the point is not to get along with these people.* It's not to form a compromise.* There's no compromise with these people. How the hell do you compromise with evil?* *


----------



## The T

Flaylo said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that most Americans are Islamophobic pieces of shit like Juan Williams? Speak for yourselves dipshits, don't lump all Americans with ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is a LIBERAL, _dipshit_. I disagree with most of what he says on most topics. Thing is...he, [unlike YOU], tries to see the other side of things. That's what he is guilty of. And that NPR very likely didn't WANT him on FOX.
> 
> You are a narrow-minded shithead as the rest of those that pretend to _think_ as you FAILO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut your fucking face retarded asshat, Juan Williams isn't a liberal, he's just good ol Juan Williams, do you know what fucking liberal is?
Click to expand...

 
You are not in a postion to tell anyone to do anything. 

Carry on soldier!


----------



## Big Black Dog

I'm not a big Juan Williams fan.  I very rarely agree with his opinions but I think it's wrong to fire a guy for speaking what he believes.


----------



## Foxfyre

Intense said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  Muslim dilemma.  Mr. OReilly said,  The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of  books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big mistake. I may not usually agree with Juan, but I respect his honesty and integrity. He's a good Soul.
Click to expand...


Yes.  He is what I refer to as an intelligent liberal which makes him pretty much anathema to the statists and political class.

Let's see.  Juan has defended the President on a number of issues that O'Reilly was criticizing the President for.  He has defended the stimulus, has defended the budget, is pro choice, and is definitely the liberal voice on Fox News Public Affairs program.  His book on Thurgood Marshall is excellent but defends and applauds every liberal concept supported by Marshall and most liberals since.


----------



## blastoff

Care4all said:


> except NOT ONE of the 19 Muslims (jihad) that brought the world trade center and Pentagon down, were WEARING Muslim garb...
> 
> i feel sorry for him too...



Of course not.  They were trying to "fit in."  Which is why for example they shaved beards before commencing their heinous operation.  Didn't want to draw undo attention to themselves at the airports.


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> From what I've read and heard about this situation, firing him was incredibly stupid.







peace...


----------



## hjmick

WillowTree said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much  for tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance and the left have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...


Unless you agree with them...



Truthmatters said:


> You can lose your job for insulting customers.
> 
> 
> He insulted all of their Muslim viewers



Really? National Public Radio has a lot of viewers?


----------



## Trajan

this is wrong and just symptomatic  of the hypocrisy of the self proclaimed uber-tolerant.

 I'd sue their ass off if possible...oh and I like how the way they couched it on their site 

NPR Ends Juan Williams' Contract After Muslim Remarks : NPR

they  "terminated his contract" ....oh really? You mean you_  fired_ him? 
The hoi polloi terminology to much for NPR? 


On another, but similar note;

I am left wondering where NPR's lambasting of Obama grandmother is? The editorial as to how  the person who  raised a guy that transcends race was a bigot for being  described  as exactly the same,  except using blacks on the street instead of Muslims on an airplane? ahhh that screed probably got lost in the NPR worship bucket.


----------



## Foxfyre

hjmick said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lose your job for insulting customers.
> 
> 
> He insulted all of their Muslim viewers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? National Public Radio has a lot of viewers?
Click to expand...


NPR's fortunes have actually increased over the past decade, mostly because of the upsurge of liberal fervor in an "I hate Bush" culture and because of the failure and demise of Air America which was pretty much the only other national outlet the statists and political class had.  The last I looked at the market shares, some 20 million people will have tuned into NPR over a 24-hour period which is certainly respectable and would make them viable if they were a commercial entity.  However, in the cooldown after all the Messiah fervor, it remains to be seen if NPR will continue such success.

Certainly if they pull many more stunts like firing Juan Williams, they will lose a lot of their conservative base which most likely makes up at least half of their audience.  There's a limit to how much blatant bias a mostly conservative America will tolerate.  I certainly don't look to NPR for much comprehensive news and commentary, but they do carry some on air live broadcasts of interest to me that I can't get anywhere else and I enjoy some of their music and educational programming.

The Williams thing is so disgusting, however, that it is off putting and makes me think more negatively of NPR.   Will that cause me to tune to that station less?   It could.


----------



## tinydancer

bodecea said:


> From what I've read and heard about this situation, firing him was incredibly stupid.



I just saw the segment in question.

There is no doubt in my mind that he was saying this apologetically, ashamedly. As if he didn't want to admit that he had this fear, but he did.

If we have travelled so far down the politically correct road that an honored man in media, without a bigotted bone in his body, can offer an honest opinion about an irrational fear of his and be penalized by a knee jerk firing and have his reputation scarred by such an incident, is there any turning back?

I'm pissed as a conservative. 

I think it's time NPR hears from right and left and everyone in between by email in the next few days decrying this absurd action of theirs.

It's shameful.


----------



## Ravi

You people are honestly about as dishonest, or stupid, as it is possible to be. If he had made the same comments about any other group, including whites, Christians, Jews, Latinos, women, etc...he'd still have exposed himself as a stupid bigot and been fired.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lose your job for insulting customers.
> 
> 
> He insulted all of their Muslim viewers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? National Public Radio has a lot of viewers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NPR's fortunes have actually increased over the past decade, mostly because of the upsurge of liberal fervor in an "I hate Bush" culture and because of the failure and demise of Air America which was pretty much the only other national outlet the statists and political class had. The last I looked at the market shares, some 20 million people will have tuned into NPR over a 24-hour period which is certainly respectable and would make them viable if they were a commercial entity. However, in the cooldown after all the Messiah fervor, it remains to be seen if NPR will continue such success.
> 
> Certainly if they pull many more stunts like firing Juan Williams, they will lose a lot of their conservative base which most likely makes up at least half of their audience. There's a limit to how much blatant bias a mostly conservative America will tolerate. I certainly don't look to NPR for much comprehensive news and commentary, but they do carry some on air live broadcasts of interest to me that I can't get anywhere else and I enjoy some of their music and educational programming.
> 
> The Williams thing is so disgusting, however, that it is off putting and makes me think more negatively of NPR. Will that cause me to tune to that station less? It could.
Click to expand...

 
It further bolsters my resolve to DEFUND it so taxpayers cease funding this PC claptrap. And includes PBS. They both have outlived their usefulness with Cable, Satellite, and the Internet available now as it wasn't when both those enties were created.

Taxpayers? Demand they be defunded.

~T


----------



## CMike

Gotta love how much liberals care about free speech.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Mad Scientist said:


> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  Muslim dilemma.  Mr. OReilly said,  The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of  books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.
Click to expand...


THAT CRACKS ME UP!!!

He dodges and dodges straight talk on any show he's on, he always has to pause before he speaks, just to make sure he doesn't say anything wrong.

ONE TIME he speaks from the heart and NPR cans the "vile racist".   Just goes to show that NPR is not news, it's only opinion, and any one that strays from that opinon is shark bait.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

wait, that's not funny

A man lost his job for being honest.  NPR should be investigated for censorship.  No one should lose thier job while exercising thier right to free speech.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> You people are honestly about as dishonest, or stupid, as it is possible to be. If he had made the same comments about any other group, including whites, Christians, Jews, Latinos, women, etc...he'd still have exposed himself as a stupid bigot and been fired.



That's bullshit and you know it. People say whatever they want to about Christians, Jews, and women in this country and most of the absurd bigoted hateful shit comes from the left.


----------



## Trajan

Ravi said:


> You people are honestly about as dishonest, or stupid, as it is possible to be. If he had made the same comments about any other group, including whites, Christians, Jews, Latinos, women, etc...he'd still have exposed himself as a stupid bigot and been fired.



who's playing the "if they said it about anyone else" card now? 

How many castigation's of Christian mores/symbols etc. does there need to take place a year on msm outlets absent  punishment to get your attention? How about 'racially insensitive' remarks by dems as to their own party leader?  

my god the humanity.........comedy gold.


----------



## The T

Isn't it nice that in a FREE NATION it is a _*firing offense*_ to express your views? CAIR should be proud. They are the ones that demanded this.

You Liberal/Statist _Dolts_ carry on with your PC Claptrap_...the result will be something you will be responsible for if it continues._


----------



## WillowTree

Someone, I don't recall who has already called for the Federal Government to cease funding NPR. I agree with that notion. The Federal Government should uphold the first amendment.


----------



## Ravi

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are honestly about as dishonest, or stupid, as it is possible to be. If he had made the same comments about any other group, including whites, Christians, Jews, Latinos, women, etc...he'd still have exposed himself as a stupid bigot and been fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit and you know it. People say whatever they want to about Christians, Jews, and women in this country and most of the absurd bigoted hateful shit comes from the left.
Click to expand...

Really? Show me one NPR employee that has made similar comments about another group and kept their job.


----------



## AquaAthena

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are honestly about as dishonest, or stupid, as it is possible to be. If he had made the same comments about any other group, including whites, Christians, Jews, Latinos, women, etc...he'd still have exposed himself as a stupid bigot and been fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit and you know it. People say whatever they want to about Christians, Jews, and women in this country and *most of the absurd bigoted hateful shit comes from the left*.
Click to expand...


Only a liberal, could disagree.


----------



## uptownlivin90

I'm afraid of 30 year old white males in black trench coats with sun glasses. I think we can all agree that there are some "looks" that people have that might make others uncomfortable, that's probably natural.

Juan made the point however (if you watch the tape fully) that we shouldn't let these natural feelings get the best of us and make us start treating people differently. Because that's what America is about acknowledging and respecting our differences and working together despite them. If we have more discussions with the tone that Juan Williams was using on O'Reilly's show America would be so much better off.

I don't think that the "NPR" types and the majroity of the corporate media (FOX included) are interested in the realities that the majority of Americans face. They're pompous college types who believe we all operate like tools and can be controlled using manuals and text books. There theories soon enough going to come crashing down before there eyes. However, hopefully those theories come crashing down, before this nation does.


----------



## JWBooth

I'm no fan of Williams, it wouldn't bother me to never hear another of his utterances.  

From the articles I have seen, he went to great lengths to point out his own discomfort with his personal fear of Muslims on airplanes.  He advocated for no restrictions, prohibitions, or any negative point of view.  It is foolish to use these remarks to dismiss him from his employment.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are honestly about as dishonest, or stupid, as it is possible to be. If he had made the same comments about any other group, including whites, Christians, Jews, Latinos, women, etc...he'd still have exposed himself as a stupid bigot and been fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit and you know it. People say whatever they want to about Christians, Jews, and women in this country and most of the absurd bigoted hateful shit comes from the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Show me one NPR employee that has made similar comments about another group and kept their job.
Click to expand...


What other group other than radical Islam would be accurate as a worldwide threat these days?  Anybody who named anybody else should be fired for stupidity, not bigotry.


----------



## AquaAthena

WillowTree said:


> Someone, I don't recall who has already called for the Federal Government to cease funding NPR. I agree with that notion. The Federal Government should uphold the first amendment.



I also agree with that. We earn that money and our taxes should go to enhance the lives of ALL Americans, not just a portion...


----------



## hjmick

Foxfyre said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lose your job for insulting customers.
> 
> 
> He insulted all of their Muslim viewers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? National Public Radio has a lot of viewers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NPR's fortunes have actually increased over the past decade, mostly because of the upsurge of liberal fervor in an "I hate Bush" culture and because of the failure and demise of Air America which was pretty much the only other national outlet the statists and political class had.  The last I looked at the market shares, some 20 million people will have tuned into NPR over a 24-hour period which is certainly respectable and would make them viable if they were a commercial entity.  However, in the cooldown after all the Messiah fervor, it remains to be seen if NPR will continue such success.
> 
> Certainly if they pull many more stunts like firing Juan Williams, they will lose a lot of their conservative base which most likely makes up at least half of their audience.  There's a limit to how much blatant bias a mostly conservative America will tolerate.  I certainly don't look to NPR for much comprehensive news and commentary, but they do carry some on air live broadcasts of interest to me that I can't get anywhere else and I enjoy some of their music and educational programming.
> 
> The Williams thing is so disgusting, however, that it is off putting and makes me think more negatively of NPR.   Will that cause me to tune to that station less?   It could.
Click to expand...


That's all good and well, but it's _*radio*_! Radio has no viewers, zero... It's _*radio*_... Radio has listeners.

Man, you take all the fun out of fucking with TM...


----------



## Two Thumbs

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are honestly about as dishonest, or stupid, as it is possible to be. If he had made the same comments about any other group, including whites, Christians, Jews, Latinos, women, etc...he'd still have exposed himself as a stupid bigot and been fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit and you know it. People say whatever they want to about Christians, Jews, and women in this country and most of the absurd bigoted hateful shit comes from the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Show me one NPR employee that has made similar comments about another group and kept their job.
Click to expand...


Chris Hedges warns against a radical minority within the Christian right. Hedges talks about ... Copyright © 2007 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only.

Author Argues Christian Right Hurts Democracy : NPR
```````````````````````````
Joe Carter explains why NPR is objectively better than commercial talk radio. I agree with almost everything he says. Part of it is the commercial element and the fact that callers have nothing to say. Callers on NPR vary, but many of them have real questions of shows' guests or engage in a real discussion. Hannity, Limbaugh, et. al. are just looking for dittos from unthinking thralls or a punching bag at whom to rant. The people who fill these roles seem to fill them admirably. Those drawn to call such shows are exactly the type the hosts want calling. Anyone with anything intelligent to contribute just doesn't fit the format and won't likely be listening anyway.
```````````````````````````````````
Author Argues Christian Right Hurts Democracy : NPR
... Chris Hedges warns against a radical minority within the Christian right. Hedges talks about ... Copyright © 2007 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only.

Author Argues Christian Right Hurts Democracy : NPR
```````````````````````````````````


That was on the 1st page of a quick search.


----------



## masquerade

hjmick said:


> Really? National Public Radio has a lot of viewers?


That's National Politically-correct Radio!


----------



## PixieStix

The truth often becomes a casualty in the war for idealism


----------



## Foxfyre

hjmick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? National Public Radio has a lot of viewers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR's fortunes have actually increased over the past decade, mostly because of the upsurge of liberal fervor in an "I hate Bush" culture and because of the failure and demise of Air America which was pretty much the only other national outlet the statists and political class had.  The last I looked at the market shares, some 20 million people will have tuned into NPR over a 24-hour period which is certainly respectable and would make them viable if they were a commercial entity.  However, in the cooldown after all the Messiah fervor, it remains to be seen if NPR will continue such success.
> 
> Certainly if they pull many more stunts like firing Juan Williams, they will lose a lot of their conservative base which most likely makes up at least half of their audience.  There's a limit to how much blatant bias a mostly conservative America will tolerate.  I certainly don't look to NPR for much comprehensive news and commentary, but they do carry some on air live broadcasts of interest to me that I can't get anywhere else and I enjoy some of their music and educational programming.
> 
> The Williams thing is so disgusting, however, that it is off putting and makes me think more negatively of NPR.   Will that cause me to tune to that station less?   It could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all good and well, but it's _*radio*_! Radio has no viewers, zero... It's _*radio*_... Radio has listeners.
> 
> Man, you take all the fun out of fucking with TM...
Click to expand...


Oh sh*t.  I forgot to put the grin in up there.  I did catch that.  And it was good.


----------



## Ravi

He's not an NPR employee.


----------



## hjmick

Ravi said:


> He's not an NPR employee.



Not anymore.


----------



## PixieStix

When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious


----------



## The T

PixieStix said:


> The truth often becomes a casualty in the war for idealism


 
Very true words. It's been replaced by Political Correctness out of FEAR. And can we face fact here? Statists/Liberals Fear Religion...and they FEAR jhihadists in the form of Muslims that practice it as not to prevoke them.

And interesting they are taking up the wrong cause? However? What are Jhihadists but Fascists/Socilaists that rule by FIAT similiar as Statism exists here? Either tow the line or be slammed.


----------



## JWBooth

PixieStix said:


> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious



Hotness level of the Stew.


----------



## hjmick

PixieStix said:


> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious



The exits.


----------



## The T

PixieStix said:


> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious


 
I do it regardless of mode of travel. I'm always watching people and behaviour of others. Society in it's present form demands the vigilence.

It's a sad commentary as to the wrong road we're on.


----------



## hjmick

JWBooth said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hotness level of the Stew.
Click to expand...


That would be "In Flight Safety Facilitator."


----------



## Foxfyre

PixieStix said:


> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious



Well I don't look for Muslims actually.  I look for the roomiest or quietest seat near an exit if I can't sit near the front.

BUT. . . . .

In an airport, and it seems I've spent a lot of time in them lately, if you see a bunch of nuns clustered together you note they are nuns, might wonder where they're headed, but don't think anything about it.  Ditto re a bunch of redheaded Irish or a group of Gater fans in logo sweatshirts or an Italian tour or a Nigerian probably soccer team.  You notice such groups but they don't prompt concerns.

But a group of Middle Eastern looking guys, usually without luggage, touching bases with each other and then separating. . . .those I think about.

And I don't think I'm racist when I do.


----------



## Trajan

PixieStix said:


> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious



the drink cart....


----------



## JWBooth

hjmick said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hotness level of the Stew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be "In Flight Safety Facilitator."
Click to expand...


So its been a while since I did any flying....


----------



## Ravi

PixieStix said:


> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious


The bathroom.


----------



## Capitalist

Truthmatters said:


> Dont you know how elections work?


Tell us again about how Federal Judges are elected.


----------



## PixieStix

Ravi said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious
> 
> 
> 
> The bathroom.
Click to expand...



The bathroom is always in the back. Just an FYI, so you don't waste time


----------



## Capitalist

National Public Radio used taxpayer dollars to bash teabaggers on their  website
Learn  to Speak Teabag




I guess it depends on what group of customers are supposedly being insulted.


----------



## The T

Capitalist said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont you know how elections work?
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about how Federal Judges are elected.
Click to expand...

 

Whoops!


----------



## Sunni Man

PixieStix said:


> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious


My seat.


----------



## The T

hjmick said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> When any of you board a plane, what is the first thing you look for? Just curious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hotness level of the Stew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be "In Flight Safety Facilitator."
Click to expand...

 
Gotta be PC dontchaknow?


----------



## mal

Truthmatters said:


> You can lose your job for insulting customers.
> 
> 
> He insulted all of their Muslim viewers



And NPR Regularly Insults Christians with their Selective and Stereotypical "Reporting" on Christian Issues and Incidents.

I'd LOVE to get some of the "Reporting" from Waco and McVeigh.

But then again, they Hide behind "Guests" who do the Real Dirty Work.

NPR just gives them the Forum. 



peace...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Npr caved to CAIR .


----------



## Ravi

mal said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lose your job for insulting customers.
> 
> 
> He insulted all of their Muslim viewers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And NPR Regularly Insults Christians with their Selective and Stereotypical "Reporting" on Christian Issues and Incidents.
> 
> I'd LOVE to get some of the "Reporting" from Waco and McVeigh.
> 
> But then again, they Hide behind "Guests" who do the Real Dirty Work.
> 
> NPR just gives them the Forum.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...

It's easy for you to lie with nothing to back yourself up, eh mal? Asshole.


----------



## saveliberty

Things Juan needs to do:

1.  Hire an attorney.
2.  Write a book.
3.  Appear on The View.  Shouldn't that be Some Views?
4.  Run for President in 2012.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lose your job for insulting customers.
> 
> 
> He insulted all of their Muslim viewers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And NPR Regularly Insults Christians with their Selective and Stereotypical "Reporting" on Christian Issues and Incidents.
> 
> I'd LOVE to get some of the "Reporting" from Waco and McVeigh.
> 
> But then again, they Hide behind "Guests" who do the Real Dirty Work.
> 
> NPR just gives them the Forum.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's easy for you to lie with nothing to back yourself up, eh mal? Asshole.
Click to expand...


Poor Neglected Ravi... Have you Figured out what a Dangling Chad is yet, Kid?... 

Oh wait, that was your Sockpuppet...



peace...


----------



## Queen

NPR news analysts don't do extremist/biggoted opinions. If they do, they don't get to go on NPR anymore. 

Makes NPR even more attractive to people who want to hear the news and make their own opinions. 

People who need someone to tell them what their opinion should be should stick to FOX. 

Critical thinkers stay with NPR.


----------



## mal

NPR Obviously Hates Honesty and Free Speech...



peace...


----------



## Capitalist

On Sundays Reliable Sources on CNN, during a discussion  of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy,  after Bloombergs Margaret Carlson recommended that the Mosque be moved as a Compromise, NPRs Michel Martin   formerly of ABC News   compared relocating the Mosque  to moving a Catholic  Church after the Oklahoma  City bombing.

On Sundays Reliable Sources on CNN, during a discussion  of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy,  after Bloombergs Margaret Carlson recommended that the Mosque be moved as a Compromise, *NPRs Michel Martin   formerly of ABC News   compared relocating the Mosque  to moving a Catholic  Church after the Oklahoma  City bombing.*

READ MORE >>

No outcry?


----------



## Foxfyre

Capitalist said:


> National Public Radio used taxpayer dollars to bash teabaggers on their  website
> Learn  to Speak Teabag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends on what group of customers are supposedly being insulted.



In NPR's defense, however, this piece referred mostly to an NPR editorial cartoon that seemed to be poking fun a Tea Partiers.  And they published a long string of criticisms re that cartoon they received from their listeners.  NPR has not been unusually critical of the Church and have been more balanced in their straight news reporting re the Church than have been the alphabet networks.  I really don't fault NPR all that much in their news reporting and they are as good as Fox there.  But just as Fox editorially leans far right, NPR editorially leans far left and I think sometimes tends to be disingenuous in its slant.

I suppose being philosophically liberal, however, NPR did feel obligated to jump on the "I love and will passionately defend everything Muslim" band wagon that seems to be the current rage.


----------



## WillowTree

I am anxious now to know what Mr. O'Reily will say/do about this. It should get interesting.


----------



## Capitalist

If you were in the presence of a man having a  heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in  desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from  dying? Of course you would.
 But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a  producer for National Public Radio. (update: Spitz was a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW for the show Left,  Right & Center), that isn&#8217;t what you&#8217;d do at all.


In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man  die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. &#8220;I never  knew I had this much hate in me,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;But he deserves it.&#8221;

Read  more:  Liberal journalists suggest government censor Fox News | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment​
​


----------



## saveliberty

O'Reilly makes hostile takeover bid on NPR.


----------



## Capitalist

NPRs  Nina Totenberg said in 1995, because if there is retributive  justice, hell [Jesse Helms] get AIDS from a transfusion. Or one of his  grandchildren will get it.


----------



## Capitalist

Are Juan Williams statements worse that Obamas regarding his  grandmother?
*My grandmother is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on  the street that she doesnt know, theres a reaction in her that doesnt  go away and it comes out in the wrong way.*


----------



## Foxfyre

Queen said:


> NPR news analysts don't do extremist/biggoted opinions. If they do, they don't get to go on NPR anymore.
> 
> Makes NPR even more attractive to people who want to hear the news and make their own opinions.
> 
> People who need someone to tell them what their opinion should be should stick to FOX.
> 
> Critical thinkers stay with NPR.



Don't confuse news analyst parroting your views with being non-extremist or non-bigoted.  When you can show that NPR has given equal time to the major issues of the day; i.e. budget, spending, healthcare package, etc. etc.; and has pointed out all the negatives AND positives, then I'll agree with you that they are as competent as Fox in reporting the news.  Fox does give all sides to every issue.   I don't believe you can show that NPR does.

But I guess it is human nature that people generally like whatever agrees with them and consider such to be superior to all other.


----------



## Meister

So....who's coming to the defense of Juan Williams?
Is it the racist, I got mine, screw you, Conservatives?
Or is it the party of diversity, out for the little guy, and champion of the Black man, Liberals?


----------



## rdean

Now he can devote all his time to Fox news.  He belongs there anyway.


----------



## Ravi

Meister said:


> So....who's coming to the defense of Juan Williams?
> Is it the racist, I got mine, screw you, Conservatives?
> Or is it the party of diversity, out for the little guy, and champion of the Black man, Liberals?


I'd say the racist, screw you conservatives. After all, he was bashing Muslims.


----------



## Kat

I have always liked Juan, even though I don't agree with much of his views (some I do). He's calm, he's smart, and not a parrot!! Kudo's to him for his guts. &#9829;


----------



## The T

Meister said:


> So....who's coming to the defense of Juan Williams?
> Is it the racist, I got mine, screw you, Conservatives?
> Or is it the party of diversity, out for the little guy, and champion of the Black man, Liberals?


 

Uhm-hmmmm...remember? *WE* are the _narrow-minded ones?_


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> People better wake up in this country.
> 
> They are now stepping on our RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Click to expand...


No. You are stupid. It has everything to do with free speech. The reason you say it doesn't is cause deep down you don't believe in free speech.


----------



## The T

Ravi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....who's coming to the defense of Juan Williams?
> Is it the racist, I got mine, screw you, Conservatives?
> Or is it the party of diversity, out for the little guy, and champion of the Black man, Liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the racist, screw you conservatives. After all, he was bashing Muslims.
Click to expand...

 

He did NO SUCH THING. He expressed the same thing most Americans have since 9/11/2001.

But you plod on, umkay?


----------



## Ravi

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> People better wake up in this country.
> 
> They are now stepping on our RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You are stupid. It has everything to do with free speech. The reason you say it doesn't is cause deep down you don't believe in free speech.
Click to expand...

 It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are stupid. It has everything to do with free speech. The reason you say it doesn't is cause deep down you don't believe in free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Click to expand...


It has everything to do with free speech.


----------



## Ravi

The T said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....who's coming to the defense of Juan Williams?
> Is it the racist, I got mine, screw you, Conservatives?
> Or is it the party of diversity, out for the little guy, and champion of the Black man, Liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the racist, screw you conservatives. After all, he was bashing Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did NO SUCH THING. He expressed the same thing most Americans have since 9/11/2001.
> 
> But you plod on, umkay?
Click to expand...

Wrong. He was being a bigot by criticizing people for how they dress....





> *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they  are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims*


----------



## Ravi

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are stupid. It has everything to do with free speech. The reason you say it doesn't is cause deep down you don't believe in free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with free speech.
Click to expand...

Nope. I realize you're a retard.


----------



## Meister

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are stupid. It has everything to do with free speech. The reason you say it doesn't is cause deep down you don't believe in free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with free speech.
Click to expand...


Not only freedom of speech, but also, freedom of thought


----------



## Capitalist

Can't take the heat........ Hahahahahaha.


----------



## The T

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are stupid. It has everything to do with free speech. The reason you say it doesn't is cause deep down you don't believe in free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with free speech.
Click to expand...

 
^100% [That is all that is new and approved by the Statist Intelligentsia].


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I realize you're a retard.
Click to expand...


Which beats being a libtard every day of the week. You wouldn't recognize free speech because you don't believe in free speech.


----------



## The T

Ravi said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the racist, screw you conservatives. After all, he was bashing Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did NO SUCH THING. He expressed the same thing most Americans have since 9/11/2001.
> 
> But you plod on, umkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. He was being a bigot by criticizing people for how they dress....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 

He made an observation...AND?


----------



## WillowTree

The backlsh against this recent round of libtard stupidity is going to be enormous. Right at election time too.


----------



## Ravi

Meister said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only freedom of speech, but also, freedom of thought
Click to expand...

No it doesn't...



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Firing someone for sticking his foot in his mouth is not a freedom of speech issue.


----------



## The T

WillowTree said:


> The backlsh against this recent round of libtard stupidity is going to be enormous. Right at election time too.


 
Which proves the axiom? If you place a flaming bag of bullsqueeze at a Statists' doorstep? They go way out of their way to step in it.


----------



## The T

Ravi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only freedom of speech, but also, freedom of thought
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firing someone for sticking his foot in his mouth is not a freedom of speech issue.
Click to expand...

 
But a Government entity that the TAXPAYERS pay for cannot handle ANY alternate thought from that of the Leftists that run that entity.

Taxpayers should demand NPR/PBS be shut down for this.

*NEXT*


----------



## WillowTree

The T said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> The backlsh against this recent round of libtard stupidity is going to be enormous. Right at election time too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which proves the axiom? If you place a flaming bag of bullsqueeze at a Statists' doorstep? They go way out of their way to step in it.
Click to expand...


It was Mike Huckabee who has called for de-funding NPR. Now when the Republicans get the House and the Senate and are faced with budget cuts.. it may come time to put NPR on the shelf or let the libtards fund it on their own dime. then,, as Air America went so goes NPR.


----------



## The T

WillowTree said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> The backlsh against this recent round of libtard stupidity is going to be enormous. Right at election time too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which proves the axiom? If you place a flaming bag of bullsqueeze at a Statists' doorstep? They go way out of their way to step in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was Mike Huckabee who has called for de-funding NPR. Now when the Republicans get the House and the Senate and are faced with budget cuts.. it may come time to put NPR on the shelf or let the libtards fund it on their own dime. then,, as Air America went so goes NPR.
Click to expand...

 
No question. It needs to go. The taxpayers should not be forced to fund PC crap funded by their dollar that is intolerant of opposing views.


----------



## Ravi

For people that claim to worship the constitution you sure don't know much about it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Meister said:


> So....who's coming to the defense of Juan Williams?
> Is it the racist, I got mine, screw you, Conservatives?
> Or is it the party of diversity, out for the little guy, and champion of the Black man, Liberals?



But remember, once they are perceived to have strayed off the reservation, the black man is no longer 'black' and therefore and therefore is no longer of the protected class; the smart, capable woman is no longer a smart, capable woman but is bat shit crazy, hill billy, stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous; the Hispanic is a discredit to his race or a pawn of the rightwingnuts, etc.

And if they dare say anything critical of anybody perceived to be part of the new protected class, Muslims, they must be destroyed as racists, bigots, and close minded hatemongerers intent on denying them of their legal and civil rights and relegating them to second class or no class as well as being willing to destroy the Constitution.

At least that's what I've been accused of if I dare criticize anything Muslim, even Muslim extremists.   And I am nowhere near as high profile as Juan Williams.

I actually watched the segment on The View where members snottily and emphatically bashed Bill O'Reilly for saying that it was Muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Those were not Muslims these sanctimonious pinheads said.  They were extremists.

So, you got that?   Not Muslims.  Extremists.   And just like we aren't allowed to use the President's middle name without being accused of being racist, we are no longer allowed to associate Muslims with extremists.

Interesting world we live in.  And it is getting crazier and crazier.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> For people that claim to worship the constitution you sure don't know much about it.



What we worship is fair play, something else you don't know shit about.


----------



## Kat

Foxfyre said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....who's coming to the defense of Juan Williams?
> Is it the racist, I got mine, screw you, Conservatives?
> Or is it the party of diversity, out for the little guy, and champion of the Black man, Liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But remember, once they are perceived to have strayed off the reservation, the black man is no longer 'black' and therefore of the protected class; the start, capable woman is no longer a smart, capable woman but is bat shit crazy, hill billy, stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous; the Hispanic is a discredit to his race or a pawn of the rightwingnuts, etc.
> 
> And if they dare say anything critical of anybody perceived to be part of the new protected class, Muslims, they must be destroyed as racists, bigots, and close minded hatemongerers intent on denying them of their legal and civil rights and relegating them to second class or no class as well as being willing to destroy the Constitution.
> 
> At least that's what I've been accused of if I dare criticize anything Muslim.   And I am nowhere near as high profile as Juan Williams.
Click to expand...




Trying to squash you...shut you up..PC you. I will never be PC..and never allow a group of ANY think for me.


----------



## The T

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For people that claim to worship the constitution you sure don't know much about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we worship is fair play, something else you don't know shit about.
Click to expand...

 
Fair play? Certainly. But not their definition of it.


----------



## The T

Ravi said:


> For people that claim to worship the constitution you sure don't know much about it.


 
We do. And ODD that people that "_worship_" the Constitution? Know 
 how it should be played. *YOU* have shown that you do _not _with all the certainy you can muster.

Juan is on TV today attacking the Tea Party...and within his right as being a citizen of this Republic in the public realm. And we will meet him with equal velocity on this issue to the negative as we have here defending him.

See how that works? *I doubt it*


----------



## Foxfyre

Kat said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....who's coming to the defense of Juan Williams?
> Is it the racist, I got mine, screw you, Conservatives?
> Or is it the party of diversity, out for the little guy, and champion of the Black man, Liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But remember, once they are perceived to have strayed off the reservation, the black man is no longer 'black' and therefore of the protected class; the start, capable woman is no longer a smart, capable woman but is bat shit crazy, hill billy, stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous; the Hispanic is a discredit to his race or a pawn of the rightwingnuts, etc.
> 
> And if they dare say anything critical of anybody perceived to be part of the new protected class, Muslims, they must be destroyed as racists, bigots, and close minded hatemongerers intent on denying them of their legal and civil rights and relegating them to second class or no class as well as being willing to destroy the Constitution.
> 
> At least that's what I've been accused of if I dare criticize anything Muslim.   And I am nowhere near as high profile as Juan Williams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to squash you...shut you up..PC you. I will never be PC..and never allow a group of ANY think for me.
Click to expand...


Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now.  Wanna make it a two-woman campaign?   I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.


----------



## Kat

Foxfyre said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But remember, once they are perceived to have strayed off the reservation, the black man is no longer 'black' and therefore of the protected class; the start, capable woman is no longer a smart, capable woman but is bat shit crazy, hill billy, stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous; the Hispanic is a discredit to his race or a pawn of the rightwingnuts, etc.
> 
> And if they dare say anything critical of anybody perceived to be part of the new protected class, Muslims, they must be destroyed as racists, bigots, and close minded hatemongerers intent on denying them of their legal and civil rights and relegating them to second class or no class as well as being willing to destroy the Constitution.
> 
> At least that's what I've been accused of if I dare criticize anything Muslim.   And I am nowhere near as high profile as Juan Williams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to squash you...shut you up..PC you. I will never be PC..and never allow a group of ANY think for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now.  Wanna make it a two-woman campaign?   I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.
Click to expand...



  Sure, why not.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But remember, once they are perceived to have strayed off the reservation, the black man is no longer 'black' and therefore of the protected class; the start, capable woman is no longer a smart, capable woman but is bat shit crazy, hill billy, stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous; the Hispanic is a discredit to his race or a pawn of the rightwingnuts, etc.
> 
> And if they dare say anything critical of anybody perceived to be part of the new protected class, Muslims, they must be destroyed as racists, bigots, and close minded hatemongerers intent on denying them of their legal and civil rights and relegating them to second class or no class as well as being willing to destroy the Constitution.
> 
> At least that's what I've been accused of if I dare criticize anything Muslim. And I am nowhere near as high profile as Juan Williams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to squash you...shut you up..PC you. I will never be PC..and never allow a group of ANY think for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now. Wanna make it a two-woman campaign? I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.
Click to expand...

 
Mind if I watch? 



BTW? Mara Liasson had better watch her back too since she holds jobs at NPR...and FOX...


----------



## WillowTree

I wonder how Whoopie and Joyless feel now? Their assinine behavior led to the conversation that got a black man fired from a libturd organization funded by we the people. Wonder how that shit sits in their craws?    oh the irony!


----------



## Annie

From within. One of the complaints:

CAIR Asks NPR to Address Analyst's Remarks on Muslims



> CAIR Asks NPR to Address Analyst's Remarks on Muslims
> Oct 20 03:26 PM US/Eastern
> Comments (0) Email to a friend Share on Facebook Tweet this Bookmark and Share
> 
> Juan Williams says airline passengers in 'Muslim garb' make him 'nervous'
> 
> WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today called on National Public Radio (NPR) to address analyst Juan Williams' statement that airline passengers in "Muslim garb" make him "nervous." (Williams is a news analyst for both NPR and Fox News.)
> 
> SEE: Juan Williams - News Analyst
> 
> Page Not Found
> 
> Become a Fan of CAIR on Facebook
> 
> CAIR | Facebook
> 
> Subscribe to CAIR's E-Mail List
> 
> CAIR : Mailing List Signup
> 
> Subscribe to CAIR's Twitter Feed
> 
> CAIR National (CAIRNational) on Twitter
> 
> The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that during an appearance Monday on Fox's "O'Reilly Factor," Williams backed Bill O'Reilly's recent claim that "Muslims killed us on 9/11" and then said: "[W]hen I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
> 
> Video: NPR Analyst Says 'Muslim Garb' Make Him 'Nervous'
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tp2vod3klA
> 
> "NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR."
> 
> He noted that media commentators who launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims normally do not suffer the professional consequences of those who similarly target other racial, ethnic or religious groups.
> 
> SEE: Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Triggers Little Fallout (ABC)
> 
> Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Triggers Little Fallout - ABC News
> 
> Awad said CAIR publishes a pocket guide, called "Your Rights and Responsibilities as an American Muslim," with a section that deals with the right of airline passengers to "courteous, respectful and non-stigmatizing treatment by airline and security personnel."
> 
> SEE: Know Your Legal Rights as an Airline Passenger
> 
> Know Your Rights
> 
> CAIR recently announced the launch of a department devoted to addressing the alarming rise of Islamophobic sentiment in American society.
> 
> SEE: CAIR Launches Islamophobia Dept. at Sold-Out Banquet
> 
> CAIR Launches Islamophobia Dept. at Sold-Out Banquet - Yahoo! News
> 
> CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
> 
> CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, 202-341-4171, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com
> 
> SOURCE Council on American-Islamic Relations


----------



## The T

WillowTree said:


> I wonder how Whoopie and Joyless feel now? Their assinine behavior led to the conversation that got a black man fired from a libturd organization funded by we the people. Wonder how that shit sits in their craws?  oh the irony!


 
They had better TOW the network line...that, I'll say with certainy!


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But remember, once they are perceived to have strayed off the reservation, the black man is no longer 'black' and therefore of the protected class; the start, capable woman is no longer a smart, capable woman but is bat shit crazy, hill billy, stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous; the Hispanic is a discredit to his race or a pawn of the rightwingnuts, etc.
> 
> And if they dare say anything critical of anybody perceived to be part of the new protected class, Muslims, they must be destroyed as racists, bigots, and close minded hatemongerers intent on denying them of their legal and civil rights and relegating them to second class or no class as well as being willing to destroy the Constitution.
> 
> At least that's what I've been accused of if I dare criticize anything Muslim.   And I am nowhere near as high profile as Juan Williams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to squash you...shut you up..PC you. I will never be PC..and never allow a group of ANY think for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now.  Wanna make it a two-woman campaign?   I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.
Click to expand...

Christians are responsible for millions of deaths and pedophile acts.


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to squash you...shut you up..PC you. I will never be PC..and never allow a group of ANY think for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now. Wanna make it a two-woman campaign? I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mind if I watch?
> 
> 
> 
> BTW? Mara Liasson had better watch her back too since she holds jobs at NPR...and FOX...
Click to expand...


Shoot, we'll put you in a skirt and make it a group.


----------



## Revere

I say Fox should fire her just out of retaliation.


----------



## Kat

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to squash you...shut you up..PC you. I will never be PC..and never allow a group of ANY think for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now.  Wanna make it a two-woman campaign?   I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians are responsible for millions of deaths and pedophile acts.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ravi

Kat said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now.  Wanna make it a two-woman campaign?   I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are responsible for millions of deaths and pedophile acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I thought we were being non-pc?


----------



## Annie

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to squash you...shut you up..PC you. I will never be PC..and never allow a group of ANY think for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now.  Wanna make it a two-woman campaign?   I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians are responsible for millions of deaths and pedophile acts.
Click to expand...


Untrue. That would be rdean and everyone knows it.


----------



## The T

Ravi said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are responsible for millions of deaths and pedophile acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought we were being non-pc?
Click to expand...

 
That's because the meaning zoomed right over your head.


----------



## kwc57

Poor Juan!  I'm sure his FOX exposure as the token "liberal" replacement for Alan Colmes will increase and make up for any lost wages.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now. Wanna make it a two-woman campaign? I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind if I watch?
> 
> 
> 
> BTW? Mara Liasson had better watch her back too since she holds jobs at NPR...and FOX...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shoot, we'll put you in a skirt and make it a group.
Click to expand...

 
Cooll! The T: "The _Tootsie_" of USMB!


----------



## Kat

Ravi said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are responsible for millions of deaths and pedophile acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought we were being non-pc?
Click to expand...


I always have been. I do try to use decency. I guess what you said went over my head though.


----------



## B. Kidd

Flaylo said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee.....one less person, *at FAUX Noise*, promoting *Teabaggerpalooza*.Whatta _crime_......
> 
> 
> 
> Shaman ignorance on display. You obviously didn't read the article or the headline of this thread. Juan was let go from NPR for his statements on Muslims which most sane people find reasonable. He will still be on FoxNews spewing his Liberal talking points as he was last night.
> 
> There are at least three threads on this subject so you must be *trying to be willfully ignorant* of the facts.
> 
> Negged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams a fucking liberal? What fluid are you drinking?
Click to expand...


He's a sane liberal analyst, not an insane liberal pundit. But I would not expect someone who has a 'Proud Liberal' avatar to be able to make a distinction between the two.....


----------



## The T

kwc57 said:


> Poor Juan! I'm sure his FOX exposure as the token "liberal" replacement for Alan Colmes will increase and make up for any lost wages.


 
Nah...FOX is replete with Liberals...just not the Brand the FAR LEFT likes.


----------



## Ravi

Kat said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were being non-pc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always have been. I do try to use decency. I guess what you said went over my head though.
Click to expand...

 So slamming Muslims is a matter of pcism but slamming Christians is a matter of decency?

How confusing.


----------



## mal

kwc57 said:


> Poor Juan!  I'm sure his FOX exposure as the token "liberal" replacement for Alan Colmes will increase and make up for any lost wages.



Juan was there when Colmes was...



peace...


----------



## froggy

Where's the freedom of speech now


----------



## WillowTree

Revere said:


> I say Fox should fire her just out of retaliation.



Fox doesn't act like libtards.


----------



## Revere

The mark of totalitarians is to co-opt psychiatry to achieve their ends.

Juan, meet Gulag.

NPR CEO: Williams' Views Should Stay Between Himself And 'His Psychiatrist' : The Two-Way : NPR


----------



## WillowTree

kwc57 said:


> Poor Juan!  I'm sure his FOX exposure as the token "liberal" replacement for Alan Colmes will increase and make up for any lost wages.



Take your head out of your azz. Colmes still appears on Fox. God damn son but you are dumb.


----------



## Kat

Ravi said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were being non-pc?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always have been. I do try to use decency. I guess what you said went over my head though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So slamming Muslims is a matter of pcism but slamming Christians is a matter of decency?
> 
> How confusing.
Click to expand...


Ravi, I don't think he was slamming Muslims. He told his concerns. He was honest about it. What should he have said??



> "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country," Williams said.
> 
> "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," Williams said.
> 
> Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.
> 
> "He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams said.


----------



## Revere

WillowTree said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Juan!  I'm sure his FOX exposure as the token "liberal" replacement for Alan Colmes will increase and make up for any lost wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your head out of your azz. Colmes still appears on Fox. God damn son but you are dumb.
Click to expand...


And Bob Beckel.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> He's not an NPR employee.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/138148-why-didnt-npr-fire-nina-totenberg.html

Nina Totenberg still is... 



peace...


----------



## The T

Ravi said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were being non-pc?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always have been. I do try to use decency. I guess what you said went over my head though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So slamming Muslims is a matter of pcism but slamming Christians is a matter of decency?
> 
> How confusing.
Click to expand...

 

No...here's the DEAL...Leftists go way outta their way to unashamedly BASH Christians, Jews for supposedly forcing their views upon American Society...while the same left is _perceived_ as defending a group of religious zealots that have _OPENLY ANNOUNCED_ their intent to bring Sharia LAW and their ways under their flag to the _WHITEHOUSE._

_And that means YOU LEFTIES TOO DEARY._

Now...do NOT ask me for links...for the statements are everywhere [Google is your friend]. I am speaking from my observations.

Now you tell me where the problem lies?


----------



## Ravi

Kat said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always have been. I do try to use decency. I guess what you said went over my head though.
> 
> 
> 
> So slamming Muslims is a matter of pcism but slamming Christians is a matter of decency?
> 
> How confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ravi, I don't think he was slamming Muslims. He told his concerns. He was honest about it. What should he have said??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country," Williams said.
> 
> "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," Williams said.
> 
> Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.
> 
> "He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams said.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

How he feels, IMO, is that muslims being proud to be muslims is somehow wrong. In other words, he's accusing them of not being pc. And slamming them.

Oh, the irony.


----------



## Ravi

The T said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always have been. I do try to use decency. I guess what you said went over my head though.
> 
> 
> 
> So slamming Muslims is a matter of pcism but slamming Christians is a matter of decency?
> 
> How confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...here's the DEAL...Leftists go way outta they're way to unashamedly BASH Christians, Jews for supposedly forcing their views upon American Society...while the same left is _perceived_ as defending a group of religious zealots that have _OPENLY ANNOUNCED_ their intent to bring Sharia LAW and their ways under their flag to the _WHITEHOUSE._
> 
> _And that means YOU LEFTIES TOO DEARY._
> 
> Now...do NOT ask me for links...for the statements are everywhere [Google is your friend]. I am speaking from my observations.
> 
> Now you tell me where the problem lies?
Click to expand...

Again, you are claiming it is un-pc to slam Christians, and now Jews, but it is pc to slam Muslims.

Your head is messed up. Seriously.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were being non-pc?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always have been. I do try to use decency. I guess what you said went over my head though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So slamming Muslims is a matter of pcism but slamming Christians is a matter of decency?
> 
> How confusing.
Click to expand...


Who is Slamming Muslims?... Juan?...

How?



peace...


----------



## Kat

Ravi said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So slamming Muslims is a matter of pcism but slamming Christians is a matter of decency?
> 
> How confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi, I don't think he was slamming Muslims. He told his concerns. He was honest about it. What should he have said??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country," Williams said.
> 
> "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," Williams said.
> 
> Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.
> 
> "He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How he feels, IMO, is that muslims being proud to be muslims is somehow wrong. In other words, he's accusing them of not being pc. And slamming them.
> 
> Oh, the irony.
Click to expand...




No. He isn't. He is telling how it makes HIM feel...worried, nervous. Not that anyone was doing wrong. You are reading more into it. I take his word for it. I have always found him honest..even if I didn't agree with his views.
Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree here I suppose.


----------



## Revere

So Muslims dressing a certain way is a public religious expression?

Who, except Muslims and maybe the Amish, express their religion publicly so?


----------



## kwc57

WillowTree said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Juan!  I'm sure his FOX exposure as the token "liberal" replacement for Alan Colmes will increase and make up for any lost wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your head out of your azz. Colmes still appears on Fox. God damn son but you are dumb.
Click to expand...


Really???  A search of the FOX website lists his bio, but if you search the site, you can't find diddley squat on anything he has contributed to on air.  Juan on the other hand has become the replacement "go to" guy for the liberal view on many of the evening shows.


----------



## mal

Revere said:


> So Muslims dressing a certain way is a public religious expression?
> 
> Who, except Muslims and maybe the Amish, express their religion publicly so?



You gotta keep an Eye on those Fucking Militant Amish!... 



peace...


----------



## Revere

And Bob Beckel.


----------



## B. Kidd

Revere said:


> The mark of totalitarians is to co-opt psychiatry to achieve their ends.
> 
> Juan, meet Gulag.
> 
> NPR CEO: Williams' Views Should Stay Between Himself And 'His Psychiatrist' : The Two-Way : NPR




NPR not only fired Juan (and they didn't even do it in person), but they personally attacked him with this 'psychiatrist' comment.
Like 'The T' said, defund 'em!


----------



## The T

Ravi said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So slamming Muslims is a matter of pcism but slamming Christians is a matter of decency?
> 
> How confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...here's the DEAL...Leftists go way outta they're way to unashamedly BASH Christians, Jews for supposedly forcing their views upon American Society...while the same left is _perceived_ as defending a group of religious zealots that have _OPENLY ANNOUNCED_ their intent to bring Sharia LAW and their ways under their flag to the _WHITEHOUSE._
> 
> _And that means YOU LEFTIES TOO DEARY._
> 
> Now...do NOT ask me for links...for the statements are everywhere [Google is your friend]. I am speaking from my observations.
> 
> Now you tell me where the problem lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you are claiming it is un-pc to slam Christians, and now Jews, but it is pc to slam Muslims.
> 
> Your head is messed up. Seriously.
Click to expand...

 
Whom is the greater threat to this nation as the world lies right now? WHOM owns the mantle of _TERRORISM_ in the world as it is right this minute?

JEWS? Christians? Buddahists?

Right this minute? With certainy...Terrorists are _MUSLIMS. Juan was speaking to this...but yet he gets FIRED. Nice to know that one can get fired for stating the case of his beliefs/observations..._

You need to wake up Ravi. Seriously.


----------



## del

who gives a fuck?


----------



## Foxfyre

kwc57 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Juan!  I'm sure his FOX exposure as the token "liberal" replacement for Alan Colmes will increase and make up for any lost wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your head out of your azz. Colmes still appears on Fox. God damn son but you are dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really???  A search of the FOX website lists his bio, but if you search the site, you can't find diddley squat on anything he has contributed to on air.  Juan on the other hand has become the replacement "go to" guy for the liberal view on many of the evening shows.
Click to expand...


Colmes is on O'Reilly as a contributing commentator at least every week or two and appears on other panels now and then as well.

And this bio is prominently featured on Fox News' website.  You didn't do much of a search did you.



> Alan Colmes joined FOX News Channel in 1996. He served as the liberal counterpart and co-host of "Hannity & Colmes," a one-hour debate-driven talk show focusing on controversial newsmakers and issues of the day.
> 
> After a string of successful radio shows on WNBC, WABC and WMCA in New York, Colmes gained a reputation as a hard-hitting liberal known for his electric commentary on the American agenda. He has interviewed many key political figures, which include Former President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Steve Forbes, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Ralph Nader and Ken Starr.
> 
> Colmes hosted his own self-titled late night radio talk show on WEVD-AM. After penetrating the Boston market with a hit radio show on WZLX, Colmes went from major market success to national talk radio prominence in 1990 with his fast-paced and informative afternoon news-driven show, which aired daily on hundreds of affiliates nationwide. *Most recently, he returned to radio as host of a news-driven late-night talk show "The Alan Colmes Show," which is syndicated by the FOX News Channel. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/alan-colmes/


----------



## Annie

del said:


> who gives a fuck?



Actually all these talking heads make much more than they are worth. On the other hand, don't like seeing a fair minded liberal being gang banged by the left. 

When CAIR is against him, you know he's not all bad.


----------



## The T

mal said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Muslims dressing a certain way is a public religious expression?
> 
> Who, except Muslims and maybe the Amish, express their religion publicly so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta keep an Eye on those Fucking Militant Amish!...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...

 
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo74Dn7W_pA[/ame]


----------



## The T

Annie said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> who gives a fuck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually all these talking heads make much more than they are worth. On the other hand, don't like seeing a fair minded liberal being gang banged by the left.
> 
> When CAIR is against him, you know he's not all bad.
Click to expand...

 
While your words were few? Volumes were spoken.


----------



## mal

Foxfyre said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your head out of your azz. Colmes still appears on Fox. God damn son but you are dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really???  A search of the FOX website lists his bio, but if you search the site, you can't find diddley squat on anything he has contributed to on air.  Juan on the other hand has become the replacement "go to" guy for the liberal view on many of the evening shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Colmes is on O'Reilly as a contributing commentator at least every week or two and appears on other panels now and then as well.
> 
> And this bio is prominently featured on Fox News' website.  You didn't do much of a search did you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Colmes joined FOX News Channel in 1996. He served as the liberal counterpart and co-host of "Hannity & Colmes," a one-hour debate-driven talk show focusing on controversial newsmakers and issues of the day.
> 
> After a string of successful radio shows on WNBC, WABC and WMCA in New York, Colmes gained a reputation as a hard-hitting liberal known for his electric commentary on the American agenda. He has interviewed many key political figures, which include Former President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Steve Forbes, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Ralph Nader and Ken Starr.
> 
> Colmes hosted his own self-titled late night radio talk show on WEVD-AM. After penetrating the Boston market with a hit radio show on WZLX, Colmes went from major market success to national talk radio prominence in 1990 with his fast-paced and informative afternoon news-driven show, which aired daily on hundreds of affiliates nationwide. *Most recently, he returned to radio as host of a news-driven late-night talk show "The Alan Colmes Show," which is syndicated by the FOX News Channel. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Political News - FOXNews.com
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


"Who gives a fuck"... 



peace...


----------



## Ravi

Revere said:


> *So Muslims dressing a certain way is a public religious expression?*
> 
> Who, except Muslims and maybe the Amish, express their religion publicly so?


Yes...jeesh, did you fall off a turnip truck?


----------



## Revere

Why do Muslims get to express their religion (since their dress is their religion) in public places while Christians do not?


----------



## theHawk

Juan Williams has been spreading the progressive agenda for decades.   It's finnally caught up to him.  Boo fucking woo.


----------



## Revere

Stabbed in the back by his own ilk.


----------



## Annie

Revere said:


> Why do Muslims get to express their religion (since their dress is their religion) in public places while Christians do not?



Huh?


----------



## Revere

Muslims get to express their religion (their dress is their religion) in public.  Christians do not.


----------



## Ravi

Revere said:


> Why do Muslims get to express their religion (since their dress is their religion) in public places while Christians do not?


You're an idiot. Christians certainly can express their religion in public places.


----------



## Annie

Revere said:


> Muslims get to express their religion (their dress is their religion) in public.  Christians do not.



I've never had a problem wearing a cross or crucifix, what are you referring to? A stigmata?


----------



## del

Annie said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> who gives a fuck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually all these talking heads make much more than they are worth. On the other hand, don't like seeing a fair minded liberal being gang banged by the left.
> 
> When CAIR is against him, you know he's not all bad.
Click to expand...


i know nothing about him, hence my question. 

now that i know something about him, my question stands, albeit rhetorically.


----------



## The T

Revere said:


> Why do Muslims get to express their religion (since their dress is their religion) in public places while Christians do not?


 

Some do dress from their native lands...however? The 9/11 terrorists melded into our society...tried very hard to look as us. And there are a couple million of Muslims in our Society now that are Muslims that dress no different that any other American.


----------



## The T

Ravi said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Muslims get to express their religion (since their dress is their religion) in public places while Christians do not?
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. Christians certainly can express their religion in public places.
Click to expand...

 
As anyone can. Welcome to America.


----------



## WillowTree

kwc57 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Juan!  I'm sure his FOX exposure as the token "liberal" replacement for Alan Colmes will increase and make up for any lost wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your head out of your azz. Colmes still appears on Fox. God damn son but you are dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really???  A search of the FOX website lists his bio, but if you search the site, you can't find diddley squat on anything he has contributed to on air.  Juan on the other hand has become the replacement "go to" guy for the liberal view on many of the evening shows.
Click to expand...


I watch Fox. I see Colmes on there regularly. Usually O'Reilly is handing him his ass. He usually sits and debates with Monica Crowley. You should watch.. and learn.. stop drinking kool aid all the time. It simply isn't grown up.


----------



## WillowTree

del said:


> who gives a fuck?



Juan do.


----------



## Angelhair

_Pure unadulterated crap!  Juan Williams said nothing wrong!  He voiced an opinion and he loses his job!  He is one of the fairest man I have had the privilege to hear.
* I WANT AMERICA BACK!!!! * _


----------



## LibocalypseNow

The recent NPR firing of Juan Williams has made me look into things a little deeper at NPR. George Soros just gave them $1 Million a few days ago and almost immediately after,Juan Williams was fired. This can't be a coincidence in my opinion. This matter needs to be fully investigated by our Government. NPR & PBS are partially Tax funded Media Outlets and something just doesn't seem right about this firing. 

NPR has had far Left On-Air Personalities say much worse things than Juan Williams said and there were no actions taken against those Personalities. Bill Moyers compared the GOP to the Taliban and Anita Totenberg openly wished AIDS on a Republican and his family. Totenberg actually received a promotion and now has her own show on NPR. George Soros is also the major funding source behind Media Matters as well. They are well known for their constant attacks on Fox News. So him giving NPR $1 Million and Juan Williams being fired almost immediately after this donation,seems very suspect to me. A terrible wrong has been done here. Juan Williams deserves better. Our Government needs to investigate this travesty and then consider ending all Tax Funding of NPR & PBS.


----------



## del

LibocalypseNow said:


> The recent NPR firing of Juan Williams has made me look into things a little deeper at NPR. George Soros just gave them $1 Million a few days ago and almost immediately after,Juan Williams was fired. This can't be a coincidence in my opinion. This matter needs to be fully investigated by our Government. NPR & PBS are partially Tax funded Media Outlets and something just doesn't seem right about this firing.
> 
> NPR has had far Left On-Air Personalities say much worse things than Juan Williams said and there were no actions taken against those Personalities. Bill Moyers compared the GOP to the Taliban and Anita Totenberg openly wished AIDS on a Republican and his family. Totenberg actually received a promotion and now has her own show on NPR. George Soros is also the major funding source behind Media Matters as well. They are well known for their constant attacks on Fox News. So him giving NPR $1 Million and Juan Williams being fired almost immediately after this donation,seems very suspect to me. A terrible wrong has been done here. Juan Williams deserves better. Our Government needs to investigate this travesty and then consider ending all Tax Funding of NPR & PBS.



merged


----------



## Ravi

Angelhair said:


> _Pure unadulterated crap!  Juan Williams said nothing wrong!  He voiced an opinion and he loses his job!  He is one of the fairest man I have had the privilege to hear.
> * I WANT AMERICA BACK!!!! * _


 What a drama queen.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Pure unadulterated crap!  Juan Williams said nothing wrong!  He voiced an opinion and he loses his job!  He is one of the fairest man I have had the privilege to hear.
> * I WANT AMERICA BACK!!!! * _
> 
> 
> 
> What a drama queen.
Click to expand...


Hey! Libturd. You need an asswipe. You got sumpin on yer butt cheeks.


----------



## Annie

Ravi said:


> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Pure unadulterated crap!  Juan Williams said nothing wrong!  He voiced an opinion and he loses his job!  He is one of the fairest man I have had the privilege to hear.
> * I WANT AMERICA BACK!!!! * _
> 
> 
> 
> What a drama queen.
Click to expand...


Drama queen? You've not read rdean or Starkey? 

In any case, Juan Williams is the exception to the rule from right or left, he thinks. He just got canned for that.


----------



## DiveCon

The T said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to squash you...shut you up..PC you. I will never be PC..and never allow a group of ANY think for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now. Wanna make it a two-woman campaign? I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mind if I watch?
> 
> 
> 
> BTW? Mara Liasson had better watch her back too since she holds jobs at NPR...and FOX...
Click to expand...

mediamatters is already trying to get her fired


----------



## CaféAuLait

Annie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Pure unadulterated crap!  Juan Williams said nothing wrong!  He voiced an opinion and he loses his job!  He is one of the fairest man I have had the privilege to hear.
> * I WANT AMERICA BACK!!!! * _
> 
> 
> 
> What a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drama queen? You've not read rdean or Starkey?
> 
> In any case, Juan Williams is the exception to the rule from right or left, he thinks. He just got canned for that.
Click to expand...


And now that Juan is gone next up? Mara Liasson:

*Liberal group zeros in on next target: NPR correspondent and Fox News contributor, Mara Liasson *

Now that Fox News contributor Juan Williams has been dropped from National Public Radio, the liberal website Media Matters for America is now targeting Mara Liasson, the last remaining NPR correspondent who works with Fox News.

Liberal group zeros in on next target: NPR correspondent and Fox News contributor Mara Liasson - Yahoo! News


----------



## DiveCon

Revere said:


> The mark of totalitarians is to co-opt psychiatry to achieve their ends.
> 
> Juan, meet Gulag.
> 
> NPR CEO: Williams' Views Should Stay Between Himself And 'His Psychiatrist' : The Two-Way : NPR


WOW

now they call him insane


----------



## WillowTree

Annie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Pure unadulterated crap!  Juan Williams said nothing wrong!  He voiced an opinion and he loses his job!  He is one of the fairest man I have had the privilege to hear.
> * I WANT AMERICA BACK!!!! * _
> 
> 
> 
> What a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drama queen? You've not read rdean or Starkey?
> 
> In any case, Juan Williams is the exception to the rule from right or left, he thinks. He just got canned for that.
Click to expand...


Think George Soros.


----------



## Foxfyre

uptownlivin90 said:


> I'm afraid of 30 year old white males in black trench coats with sun glasses. I think we can all agree that there are some "looks" that people have that might make others uncomfortable, that's probably natural.
> 
> Juan made the point however (if you watch the tape fully) that we shouldn't let these natural feelings get the best of us and make us start treating people differently. Because that's what America is about acknowledging and respecting our differences and working together despite them. If we have more discussions with the tone that Juan Williams was using on O'Reilly's show America would be so much better off.
> 
> I don't think that the "NPR" types and the majroity of the corporate media (FOX included) are interested in the realities that the majority of Americans face. They're pompous college types who believe we all operate like tools and can be controlled using manuals and text books. There theories soon enough going to come crashing down before there eyes. However, hopefully those theories come crashing down, before this nation does.




I don't agree with you re the Fox corporate media as I think that is perhaps the only major media outlet who does have respect for its audience, doesn't try to dishonestly indoctrinate them, and does give good information for anybody who wants good information in order to have an informed opinion.  I never accept a single source or 'parrot sources' for information and then believe I have an informed opinion, however.

But otherwise, you've made an excellent point here that I don't believe anybody else has made re how truly honest Juan was in that segment and how non racist and non bigoted he actually was.


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Muslims get to express their religion (since their dress is their religion) in public places while Christians do not?
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. Christians certainly can express their religion in public places.
Click to expand...


Really?  Try having a prayer in a public school.  Before a city council meeting.  Put a scene of Christ's birth in a public place.  Are you living in America now?


----------



## Ravi

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Pure unadulterated crap!  Juan Williams said nothing wrong!  He voiced an opinion and he loses his job!  He is one of the fairest man I have had the privilege to hear.
> * I WANT AMERICA BACK!!!! * _
> 
> 
> 
> What a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey! Libturd. You need an asswipe. You got sumpin on yer butt cheeks.
Click to expand...

Sorry, chica...you aren't my type. Appreciate the offer, though!


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! Libturd. You need an asswipe. You got sumpin on yer butt cheeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, chica...you aren't my type. Appreciate the offer, though!
Click to expand...


"Waaaaaaaaaaa"


----------



## The T

DiveCon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've been on a one-woman anti-PC campaign for some time now. Wanna make it a two-woman campaign? I shouldn't have all this fun getting into all the trouble I do because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind if I watch?
> 
> 
> 
> BTW? Mara Liasson had better watch her back too since she holds jobs at NPR...and FOX...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mediamatters is already trying to get her fired
Click to expand...

 
As is _Huffpo. They are Livid._


----------



## The T

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Pure unadulterated crap! Juan Williams said nothing wrong! He voiced an opinion and he loses his job! He is one of the fairest man I have had the privilege to hear._
> _*I WANT AMERICA BACK!!!! *_
> 
> 
> 
> What a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey! Libturd. You need an asswipe. You got sumpin on yer butt cheeks.
Click to expand...

 
*KLINGONS*


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mind if I watch?
> 
> 
> 
> BTW? Mara Liasson had better watch her back too since she holds jobs at NPR...and FOX...
> 
> 
> 
> mediamatters is already trying to get her fired
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is _Huffpo. They are Livid._
Click to expand...


This would be the same Media Matters that recently admitted a $1 million dollar donation from George Soros who has been indirectly funding them through other organizations for some time.  The same George Soros who controlled Moveon.org and several other influential groups throughout the last election.

Yep, we're dealing with maybe some of the least wholesome and least honest forces on the American scene and anybody with a brain should be able to see that 'free speech' to such people means that liberals can say whatever they want about anybody or anything.  But conservatives or liberals who stray off the reservation will be intentionally targeted and destroyed.

And I suppose there are some even here on USMB who see that as a good thing.


----------



## Intense

Foxfyre said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid of 30 year old white males in black trench coats with sun glasses. I think we can all agree that there are some "looks" that people have that might make others uncomfortable, that's probably natural.
> 
> Juan made the point however (if you watch the tape fully) that we shouldn't let these natural feelings get the best of us and make us start treating people differently. Because that's what America is about acknowledging and respecting our differences and working together despite them. If we have more discussions with the tone that Juan Williams was using on O'Reilly's show America would be so much better off.
> 
> I don't think that the "NPR" types and the majroity of the corporate media (FOX included) are interested in the realities that the majority of Americans face. They're pompous college types who believe we all operate like tools and can be controlled using manuals and text books. There theories soon enough going to come crashing down before there eyes. However, hopefully those theories come crashing down, before this nation does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with you re the Fox corporate media as I think that is perhaps the only major media outlet who does have respect for its audience, doesn't try to dishonestly indoctrinate them, and does give good information for anybody who wants good information in order to have an informed opinion.  I never accept a single source or 'parrot sources' for information and then believe I have an informed opinion, however.
> 
> But otherwise, you've made an excellent point here that I don't believe anybody else has made re how truly honest Juan was in that segment and how non racist and non bigoted he actually was.
Click to expand...


He does come clean often, which makes him very likable. It is strange funny how that virtue gets him into trouble with the Left. The leadership is way too controlling and just will not allow deviation from platform. How many of their own have they eaten?


----------



## kwc57

WillowTree said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your head out of your azz. Colmes still appears on Fox. God damn son but you are dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really???  A search of the FOX website lists his bio, but if you search the site, you can't find diddley squat on anything he has contributed to on air.  Juan on the other hand has become the replacement "go to" guy for the liberal view on many of the evening shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watch Fox. I see Colmes on there regularly. Usually O'Reilly is handing him his ass. He usually sits and debates with Monica Crowley. You should watch.. and learn.. stop drinking kool aid all the time. It simply isn't grown up.
Click to expand...



Hey dumb ass, I don't drink kool aid like the talk radio partisan hack you are.  I sip at the fount of libertarian knowledge.  I watch Fox when I'm not busy having a real life and I see Juan all over the place.  Couldn't tell you the last time I saw Colmes.


----------



## B. Kidd

John Boehner wants taxpayer funded monies pulled from NPR!


----------



## Annie

B. Kidd said:


> John Boehner wants taxpayer funded monies pulled from NPR!



If public radio and television were our biggest expenditures, I'd be happy. Screw giving them the coverage, hold their feet to the fire on bias though.


----------



## camcooh2

Who listens to NPR anyway? I've heard them only in passing. It takes about three seconds of their annoying English accents and I'm changing the channel. Still, this man is NOT a racist. He was merely expressing his gut reaction the way anybody else might. Maybe they need to use robots instead, where they could program exactly what they wanted said. Hope he latches on to Fox News.


----------



## Ravi

camcooh2 said:


> Who listens to NPR anyway? I've heard them only in passing. It takes about three seconds of their annoying English accents and I'm changing the channel. Still, this man is NOT a racist. He was merely expressing his gut reaction the way anybody else might. Maybe they need to use robots instead, where they could program exactly what they wanted said. Hope he latches on to Fox News.


Islam isn't a race, moron.

He's just a bigot.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Media Matters and George Soros were behind this firing. Make no mistake about it. He gives NPR a $1 Million contribution and a Fox News commentator is immediately fired. Our Government should investigate this. If it ever does get investigated,i'm sure they will find that Media Matters and George Soros were behind this. Personally i feel they should pull the Taxpayer plug on both NPR & PBS. They are not unbiased or neutral. It's time to end Tax funding for them.


----------



## WillowTree

kwc57 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really???  A search of the FOX website lists his bio, but if you search the site, you can't find diddley squat on anything he has contributed to on air.  Juan on the other hand has become the replacement "go to" guy for the liberal view on many of the evening shows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watch Fox. I see Colmes on there regularly. Usually O'Reilly is handing him his ass. He usually sits and debates with Monica Crowley. You should watch.. and learn.. stop drinking kool aid all the time. It simply isn't grown up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass, I don't drink kool aid like the talk radio partisan hack you are.  I sip at the fount of libertarian knowledge.  I watch Fox when I'm not busy having a real life and I see Juan all over the place.  Couldn't tell you the last time I saw Colmes.
Click to expand...


Boo hoo fucktard. Just cause you izz too blind to see him doesn't mean he isn't there.


----------



## Annie

Ravi said:


> camcooh2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who listens to NPR anyway? I've heard them only in passing. It takes about three seconds of their annoying English accents and I'm changing the channel. Still, this man is NOT a racist. He was merely expressing his gut reaction the way anybody else might. Maybe they need to use robots instead, where they could program exactly what they wanted said. Hope he latches on to Fox News.
> 
> 
> 
> Islam isn't a race, moron.
> 
> He's just a bigot.
Click to expand...


Right, Ravi. You and NYT via NPR nail it. 398 viewers last year agree! Fox=dump. 

The New York Times > Log In



> The New York Times > Log In
> 
> ...Alicia C. Shepard, the NPR ombudswoman, said at the time that Mr. Williams was a lightning rod for the public radio organization in part because he tends to speak one way on NPR and another on Fox.
> 
> Ms. Shepard said she had received 378 listener e-mails in 2008 listing complaints and frustrations about Mr. Williams.



Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.


----------



## WillowTree

LibocalypseNow said:


> Media Matters and George Soros were behind this firing. Make no mistake about it. He gives NPR a $1 Million contribution and a Fox News commentator is immediately fired. Our Government should investigate this. If it ever does get investigated,i'm sure they will find that Media Matters and George Soros were behind this. Personally i feel they should pull the Taxpayer plug on both NPR & PBS. They are not unbiased or neutral. It's time to end Tax funding for them.



Exactly.


----------



## DiveCon

kwc57 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really???  A search of the FOX website lists his bio, but if you search the site, you can't find diddley squat on anything he has contributed to on air.  Juan on the other hand has become the replacement "go to" guy for the liberal view on many of the evening shows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watch Fox. I see Colmes on there regularly. Usually O'Reilly is handing him his ass. He usually sits and debates with Monica Crowley. You should watch.. and learn.. stop drinking kool aid all the time. It simply isn't grown up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass, I don't drink kool aid like the talk radio partisan hack you are.  I sip at the fount of libertarian knowledge.  I watch Fox when I'm not busy having a real life and I see Juan all over the place.  Couldn't tell you the last time I saw Colmes.
Click to expand...

i think hes on a segment of O'Reilly's show every week
kinda like Dennis Miller does


----------



## NYcarbineer

LibocalypseNow said:


> Media Matters and George Soros were behind this firing. Make no mistake about it. He gives NPR a $1 Million contribution and a Fox News commentator is immediately fired. Our Government should investigate this. If it ever does get investigated,i'm sure they will find that Media Matters and George Soros were behind this. Personally i feel they should pull the Taxpayer plug on both NPR & PBS. They are not unbiased or neutral. It's time to end Tax funding for them.



Republicans had 12 years to cut off funding for public broadcasting.


----------



## WillowTree

NYcarbineer said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Media Matters and George Soros were behind this firing. Make no mistake about it. He gives NPR a $1 Million contribution and a Fox News commentator is immediately fired. Our Government should investigate this. If it ever does get investigated,i'm sure they will find that Media Matters and George Soros were behind this. Personally i feel they should pull the Taxpayer plug on both NPR & PBS. They are not unbiased or neutral. It's time to end Tax funding for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had 12 years to cut off funding for public broadcasting.
Click to expand...


We're fixing to have eight more.


----------



## jillian

Annie said:


> Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.



why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred? 

racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.


----------



## Foxfyre

NYcarbineer said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Media Matters and George Soros were behind this firing. Make no mistake about it. He gives NPR a $1 Million contribution and a Fox News commentator is immediately fired. Our Government should investigate this. If it ever does get investigated,i'm sure they will find that Media Matters and George Soros were behind this. Personally i feel they should pull the Taxpayer plug on both NPR & PBS. They are not unbiased or neutral. It's time to end Tax funding for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had 12 years to cut off funding for public broadcasting.
Click to expand...


No.  They only had six years.  We had a Democrat President or a Democrat controlled Congress the rest of that time.  But yeah, they could have done it in those six years except I'm pretty sure President Bush would have vetoed closing down funding for a media organization just because some didn't like what they said.

During that six years they didn't fire somebody just for saying something that didn't fit on the liberal plantation PC list.


----------



## DiveCon

jillian said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
Click to expand...

you honestly believe Juan is a right wing hater?


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
Click to expand...


 ya'll tolerate Rev. Wright just fine thankeee vewy much.


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Media Matters and George Soros were behind this firing. Make no mistake about it. He gives NPR a $1 Million contribution and a Fox News commentator is immediately fired. Our Government should investigate this. If it ever does get investigated,i'm sure they will find that Media Matters and George Soros were behind this. Personally i feel they should pull the Taxpayer plug on both NPR & PBS. They are not unbiased or neutral. It's time to end Tax funding for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had 12 years to cut off funding for public broadcasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  They only had six years.  We had a Democrat President or a Democrat controlled Congress the rest of that time.  But yeah, they could have done it in those six years except I'm pretty sure President Bush would have vetoed closing down funding for a media organization just because some didn't like what they said.
> 
> During that six years they didn't fire somebody just for saying something that didn't fit on the liberal plantation PC list.
Click to expand...

in all honesty, the GOP didnt do a very good job for conservatism in those 6 years either
and they could have defunded it since they took the house in jan of 95
they had the house for those 12 years


----------



## Annie

jillian said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
Click to expand...


I agree. However that is not what we're talking about, is it?


----------



## Foxfyre

jillian said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
Click to expand...


Do you honestly characterize a guy admitting his fears and qualifying that with his conviction that we should not act on irrational fears as 'rightwingnut hatred'?   Do you honestly believe that a guy that is the liberal voice on every panel he appears on and who wrote a brilliant biography of Thurgood Marshall from a liberal perspective is a 'rightwingnut'?

Do you honestly believe that if he had made the same observation about Catholics or Mormons or Presbyterians that there would have been a surge of outrage demanding his head on a platter?


----------



## The T

DiveCon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had 12 years to cut off funding for public broadcasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. They only had six years. We had a Democrat President or a Democrat controlled Congress the rest of that time. But yeah, they could have done it in those six years except I'm pretty sure President Bush would have vetoed closing down funding for a media organization just because some didn't like what they said.
> 
> During that six years they didn't fire somebody just for saying something that didn't fit on the liberal plantation PC list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in all honesty, the GOP didnt do a very good job for conservatism in those 6 years either
> and they could have defunded it since they took the house in jan of 95
> they had the house for those 12 years
Click to expand...

 
No they didn't. And they are being called to task...or move out of the way.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly characterize a guy admitting his fears and qualifying that with his conviction that we should not act on irrational fears as 'rightwingnut hatred'?   Do you honestly believe that a guy that is the liberal voice on every panel he appears on and who wrote a brilliant biography of Thurgood Marshall from a liberal perspective is a 'rightwingnut'?
> 
> Do you honestly believe that if he had made the same observation about Catholics or Mormons or Presbyterians that there would have been a surge of outrage demanding his head on a platter?
Click to expand...

Oh come on now! Do you honestly believe that if he said "when I see a group of catholic priests wearing their collars I fear for all the little boys on the plane" there would be no outrage?????


----------



## kwc57

DiveCon said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watch Fox. I see Colmes on there regularly. Usually O'Reilly is handing him his ass. He usually sits and debates with Monica Crowley. You should watch.. and learn.. stop drinking kool aid all the time. It simply isn't grown up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass, I don't drink kool aid like the talk radio partisan hack you are.  I sip at the fount of libertarian knowledge.  I watch Fox when I'm not busy having a real life and I see Juan all over the place.  Couldn't tell you the last time I saw Colmes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i think hes on a segment of O'Reilly's show every week
> kinda like Dennis Miller does
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's the bone theu throw him for kicking him off of Hannity while he is still under contract.  As I said, Juan replaced him as the network go to token liberal for everything else.  Since Willow sits around watching Fox and posting on USMB all day, perhaps she can log a weeks worth of air time between Juan and Colmes for us.......nah, she wouldn't want to prove my point for me.


----------



## Intense

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly characterize a guy admitting his fears and qualifying that with his conviction that we should not act on irrational fears as 'rightwingnut hatred'?   Do you honestly believe that a guy that is the liberal voice on every panel he appears on and who wrote a brilliant biography of Thurgood Marshall from a liberal perspective is a 'rightwingnut'?
> 
> Do you honestly believe that if he had made the same observation about Catholics or Mormons or Presbyterians that there would have been a surge of outrage demanding his head on a platter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh come on now! Do you honestly believe that if he said "when I see a group of catholic priests wearing their collars I fear for all the little boys on the plane" there would be no outrage?????
Click to expand...


Funny that it is again left up to Conservatives to defend against Injustice. Here we are again putting aside our differences with Juan, defending his position, because it is the right thing to do in the service of justice and fair play.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly characterize a guy admitting his fears and qualifying that with his conviction that we should not act on irrational fears as 'rightwingnut hatred'?   Do you honestly believe that a guy that is the liberal voice on every panel he appears on and who wrote a brilliant biography of Thurgood Marshall from a liberal perspective is a 'rightwingnut'?
> 
> Do you honestly believe that if he had made the same observation about Catholics or Mormons or Presbyterians that there would have been a surge of outrage demanding his head on a platter?
Click to expand...


Juan is not a liberal but a centrist most of the time, and very occasionally to the right of center, which is OK.  I have always admired his honesty, even when his topic or conversation may have taken a position I did not like.  On this one, he should not have been terminated for giving one's opinion honestly and openly on a sensitive topic, particularly with his track record, disturbs me.


----------



## Moon

CaféAuLait;2872427 said:
			
		

> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drama queen? You've not read rdean or Starkey?
> 
> In any case, Juan Williams is the exception to the rule from right or left, he thinks. He just got canned for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now that Juan is gone next up? Mara Liasson:
> 
> *Liberal group zeros in on next target: NPR correspondent and Fox News contributor, Mara Liasson *
> 
> Now that Fox News contributor Juan Williams has been dropped from National Public Radio, the liberal website Media Matters for America is now targeting Mara Liasson, the last remaining NPR correspondent who works with Fox News.
> 
> Liberal group zeros in on next target: NPR correspondent and Fox News contributor Mara Liasson - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...


This sentence was interesting.


> Media Matters and NPR both announced this week they were receiving million-dollar grants from left-wing billionaire George Soros.


----------



## Capitalist

From her Facebook Page: At a time when our country is dangerously in debt and  looking for areas of federal  spending to cut, I think weve found a  good candidate for defunding. National Public Radio is a public  institution that directly or indirectly exists because the taxpayers  fund it. And what do we, the taxpayers, get for this? We get to witness  Juan Williams being fired from NPR for merely speaking frankly about the  very real threat this country faces from radical Islam.
 We have to have an honest discussion about the jihadist threat. Are  we not allowed to say that Muslim terrorists have killed thousands of  Americans and continue to plot the deaths of thousands more? Are we not  allowed to say that there are Muslim states that aid and abet these  fanatics? Are we not allowed to even debate the role that radical Islam  plays in inciting this violence?
*I dont expect Juan Williams to support me (hes said some  tough things about me in the past)  but I will always support his right  and the right of all Americans to speak honestly about the threats this  country faces.* And for Juan, speaking honestly about these  issues isnt just his right, its his job. Up until yesterday, he was  doing that job at NPR. Firing him is their loss.
 If NPR is unable to tolerate an honest debate about an issue as important as Islamic terrorism, then *its time for National Public Radio to become National Private Radio. *Its time for Congress to defund this organization.
 NPR says its mission is to create a more informed public, but by  stifling debate on these issues, NPR is doing exactly the opposite.  President Obama should make clear his commitment to free and honest  discussion of the jihadist threat in our public debates  and Congress  should make clear that unless NPR provides that public service, not one  more dime.
*Mr. President, what say you?*​


----------



## Revere

Lefties like to say they don't tolerate the intolerant, but Islam is the most intolerant culture on the planet. 

Juan Williams got stabbed in the back by the political ideology he defends, for merely speaking.


----------



## Capitalist

*Rodney Ho* at the Atlanta-Journal Constitution was the first reporter to interview NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing.



She claims it was not the first time Juan Williams stepped over the line.
Q: So did Juan really get fired over just those Muslim  comments? [He said he was uncomfortable with Muslims dressed in  traditional garb on airplanes during a Fox News telecast yesterday.]
 A: There have been several instances over the last couple of years  where we have felt Juan has stepped over the line. He famously said last  year something about Michelle Obama and Stokely Carmichael. [The quote  on Fox News last year: Obama "has this  Stokely-Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going" and that she'll be  an "albatross" for President Obama.]. This isnt a case of one strike  and youre out.
 Q: So this is obviously not an isolated incident.
 A: Theres so much misinformation on the blogosphere, its nuts. *This has been an on-going issue.*  When he does that, when anybody does that, it undermines their  credibility as a journalist or in Juans case, a news analyst for NPR.  Those two things cannot go together
 Q: Mike Huckabee is now saying NPR has discredited itself and should have federal funding revoked.
 A: Yes, I heard that. *This has become a political issue.  My God, Im shocked!*
 Q: Could NPR live without federal funding?
 A: Lets go on a sidebar. *Theres a misperception about federal funding and public radio.*  Theres the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They receive $90  million a year and a vast majority goes to member public radio stations.  Those stations pull in more than $1 billion collectively a year. Its  significant and important but not even close to the lions share of  revenues for public radio. *NPR gets no allocation from CPB. Zero.*  We are a private 501(c)3. Weve had journalists call up and ask what  department of the government we report to.  Thats laughable. Have you  listened to our shows? We do apply for competitive grants from  the  likes of the Ford Foundation and the Knight Foundation. *As a  result, some money from CPB does come to us when we win grants.  Depending on the year, it represents just one to three percent of our  total budget.*
 Q: What is your annual budget?
 A: $160 million a year from station fees and dues, corporate  underwriting, philanthropic contributions from individuals and  corporation and  earned income and earnings from our endowment.​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Revere said:


> Lefties like to say they don't tolerate the intolerant, but Islam is the most intolerant culture on the planet.
> 
> Juan Williams got stabbed in the back by the political ideology he defends, for merely speaking.



Your are talking out of both sides of your mouth, son, for you would have happily nailed somebody from the left for doing this but yet protect one from the right.  Dry your crocodile tears.


----------



## Capitalist

. Williams responds to being fired:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFOza0N-qbw&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Immanuel

WillowTree said:


> The backlsh against this recent round of libtard stupidity is going to be enormous. Right at election time too.



No it won't.

Liberals will go on praising NPR and conservatives will go on praising Fox.  Fox will continue using Juan Williams as a "reasonable" liberal voice and in a week no one will remember that NPR displayed classic liberal tolerance at its finest.

Immie


----------



## Queen

Aside from Juan Williams being a coward, fearful of Muslims on airplanes, he has no idea what the constitution is all about.

From the OP link:



			
				Juan Williams said:
			
		

> To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech.



Free speech is protected from being infringed upon by the US government, not by our employers. The constitution protects us from being arrested for speaking our minds. Not from being fired from our jobs. 

Juan Williams is an idiot.


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> The backlsh against this recent round of libtard stupidity is going to be enormous. Right at election time too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't.
> 
> Liberals will go on praising NPR and conservatives will go on praising Fox.  Fox will continue using Juan Williams as a "reasonable" liberal voice and in a week no one will remember that NPR displayed classic liberal tolerance at its finest.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I think you sell the people short Immie.  It took a LONG time for the public consciousness to finally provoke the people to action in the 9/12er, tax protest, and Tea Party movements.  That is because mainstream America, where most of us live, is out making a living and living our lives and just don't want to take the time for a lot of activism.  But push us hard enough or far enough and we will push back.

YES the liberals, those NOT in the mainstream, will quickly sweep this under the rug and will dismiss it as inconsequential water long under the bridge, and we in mainstream America will move on to something else.  But we will remember.  And it will add to glowing embers that hopefully, sooner or later, will become a hot enough fire to provoke us to some activism to clean up the media as well as government.


----------



## WillowTree

Queen said:


> Aside from Juan Williams being a coward, fearful of Muslims on airplanes, he has no idea what the constitution is all about.
> 
> From the OP link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech is protected from being infringed upon by the US government, not by our employers. The constitution protects us from being arrested for speaking our minds. Not from being fired from our jobs.
> 
> Juan Williams is an idiot.
Click to expand...


Too bad we cannot ask all those dead AMericans who got onto airplanes with muslims innit?


----------



## mudwhistle

Mad Scientist said:


> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  Muslim dilemma.  Mr. OReilly said,  The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of  books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.
Click to expand...


We need to let down our guard and be nice......till they do it again.


----------



## CMike

Juan Williams really wasn't giving commentary. He was giving his own personal feelings about how he feels when a muslim with the garb is on an airplane with him.


----------



## saveliberty

Beware liberal pundits.  Your task masters are watching.  I hear they have a dress code and dietary restrictions coming too.


----------



## Oddball

Any doubt that Mara Liasson is next?


----------



## midcan5

Whenever i read right wing angst over this topic my hypocrisy bell rings extra loud. The wingnuts would be the first to claim a corporation had the right to do whatever was necessary for the business image.  Williams' statement was downright idiotic and doubly amazing from a Black man. He should go in the corner and write 100 stereotypes that include him as topic due to the way he looks and sounds, and then come back after a bit of soul searching. That is if a soul or a brain is present. 


"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King


----------



## Oddball

midcan5 said:


> Williams' statement was downright idiotic and doubly amazing from a Black man.  He should go in the corner and write 100 stereotypes that include him as topic due to the way he looks and sounds, and then come back after a bit of soul searching. That is if a soul or a brain is present.


Good thing Fabian/progressive know-it-all jackasses like you know what all "right thinking" black folks should be thinking and saying.

Bigot.


----------



## boedicca

ROFLMAO!   Big Bad Right Wing Fox News has offered Juan a 3 year contract valued at $2M, a big increase over his previous income.

_Reporting from Washington 
As NPR weathered a storm of criticism Thursday for its decision to fire news analyst Juan Williams for his comments about Muslims, Fox News moved aggressively to turn the controversy to its advantage by signing Williams to an expanded role at the cable news network.

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column on FoxNews.com.

"Juan has been a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints since his tenure began at Fox News in 1997," Ailes said in a statement, adding a jab at NPR: Hes an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by Fox News on a daily basis...._

Juan Williams: Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role - latimes.com


----------



## Foxfyre

midcan5 said:


> Whenever i read right wing angst over this topic my hypocrisy bell rings extra loud. The wingnuts would be the first to claim a corporation had the right to do whatever was necessary for the business image.  Williams' statement was downright idiotic and doubly amazing from a Black man. He should go in the corner and write 100 stereotypes that include him as topic due to the way he looks and sounds, and then come back after a bit of soul searching. That is if a soul or a brain is present.
> 
> 
> "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King



Please explain why a black man should be expected to perceive or behave differently than any other man.   And then explain why we should not consider it racist when you suggest that black people are different from any other people.  Or should be.

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Queen

LOL!!! Cowardly bigots get big money from FOX news! Juan is just their man.


----------



## mal

midcan5 said:


> and doubly amazing from a Black man.



Racist.



peace...


----------



## Andrew2382

Queen said:


> Aside from Juan Williams being a coward, fearful of Muslims on airplanes, he has no idea what the constitution is all about.
> 
> From the OP link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech is protected from being infringed upon by the US government, not by our employers. The constitution protects us from being arrested for speaking our minds. Not from being fired from our jobs.
> 
> Juan Williams is an idiot.
Click to expand...


Juan is an idiot for giving his honest opinion?  Why is it so ludicrous to think that a large portion of this population might get a little nervous if a group of Muslim people in full garb sit next to them on a plane?

Was it not radicals of the Muslim faith that crashed planes back in 2001?

Unfortunately, his point wasn't even taken in as it was even though he was man enough to admit he gets nervous, that it is wrong even on his part and that him and the rest of this country needs to move forward from those negative emotions.

NPR had this guy on the chopping block for a while and was waiting for the perfect moment to strike and they got it.


----------



## WillowTree

Queen said:


> LOL!!! Cowardly bigots get big money from FOX news! Juan is just their man.



I love it when the libtards make someone from Fox prosper! It makes my day. Go suck a donkey appendage whydonchya? Asshole.


----------



## Ravi

JakeStarkey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly characterize a guy admitting his fears and qualifying that with his conviction that we should not act on irrational fears as 'rightwingnut hatred'?   Do you honestly believe that a guy that is the liberal voice on every panel he appears on and who wrote a brilliant biography of Thurgood Marshall from a liberal perspective is a 'rightwingnut'?
> 
> Do you honestly believe that if he had made the same observation about Catholics or Mormons or Presbyterians that there would have been a surge of outrage demanding his head on a platter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juan is not a liberal but a centrist most of the time, and very occasionally to the right of center, which is OK.  I have always admired his honesty, even when his topic or conversation may have taken a position I did not like.  On this one, he should not have been terminated for giving one's opinion honestly and openly on a sensitive topic, particularly with his track record, disturbs me.
Click to expand...

Apparently he violated his contract...which was to be impartial. Kind of hard to consider him impartial if he's freaking out on tv about Muslims, no?

Whatever...he has a nice, fat FAUX contract now. Maybe he planned the entire thing.


----------



## Ravi

Queen said:


> Aside from Juan Williams being a coward, fearful of Muslims on airplanes, he has no idea what the constitution is all about.
> 
> From the OP link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech is protected from being infringed upon by the US government, not by our employers. The constitution protects us from being arrested for speaking our minds. Not from being fired from our jobs.
> 
> Juan Williams is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Yep...prolly just a knee jerk reaction, though.


----------



## Charles_Main

hjmick said:


> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...




So then, NPR which gets Public Funding is basically admitting they are liberally biased.


----------



## Queen

Andrew2382 said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from Juan Williams being a coward, fearful of Muslims on airplanes, he has no idea what the constitution is all about.
> 
> From the OP link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech is protected from being infringed upon by the US government, not by our employers. The constitution protects us from being arrested for speaking our minds. Not from being fired from our jobs.
> 
> Juan Williams is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juan is an idiot for giving his honest opinion?  Why is it so ludicrous to think that a large portion of this population might get a little nervous if a group of Muslim people in full garb sit next to them on a plane?
> 
> Was it not radicals of the Muslim faith that crashed planes back in 2001?
> 
> Unfortunately, his point wasn't even taken in as it was even though he was man enough to admit he gets nervous, that it is wrong even on his part and that him and the rest of this country needs to move forward from those negative emotions.
> 
> NPR had this guy on the chopping block for a while and was waiting for the perfect moment to strike and they got it.
Click to expand...


OK maybe you're an idiot too? You think what I wrote means Juan is an idiot for giving his honest opinion? Either you're an idiot or dishonest. 

My point is clear. Juan is a coward and a bigot for being afraid of muslims. 

Juan is an idiot for thinking the US constitution protects him from being fired for saying stupid shit. 

So tell us which you are then, idiotic or dishonest with your strawman argument? Because I'm not going to defend a position you decide I made. You'll have to argue my actual point instead of making one up for me. 

Thank you, come again.


----------



## Queen

Charles_Main said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, NPR which gets Public Funding is basically admitting they are liberally biased.
Click to expand...


What NPR is, is a news station that gives you the news without stupid fear mongering cowardly opinions like Juan Williams opines. They don't want to be associated with that kind of biggoted rhetoric. So if you call that liberally biased, then yeah, I've heard it said, truth has a liberal bias.


----------



## Valerie

They're saying it's not the first time he's crossed the line...






> NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller sent an internal memo Thursday seeking to clarify why Williams' contract was terminated, claiming that the remarks he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" weren't the problem, he was canned because he's become a pundit rather than an analyst.
> 
> "Juan's comments on Fox violated our standards as well as our values and offended many in doing so," Schiller wrote in the memo obtained by Fox News.
> 
> *"This isn't the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan's public comments," she wrote. "Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan continued to violate this principle. *
> 
> FoxNews.com - NPR Under Fire After Canning Juan Williams


----------



## Queen

WillowTree said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Cowardly bigots get big money from FOX news! Juan is just their man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when the libtards make someone from Fox prosper! It makes my day. Go suck a donkey appendage whydonchya? Asshole.
Click to expand...


You love it when bigots and cowards are rewarded by your favorite "news" channel, yes, we are aware.


----------



## Immanuel

jillian said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
Click to expand...


The problem is that liberals expect us to be tolerant of their christophobia and their hatred of everything traditional in life.  

A true double standard if there is such a thing.

Immie


----------



## Valerie

Look who else is off the rails...





> "I think the U.S. Congress should investigate NPR and consider cutting off their money," said Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also a Fox News contributor
> 
> Gingrich called the firing "an act of total censorship."
> 
> FoxNews.com - NPR Under Fire After Canning Juan Williams


----------



## Missourian

This reminds me of when Jesse Jackson said:

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved..."


----------



## WillowTree

Queen said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Cowardly bigots get big money from FOX news! Juan is just their man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when the libtards make someone from Fox prosper! It makes my day. Go suck a donkey appendage whydonchya? Asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You love it when bigots and cowards are rewarded by your favorite "news" channel, yes, we are aware.
Click to expand...


No I love it when racists and bigots such as your fat self are reduced to sucking on donkey appendages.  We mock your stupid azz.


----------



## Kat

Queen said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Cowardly bigots get big money from FOX news! Juan is just their man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when the libtards make someone from Fox prosper! It makes my day. Go suck a donkey appendage whydonchya? Asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You love it when bigots and cowards are rewarded by your favorite "news" channel, yes, we are aware.
Click to expand...


awww wassa madder? Don't like it when lib black men get out of line, huh?


----------



## WillowTree

Missourian said:


> This reminds me of when Jesse Jackson said:
> 
> "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved..."



Isn't he the same wise soul who wanted to rip obie wan's nutz off?


----------



## Trajan

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are honestly about as dishonest, or stupid, as it is possible to be. If he had made the same comments about any other group, including whites, Christians, Jews, Latinos, women, etc...he'd still have exposed himself as a stupid bigot and been fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit and you know it. People say whatever they want to about Christians, Jews, and women in this country and most of the absurd bigoted hateful shit comes from the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Show me one NPR employee that has made similar comments about another group and kept their job.
Click to expand...


well lets not confine this debate shall we, unless of course you have to to keep the lid on-

Totenberg on Gen. Boykin: &#8220;I Hope He&#8217;s
Not Long for This World&#8221; 

Eight years after NPR&#8217;s Nina Totenberg, on Inside Washington, wished death upon Senator Jesse Helms (&#8220;If there is retributive justice, he&#8217;ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it"), on the same show over the weekend she seemingly desired to hasten the death of Army General Jerry Boykin for having supposedly expressed the view that the war on terrorism &#8220;is a Christian crusade against Muslims.&#8221; Totenberg hatefully advocated: &#8220;I hope he&#8217;s not long for this world.&#8221;

    When the other panelists were taken aback by her wish (&#8220;You putting a hit out on this guy or what?&#8221; and, &#8220;What is this, the Sopranos?&#8221, she quickly backtracked: &#8220;In his job, in his job, in his job, please, please, in his job.&#8221;

     The relevant portion of the October 18 Inside Washington, a show produced at Washington, DC&#8217;s Gannett-owned WUSA-TV and shown nationally on PBS stations.

Totenberg on Gen. Boykin: &#8220;I Hope He&#8217;s Not Long for This World&#8221; --10/20/2003-- Media Research Center 


of course she backtracked, so its all cool...

juan qualified his statement in the same segment too, saying basically what Obama said about his grandmother, vis a vis whites looking over their shoulder at blacks, and of course jesse Hijackson made exactly the same case too as Missourian noted, ... no nasty grams from NPR and Totenberg never got called on the carpet....just sayin', NPR appears to be selective in their outrage, but then you appear to be the only one surprised they would be .


----------



## Oddball

Charles_Main said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, NPR which gets Public Funding is basically admitting they are liberally biased.
Click to expand...


Strange thing is that he's being RF-ed for saying essentially the same thing Shirley Sherrod said....Well, there _*is*_ the little matter that Juan works for Fox, too.

Double standard, anyone?


----------



## WillowTree

Kat said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when the libtards make someone from Fox prosper! It makes my day. Go suck a donkey appendage whydonchya? Asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You love it when bigots and cowards are rewarded by your favorite "news" channel, yes, we are aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> awww wassa madder? Don't like it when lib black men get out of line, huh?
Click to expand...


she'd rather he go "sit on da porch"


----------



## Trajan

Oddball said:


> Any doubt that Mara Liasson is next?



shes a dually too fox and npr so yea, maybe we should start a pool.

She may be a female but black trumps female in the wacky world of Identity politics so yea, her sands are running out of the glass too. 

If CAIR ( via a vis Juan) or some such pressure grp. squeezes their balls hard enough, saynora Mara....


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> The backlsh against this recent round of libtard stupidity is going to be enormous. Right at election time too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't.
> 
> Liberals will go on praising NPR and conservatives will go on praising Fox.  Fox will continue using Juan Williams as a "reasonable" liberal voice and in a week no one will remember that NPR displayed classic liberal tolerance at its finest.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you sell the people short Immie.  It took a LONG time for the public consciousness to finally provoke the people to action in the 9/12er, tax protest, and Tea Party movements.  That is because mainstream America, where most of us live, is out making a living and living our lives and just don't want to take the time for a lot of activism.  But push us hard enough or far enough and we will push back.
> 
> YES the liberals, those NOT in the mainstream, will quickly sweep this under the rug and will dismiss it as inconsequential water long under the bridge, and we in mainstream America will move on to something else.  But we will remember.  And it will add to glowing embers that hopefully, sooner or later, will become a hot enough fire to provoke us to some activism to clean up the media as well as government.
Click to expand...


Not likely to happen in our lifetimes or the lives of our great-grandchildren for that matter.

Immie


----------



## Capitalist

Queen said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, NPR which gets Public Funding is basically admitting they are liberally biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What NPR is, is a news station that gives you the news without stupid fear mongering cowardly opinions like Juan Williams opines. They don't want to be associated with that kind of biggoted rhetoric. So if you call that liberally biased, then yeah, I've heard it said, truth has a liberal bias.
Click to expand...


That kind of remark should remain between you and your *psychiatrist.
*


----------



## Foxfyre

Trajan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit and you know it. People say whatever they want to about Christians, Jews, and women in this country and most of the absurd bigoted hateful shit comes from the left.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Show me one NPR employee that has made similar comments about another group and kept their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well lets not confine this debate shall we, unless of course you have to to keep the lid on-
> 
> Totenberg on Gen. Boykin: I Hope Hes
> Not Long for This World
> 
> Eight years after NPRs Nina Totenberg, on Inside Washington, wished death upon Senator Jesse Helms (If there is retributive justice, hell get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it"), on the same show over the weekend she seemingly desired to hasten the death of Army General Jerry Boykin for having supposedly expressed the view that the war on terrorism is a Christian crusade against Muslims. Totenberg hatefully advocated: I hope hes not long for this world.
> 
> When the other panelists were taken aback by her wish (You putting a hit out on this guy or what? and, What is this, the Sopranos?), she quickly backtracked: In his job, in his job, in his job, please, please, in his job.
> 
> The relevant portion of the October 18 Inside Washington, a show produced at Washington, DCs Gannett-owned WUSA-TV and shown nationally on PBS stations.
> 
> Totenberg on Gen. Boykin: I Hope Hes Not Long for This World --10/20/2003-- Media Research Center
> 
> 
> of course she backtracked, so its all cool...
> 
> juan qualified his statement in the same segment too, saying basically what Obama said about his grandmother, vis a vis whites looking over their shoulder at blacks, and of course jesse Hijackson made exactly the same case too as Missourian noted, ... no nasty grams from NPR and Totenberg never got called on the carpet....just sayin', NPR appears to be selective in their outrage, but then you appear to be the only one surprised they would be .
Click to expand...


Excellent research and I'm outta rep.


----------



## Trajan

This uber selectivity in Public Broadcasting venue is old news anyway, really.

Example-  who remembers the fight a Bush appointee over at PBS had trying to keep the wall Street Journal Report on PBS? They made it so hard for him to do his job he got he died the death of a thousand cuts....all over a fight over one half hour show and poof.


----------



## Trajan

Foxfyre said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Show me one NPR employee that has made similar comments about another group and kept their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well lets not confine this debate shall we, unless of course you have to to keep the lid on-
> 
> Totenberg on Gen. Boykin: &#8220;I Hope He&#8217;s
> Not Long for This World&#8221;
> 
> Eight years after NPR&#8217;s Nina Totenberg, on Inside Washington, wished death upon Senator Jesse Helms (&#8220;If there is retributive justice, he&#8217;ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it"), on the same show over the weekend she seemingly desired to hasten the death of Army General Jerry Boykin for having supposedly expressed the view that the war on terrorism &#8220;is a Christian crusade against Muslims.&#8221; Totenberg hatefully advocated: &#8220;I hope he&#8217;s not long for this world.&#8221;
> 
> When the other panelists were taken aback by her wish (&#8220;You putting a hit out on this guy or what?&#8221; and, &#8220;What is this, the Sopranos?&#8221, she quickly backtracked: &#8220;In his job, in his job, in his job, please, please, in his job.&#8221;
> 
> The relevant portion of the October 18 Inside Washington, a show produced at Washington, DC&#8217;s Gannett-owned WUSA-TV and shown nationally on PBS stations.
> 
> Totenberg on Gen. Boykin: &#8220;I Hope He&#8217;s Not Long for This World&#8221; --10/20/2003-- Media Research Center
> 
> 
> of course she backtracked, so its all cool...
> 
> juan qualified his statement in the same segment too, saying basically what Obama said about his grandmother, vis a vis whites looking over their shoulder at blacks, and of course jesse Hijackson made exactly the same case too as Missourian noted, ... no nasty grams from NPR and Totenberg never got called on the carpet....just sayin', NPR appears to be selective in their outrage, but then you appear to be the only one surprised they would be .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent research and I'm outta rep.
Click to expand...


thx FF..hey, you can owe me...


----------



## Immanuel

midcan5 said:


> Whenever i read right wing angst over this topic my hypocrisy bell rings extra loud. The wingnuts would be the first to claim a corporation had the right to do whatever was necessary for the business image.  Williams' statement was downright idiotic and doubly amazing from a Black man. He should go in the corner and write 100 stereotypes that include him as topic due to the way he looks and sounds, and then come back after a bit of soul searching. That is if a soul or a brain is present.
> 
> 
> "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King



I don't think anyone on the right has said that NPR did not have the right to do this.  I sure as heck know I have not.  Of course they have the right to do this, but that does not make it right.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever i read right wing angst over this topic my hypocrisy bell rings extra loud. The wingnuts would be the first to claim a corporation had the right to do whatever was necessary for the business image.  Williams' statement was downright idiotic and doubly amazing from a Black man. He should go in the corner and write 100 stereotypes that include him as topic due to the way he looks and sounds, and then come back after a bit of soul searching. That is if a soul or a brain is present.
> 
> 
> "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone on the right has said that NPR did not have the right to do this.  I sure as heck know I have not.  Of course they have the right to do this, but that does not make it right.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Well...except those that claim his first amendment rights were violated.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever i read right wing angst over this topic my hypocrisy bell rings extra loud. The wingnuts would be the first to claim a corporation had the right to do whatever was necessary for the business image.  Williams' statement was downright idiotic and doubly amazing from a Black man. He should go in the corner and write 100 stereotypes that include him as topic due to the way he looks and sounds, and then come back after a bit of soul searching. That is if a soul or a brain is present.
> 
> 
> "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone on the right has said that NPR did not have the right to do this.  I sure as heck know I have not.  Of course they have the right to do this, but that does not make it right.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...except those that claim his first amendment rights were violated.
Click to expand...


If the Federal government was complicit in the firing, his First Amendment rights WERE violated.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly characterize a guy admitting his fears and qualifying that with his conviction that we should not act on irrational fears as 'rightwingnut hatred'?   Do you honestly believe that a guy that is the liberal voice on every panel he appears on and who wrote a brilliant biography of Thurgood Marshall from a liberal perspective is a 'rightwingnut'?
> 
> Do you honestly believe that if he had made the same observation about Catholics or Mormons or Presbyterians that there would have been a surge of outrage demanding his head on a platter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is not a liberal but a centrist most of the time, and very occasionally to the right of center, which is OK.  I have always admired his honesty, even when his topic or conversation may have taken a position I did not like.  On this one, he should not have been terminated for giving one's opinion honestly and openly on a sensitive topic, particularly with his track record, disturbs me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently he violated his contract...which was to be impartial. Kind of hard to consider him impartial if he's freaking out on tv about Muslims, no?
> 
> Whatever...he has a nice, fat FAUX contract now. Maybe he planned the entire thing.
Click to expand...


Impartial?  Has Juan Williams ever been impartial?  

I don't think the problem here is that he was not impartial but rather that he was not PC.  Liberals and non-PC do not mix.

Immie


----------



## Valerie

WillowTree said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> You love it when bigots and cowards are rewarded by your favorite "news" channel, yes, we are aware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awww wassa madder? Don't like it when lib black men get out of line, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> she'd rather he go "sit on da porch"
Click to expand...





What?    No way he got fired because he's black.


----------



## boedicca

I can't wait to see all the moonbats start attacking Juan for being a rightwing pundit now.


----------



## taichiliberal

hjmick said:


> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> NPR Tells Fox News: Please Don't Associate Juan Williams With Us



I concur.....over the years Juan Williams was becoming sort of 'Alan Colmes light' when he'd comment on Fox News Sunday morning show.  So it's no surprise that NPR would pounce on any excuse to dump him.....and giving ANY type of credence on any level to one of the neocon punditry's biggest blowhards was that excuse.

And THAT was NPR's big mistake....because essentially they've handed a major win on the talking points wars to the neocon punditry for the next few months.  What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color.  That he said it while O'Reilly was blowing the foghorn about the NY mosque construction controversy just rubbed the NPR management (and a large number of their audience, I'll wager) the wrong way.

I say, give it a rest NPR.  Next time, just have the stones to say flat out WHY you're firing someone, and don't wait to do it on some superfluous point.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone on the right has said that NPR did not have the right to do this.  I sure as heck know I have not.  Of course they have the right to do this, but that does not make it right.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Well...except those that claim his first amendment rights were violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Federal government was complicit in the firing, his First Amendment rights WERE violated.
Click to expand...

 That's pretty retarded. Are you seriously that paranoid?


----------



## Capitalist

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is not a liberal but a centrist most of the time, and very occasionally to the right of center, which is OK.  I have always admired his honesty, even when his topic or conversation may have taken a position I did not like.  On this one, he should not have been terminated for giving one's opinion honestly and openly on a sensitive topic, particularly with his track record, disturbs me.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he violated his contract...which was to be impartial. Kind of hard to consider him impartial if he's freaking out on tv about Muslims, no?
> 
> Whatever...he has a nice, fat FAUX contract now. Maybe he planned the entire thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impartial?  Has Juan Williams ever been impartial?
> 
> I don't think the problem here is that he was not impartial but rather that he was not PC.  Liberals and non-PC do not mix.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


He should have said that he felt uneasy when "Teabaggers" get on the jet, that's still OK on NPR.


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is not a liberal but a centrist most of the time, and very occasionally to the right of center, which is OK.  I have always admired his honesty, even when his topic or conversation may have taken a position I did not like.  On this one, he should not have been terminated for giving one's opinion honestly and openly on a sensitive topic, particularly with his track record, disturbs me.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he violated his contract...which was to be impartial. Kind of hard to consider him impartial if he's freaking out on tv about Muslims, no?
> 
> Whatever...he has a nice, fat FAUX contract now. Maybe he planned the entire thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impartial?  Has Juan Williams ever been impartial?
> 
> I don't think the problem here is that he was not impartial but rather that he was not PC.  Liberals and non-PC do not mix.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

One thing I've learned from this thread...it is okay to be pc when Christians are being targeted but not so much when other groups are targeted.

I find that sad.


----------



## Trajan

taichiliberal said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> NPR Tells Fox News: Please Don't Associate Juan Williams With Us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur.....over the years Juan Williams was becoming sort of 'Alan Colmes light' when he'd comment on Fox News Sunday morning show.  So it's no surprise that NPR would pounce on any excuse to dump him.....and giving ANY type of credence on any level to one of the neocon punditry's biggest blowhards was that excuse.
> 
> And THAT was NPR's big mistake....because essentially they've handed a major win on the talking points wars to the neocon punditry for the next few months.  What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color.  That he said it while O'Reilly was blowing the foghorn about the NY mosque construction controversy just rubbed the NPR management (and a large number of their audience, I'll wager) the wrong way.
Click to expand...


yes, sadly.



> I say, give it a rest NPR.  Next time, just have the stones to say flat out WHY you're firing someone, and don't wait to do it on some superfluous point.



agreed.


----------



## Trajan

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he violated his contract...which was to be impartial. Kind of hard to consider him impartial if he's freaking out on tv about Muslims, no?
> 
> Whatever...he has a nice, fat FAUX contract now. Maybe he planned the entire thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impartial?  Has Juan Williams ever been impartial?
> 
> I don't think the problem here is that he was not impartial but rather that he was not PC.  Liberals and non-PC do not mix.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing I've learned from this thread...*it is okay to be pc when Christians are being targeted but not so much when other groups are targeted.*
> 
> I find that sad.
Click to expand...


how so? I am not sure of your point here?


----------



## Kat

Valerie said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> awww wassa madder? Don't like it when lib black men get out of line, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she'd rather he go "sit on da porch"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?    No way he got fired because he's black.
Click to expand...




It was ''tongue in cheek''.

But, I do NOT get the outrage, and the name calling toward Juan. Now all of a sudden he is not a liberal...he's a bigot...etc etc. 

What he is is an individual. and he thinks for himself.


----------



## midcan5

Foxfyre said:


> "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King
> 
> Please explain why a black man should be expected to perceive or behave differently than any other man.   And then explain why we should not consider it racist when you suggest that black people are different from any other people.  Or should be.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.



Because empathy too often sadly grows out of experience. And if you can excuse Williams' bigotry you need to excuse my pointing it out to hypocrites such as yourself who can excuse his bigotry because it agrees with your bigotry. 

I could even write my reply simpler but I doubt you would understand either.


----------



## Ravi

Kat said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> she'd rather he go "sit on da porch"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?    No way he got fired because he's black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was ''tongue in cheek''.
> 
> But, I do NOT get the outrage, and the name calling toward Juan. Now all of a sudden he is not a liberal...he's a bigot...etc etc.
> 
> What he is is an individual. and he thinks for himself.
Click to expand...

 Liberals can be bigots...He made a bigoted remark. 

I'm not convinced he is a liberal, anyway. He's always had some off the wall beliefs.

Regardless, he has shown that he fears people that dress a certain way.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?    No way he got fired because he's black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was ''tongue in cheek''.
> 
> But, I do NOT get the outrage, and the name calling toward Juan. Now all of a sudden he is not a liberal...he's a bigot...etc etc.
> 
> What he is is an individual. and he thinks for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals can be bigots...He made a bigoted remark.
> 
> I'm not convinced he is a liberal, anyway. He's always had some off the wall beliefs.
> 
> Regardless, he has shown that he fears people that dress a certain way.
Click to expand...


so you are saying he has "zero grounds" for that fear? areyahuh?


----------



## Capitalist

It's crazy for a liberal to think he can get away with free speech while on the public dole.
Hahahahahaha............


----------



## Charles_Main

Queen said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, NPR which gets Public Funding is basically admitting they are liberally biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What NPR is, is a news station that gives you the news without stupid fear mongering cowardly opinions like Juan Williams opines. They don't want to be associated with that kind of biggoted rhetoric. So if you call that liberally biased, then yeah, I've heard it said, truth has a liberal bias.
Click to expand...


So admitting that when you are at an airport and see Muslims you have a moment of anxiety is Bigoted in your view?

Please. He stated the truth, and the Far left Liberal Ideologues who run the publicly funded NPR fired him for it.

Never mind that he then said that we must be careful not to blame all Muslims for the actions of Radicals.

You Libs are unbelievable.


----------



## AquaAthena

taichiliberal said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> NPR Tells Fox News: Please Don't Associate Juan Williams With Us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur.....over the years Juan Williams was becoming sort of 'Alan Colmes light' when he'd comment on Fox News Sunday morning show.  So it's no surprise that NPR would pounce on any excuse to dump him.....and giving ANY type of credence on any level to one of the neocon punditry's biggest blowhards was that excuse.
> 
> And THAT was NPR's big mistake....because essentially they've handed a major win on the talking points wars to the neocon punditry for the next few months.  *What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color. * That he said it while O'Reilly was blowing the foghorn about the NY mosque construction controversy just rubbed the NPR management (and a large number of their audience, I'll wager) the wrong way.
> 
> I say, give it a rest NPR.  Next time, just have the stones to say flat out WHY you're firing someone, and don't wait to do it on some superfluous point.
Click to expand...


*"What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color." *

NPR is low to have done what they have, and _in the manner _in which they executed the fatal delivery of this man's job, who has worked for them for ten years. On the frigging phone!!!!! 

And here is what Juan also said, after the remark that is being touted: ( remark included )

"But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." ( Juan explaining his honest feelings )

Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad *warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.*"*He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts,"* Williams said.

FoxNews.com - NPR Fires Juan Williams; Fox News Expands His Role


----------



## WillowTree

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone on the right has said that NPR did not have the right to do this.  I sure as heck know I have not.  Of course they have the right to do this, but that does not make it right.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Well...except those that claim his first amendment rights were violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Federal government was complicit in the firing, his First Amendment rights WERE violated.
Click to expand...


Exactly. They are a partially federally funded entity. Our money is a representation of us. He was punished for voicing a fear.


----------



## Capitalist

Charles_Main said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, NPR which gets Public Funding is basically admitting they are liberally biased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What NPR is, is a news station that gives you the news without stupid fear mongering cowardly opinions like Juan Williams opines. They don't want to be associated with that kind of biggoted rhetoric. So if you call that liberally biased, then yeah, I've heard it said, truth has a liberal bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So admitting that when you are at an airport and see Muslims you have a moment of anxiety is Bigoted in your view?
> 
> Please. He stated the truth, and the Far left Liberal Ideologues who run the publicly funded NPR fired him for it.
Click to expand...


He said something that the government doesn't approve of, so Government Radio fires him?  This might be an actual case of censorship.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...except those that claim his first amendment rights were violated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Federal government was complicit in the firing, his First Amendment rights WERE violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's pretty retarded. Are you seriously that paranoid?
Click to expand...


NPR is publicly funded RAVI, I think that is what he is eluding to.

But then why am I arguing with you, You actually had the balls to say you never really thought he was a liberal anyways. 

To funny. If you actually think that you are more lost than I thought. He is a liberal though and through.


----------



## AquaAthena

Capitalist said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What NPR is, is a news station that gives you the news without stupid fear mongering cowardly opinions like Juan Williams opines. They don't want to be associated with that kind of biggoted rhetoric. So if you call that liberally biased, then yeah, I've heard it said, truth has a liberal bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So admitting that when you are at an airport and see Muslims you have a moment of anxiety is Bigoted in your view?
> 
> Please. He stated the truth, and the Far left Liberal Ideologues who run the publicly funded NPR fired him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said something that the government doesn't approve of, so Government Radio fires him?  This might be an actual case of censorship.
Click to expand...


It's what happens in a government owned entity or state. Look out!


----------



## Moon

Queen said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from Juan Williams being a coward, fearful of Muslims on airplanes, he has no idea what the constitution is all about.
> 
> From the OP link:
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech is protected from being infringed upon by the US government, not by our employers. The constitution protects us from being arrested for speaking our minds. Not from being fired from our jobs.
> 
> Juan Williams is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is an idiot for giving his honest opinion?  Why is it so ludicrous to think that a large portion of this population might get a little nervous if a group of Muslim people in full garb sit next to them on a plane?
> 
> Was it not radicals of the Muslim faith that crashed planes back in 2001?
> 
> Unfortunately, his point wasn't even taken in as it was even though he was man enough to admit he gets nervous, that it is wrong even on his part and that him and the rest of this country needs to move forward from those negative emotions.
> 
> NPR had this guy on the chopping block for a while and was waiting for the perfect moment to strike and they got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK maybe you're an idiot too? You think what I wrote means Juan is an idiot for giving his honest opinion? Either you're an idiot or dishonest.
> 
> My point is clear. Juan is a coward and a bigot for being afraid of muslims.
> 
> Juan is an idiot for thinking the US constitution protects him from being fired for saying stupid shit.
> 
> So tell us which you are then, idiotic or dishonest with your strawman argument? Because I'm not going to defend a position you decide I made. You'll have to argue my actual point instead of making one up for me.
> 
> Thank you, come again.
Click to expand...


I have to wonder if you understand that the concept of free speech exists outside the rights protected by our Constitution.


----------



## Immanuel

Capitalist said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he violated his contract...which was to be impartial. Kind of hard to consider him impartial if he's freaking out on tv about Muslims, no?
> 
> Whatever...he has a nice, fat FAUX contract now. Maybe he planned the entire thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impartial?  Has Juan Williams ever been impartial?
> 
> I don't think the problem here is that he was not impartial but rather that he was not PC.  Liberals and non-PC do not mix.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He should have said that he felt uneasy when "Teabaggers" get on the jet, that's still OK on NPR.
Click to expand...


And earned him a hell of a large Christmas Bonus too.

Immie


----------



## Trajan

Ravi said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?    No way he got fired because he's black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was ''tongue in cheek''.
> 
> But, I do NOT get the outrage, and the name calling toward Juan. Now all of a sudden he is not a liberal...he's a bigot...etc etc.
> 
> What he is is an individual. and he thinks for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals can be bigots...He made a bigoted remark.
> 
> I'm not convinced he is a liberal, anyway. He's always had some off the wall beliefs.
> 
> Regardless, he has shown that he fears people that dress a certain way.
Click to expand...


so did obamas grandmother and Jesse Jackson, so what the angst meter reading on that? selectivity is not honest right?


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he violated his contract...which was to be impartial. Kind of hard to consider him impartial if he's freaking out on tv about Muslims, no?
> 
> Whatever...he has a nice, fat FAUX contract now. Maybe he planned the entire thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impartial?  Has Juan Williams ever been impartial?
> 
> I don't think the problem here is that he was not impartial but rather that he was not PC.  Liberals and non-PC do not mix.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing I've learned from this thread...it is okay to be pc when Christians are being targeted but not so much when other groups are targeted.
> 
> I find that sad.
Click to expand...


Actually, you are so far off it is really, really sad.  It is okay not to be PC when you are targeting Christians, but the moment you cross the line and say something negative in reference to a protected class you have in effect cut your own throat.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles_Main said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Federal government was complicit in the firing, his First Amendment rights WERE violated.
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty retarded. Are you seriously that paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NPR is publicly funded RAVI, I think that is what he is eluding to.
> 
> But then why am I arguing with you, You actually had the balls to say you never really thought he was a liberal anyways.
> 
> To funny. If you actually think that you are more lost than I thought. He is a liberal though and through.
Click to expand...


If you think Juan is a liberal, then you think Hannitty is somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan.

Juan had every right to voice a fear without thinking of reprisal form Vivian Schiller.  She acted incredibly poorly.  However, since we all believe that the working man has every right to be terminated from a job for any reason, including none, this should be no big deal.


----------



## Capitalist

AquaAthena said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> So admitting that when you are at an airport and see Muslims you have a moment of anxiety is Bigoted in your view?
> 
> Please. He stated the truth, and the Far left Liberal Ideologues who run the publicly funded NPR fired him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said something that the government doesn't approve of, so Government Radio fires him?  This might be an actual case of censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's what happens in a government owned entity or state. Look out!
Click to expand...

_I watch NPR every evening for the correct government approved news analysis.
I know I'm supporting the taxpayer-extorted fantasy-land  against my will, but I'm trying to be a good citizen and enjoy the  __indoctrina

_ Never mind.


----------



## Immanuel

JakeStarkey said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty retarded. Are you seriously that paranoid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR is publicly funded RAVI, I think that is what he is eluding to.
> 
> But then why am I arguing with you, You actually had the balls to say you never really thought he was a liberal anyways.
> 
> To funny. If you actually think that you are more lost than I thought. He is a liberal though and through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think Juan is a liberal, then you think Hannitty is somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan.
> 
> Juan had every right to voice a fear without thinking of reprisal form Vivian Schiller.  She acted incredibly poorly.  However, since we all believe that the working man has every right to be terminated from a job for any reason, including none, this should be no big deal.
Click to expand...


Have to agree with you here.

NPR had the right to fire him.  No question about it.  That does not make it a good decision and it definitely makes the double standard of liberal PC-ness stand out like a sore thumb, but NPR had every right to do what they did.

I have to admit.  The one time I have flown since 9/11 I was a bit apprehensive when I saw a muslim get on board as well.  Of course he had every right to get on board, but that made me think for a moment.

And I will admit to walking down public streets and seeing teen-aged  boys in certain gang style clothing and wishing I could just melt into the side of a nearby building to get out of their way.

I suppose that makes me a bigot too and I suspect that most of you who will deny those feelings yourselves are liars.

Immie


----------



## Trajan

check out this schlock, they didn't want him to identify himself as a NPR operative when he went on fox etc. etc...... childish. Hummm so Obama and NPR appear to be one the same page, ala fox as a source, debate platform etc.....I don't think this is honest and rankly no, they should not be allocated public funds if their objectivity is so myopic. 

snip-
_Years ago NPR tried to stop me from going on &#8220;The Factor.&#8221; *When I refused they insisted that I not identify myself as an NPR journalist.* I asked them if they thought people did not know where I appeared on the air as a daily talk show host, national correspondent and news analyst. They refused to budge&#8230;

    Later on the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock crisis President Bush offered to do an NPR interview with me about race relations in America. NPR management refused to take the interview on the grounds that the White House offered it to me and not their other correspondents and hosts. One NPR executive implied I was in the administration&#8217;s pocket, which is a joke, and there was no other reason to offer me the interview. Gee, I guess NPR news executives never read my bestselling history of the civil rights movement &#8220;Eyes on the Prize &#8211; America&#8217;s Civil Rights Years,&#8221; or my highly acclaimed biography &#8220;Thurgood Marshall &#8211;American Revolutionary.&#8221; I guess they never noticed that &#8220;ENOUGH,&#8221; my last book on the state of black leadership in America, found a place on the New York Times bestseller list.

    This all led to NPR demanding that I either agree to let them control my appearances on Fox News and my writings or sign a new contract that removed me from their staff but allowed me to continue working as a news analyst with an office at NPR. The idea was that they would be insulated against anything I said or wrote outside of NPR because they could say that I was not a staff member. What happened is that they immediately began to cut my salary and diminish my on-air role. This week when I pointed out that they had forced me to sign a contract that gave them distance from my commentary outside of NPR I was cut off, ignored and fired._


rest at-
FoxNews.com - JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth

Vivian Schiller the npr CEO should just give it a rest.....

_"NPR chief executive Vivian Schiller is defending the firing of news analyst Juan Williams after his comments on the Fox News Channel, saying his feelings about Muslims are between him and &#8220;his psychiatrist or his publicist.&#8221;_

NPR fires news analyst after remarks about Muslims | San Francisco Examiner


----------



## Moon

What's odd is that, in my opinion, Juan Williams' and Mara Liasson's appearances on Fox gave NPR more credibility with a wider audience than they would have likely had.  I think both Williams and Liasson have garnered a lot of respect from people that might otherwise not get to hear their views, and they always handled themselves professionally.  This just seems like NPR cutting off its nose to spite its face.


----------



## saveliberty

So...anybody want to step up and claim NPR is more fair and balanced than Fox?

This is clearly a form of censorship and meant to be a warning to all other liberal journalists.

Obama wants a dialogue?  Seriously?  This should be investigated and if it leads back to the White House.  Impeach!


----------



## Annie

saveliberty said:


> So...anybody want to step up and claim NPR is more fair and balanced than Fox?
> 
> This is clearly a form of censorship and meant to be a warning to all other liberal journalists.
> 
> Obama wants a dialogue?  Seriously?  This should be investigated and if it leads back to the White House.  Impeach!



Wouldn't be surprised, but we do know it leads back to CAIR, which demonstrates where NPR is influenced.


----------



## saveliberty

It isn't the crime but the cover up that gets politicans.  Get all of the White House's emails and text messages ASAP.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saveliberty said:


> So...anybody want to step up and claim NPR is more fair and balanced than Fox?
> 
> This is clearly a form of censorship and meant to be a warning to all other liberal journalists.
> 
> Obama wants a dialogue?  Seriously?  This should be investigated and if it leads back to the White House.  Impeach!



I have listened to both regularly for a long time, and undoubtedly as Fox slid down the ethical hill as a voice of propaganda masquerading as a "fair and balanced" alternative (my aching ass) to "mainstrem media", I normally could count on NPR to the one that would generally give a fair shake to both sides.  I am not so sure now.

saveliberty, I see a nonsequitur in your attempt to link Obamian deviousness in this scenario to a plot to "warn" journalists.  Seriously now.


----------



## CMike

The problem is that NPR, the radical left wing radio station, is being funded with taxpayers' money.

That's what needs to stop.


----------



## WillowTree

I told ya'll Bill O'Reilly wasn't gonna take kindly to this here bullshit. he pointed his finger at the nutbar Schiller tonight and said "NPR is gonna rue the day."


----------



## JakeStarkey

NPR is not in any way shape, form, or fashion "a radical left wing radio station."  You, however, sound like a far right wing kook on a bent.  Go for it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

WillowTree said:


> I told ya'll Bill O'Reilly wasn't gonna take kindly to this here bullshit. he pointed his finger at the nutbar Schiller tonight and said "NPR is gonna rue the day."



He's probably right.  It can join Fox in looking absolutely stupid on this one.  Vivian Schiller needs to resign, like four hours ago.


----------



## saveliberty

JakeStarkey said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...anybody want to step up and claim NPR is more fair and balanced than Fox?
> 
> This is clearly a form of censorship and meant to be a warning to all other liberal journalists.
> 
> Obama wants a dialogue?  Seriously?  This should be investigated and if it leads back to the White House.  Impeach!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have listened to both regularly for a long time, and undoubtedly as Fox slid down the ethical hill as a voice of propaganda masquerading as a "fair and balanced" alternative (my aching ass) to "mainstrem media", I normally could count on NPR to the one that would generally give a fair shake to both sides.  I am not so sure now.
> 
> saveliberty, I see a nonsequitur in your attempt to link Obamian deviousness in this scenario to a plot to "warn" journalists.  Seriously now.
Click to expand...


Gibbs has started down this road before.  It is an established pattern now.  In this case, it was a twofer.  Get to hit Fox and Juan all in one.  It needs to be investigated.  WOnder who gets thrown under the bus to save the President this time?


----------



## Valerie

WillowTree said:


> I told ya'll Bill O'Reilly wasn't gonna take kindly to this here bullshit. he pointed his finger at the nutbar Schiller tonight and said "NPR is gonna rue the day."





   Dialogue is a good thing...


----------



## JakeStarkey

saveliberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...anybody want to step up and claim NPR is more fair and balanced than Fox?
> 
> This is clearly a form of censorship and meant to be a warning to all other liberal journalists.
> 
> Obama wants a dialogue?  Seriously?  This should be investigated and if it leads back to the White House.  Impeach!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have listened to both regularly for a long time, and undoubtedly as Fox slid down the ethical hill as a voice of propaganda masquerading as a "fair and balanced" alternative (my aching ass) to "mainstrem media", I normally could count on NPR to the one that would generally give a fair shake to both sides.  I am not so sure now.
> 
> saveliberty, I see a nonsequitur in your attempt to link Obamian deviousness in this scenario to a plot to "warn" journalists.  Seriously now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gibbs has started down this road before.  It is an established pattern now.  In this case, it was a twofer.  Get to hit Fox and Juan all in one.  It needs to be investigated.  WOnder who gets thrown under the bus to save the President this time?
Click to expand...


Fox whines when it gets hit by the other side?  Who would have thought?  You are stretching on this.  That's like someone trying to link Ayres as an Obamian speech writer.  Nonsense.


----------



## WillowTree

CMike said:


> The problem is that NPR, the radical left wing radio station, is being funded with taxpayers' money.
> 
> That's what needs to stop.



and by Soros. 1.8 billion. soros has bought him some media.


----------



## saveliberty

I don't want to hear a SINGLE lefty bring up someone's free speech rights for the next year, unless they start defending Juan now.


----------



## CMike

JakeStarkey said:


> NPR is not in any way shape, form, or fashion "a radical left wing radio station."  You, however, sound like a far right wing kook on a bent.  Go for it.



Their actions canning Juan Williams confirms it.


----------



## Valerie

saveliberty said:


> I don't want to hear a SINGLE lefty bring up someone's free speech rights for the next year, unless they start defending Juan now.





  He is still free to say whatever he likes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CMike said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR is not in any way shape, form, or fashion "a radical left wing radio station."  You, however, sound like a far right wing kook on a bent.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions canning Juan Williams confirms it.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  It means that someone, Vivian Schiller, made a stupid ass mistake.  I bet she is canned by the end of the week.  And on that scintillating note, I am off to watch some "Glee".


----------



## saveliberty

Valerie said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to hear a SINGLE lefty bring up someone's free speech rights for the next year, unless they start defending Juan now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is still free to say whatever he likes.
Click to expand...


A defense would be:

1.  He should get his job back.
2.  He was wrongly discharged.
3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.


----------



## Trajan

ah but will she give the soros money back before she goes?


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> except NOT ONE of the 19 Muslims (jihad) that brought the world trade center and Pentagon down, were WEARING Muslim garb...
> 
> i feel sorry for him too...



True.

We probably need to strip search any Muslim NOT wearing "muslim garb."

BTW, WTF is Muslim Garb?


----------



## mudwhistle

Valerie said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to hear a SINGLE lefty bring up someone's free speech rights for the next year, unless they start defending Juan now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is still free to say whatever he likes.
Click to expand...


Not if he wanted to keep his friggen job with a lefty radio station. 

Notice how this never happens on a right-wing program. 

Why is it the left only pays lip-service to freedom and liberty?


----------



## Valerie

saveliberty said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to hear a SINGLE lefty bring up someone's free speech rights for the next year, unless they start defending Juan now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is still free to say whatever he likes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
Click to expand...





They had a standard of employment which he violated.  He had a track record of injecting his personal bias where it was uncalled for according to that standard.

Given the context, I could see NPR forgiving those comments but that is up to their discretion.


----------



## Charles_Main

JakeStarkey said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR is not in any way shape, form, or fashion "a radical left wing radio station."  You, however, sound like a far right wing kook on a bent.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions canning Juan Williams confirms it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  It means that someone, Vivian Schiller, made a stupid ass mistake.  I bet she is canned by the end of the week.  And on that scintillating note, I am off to watch some "Glee".
Click to expand...


I also Bet NPR loses it's Federal funding as well.


----------



## WillowTree

Valerie said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is still free to say whatever he likes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had a standard of employment which he violated.  He had a track record of injecting his personal bias where it was uncalled for according to that standard.
> 
> Given the context, I could see NPR forgiving those comments but that is up to their discretion.
Click to expand...


I can't wait to see how the law suit turns out. It's gonna be interesting. She better have a damn good paper trail. She better have called him in counseled him on his "wrong behavior" done a performance evaluation stating such problems and it better have JUan's signature on it. Otherwise she has a problemo.


----------



## Charles_Main

Valerie said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is still free to say whatever he likes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had a standard of employment which he violated.  He had a track record of injecting his personal bias where it was uncalled for according to that standard.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Wrong be was fired because the personal Bias he showed was not far left enough.
> 
> NPR does not fire it's other people who regularly inject their Personal Far left bias.
> 
> He was fired for being to moderate of a liberal.
Click to expand...


----------



## Annie

Charles_Main said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions canning Juan Williams confirms it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  It means that someone, Vivian Schiller, made a stupid ass mistake.  I bet she is canned by the end of the week.  And on that scintillating note, I am off to watch some "Glee".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also Bet NPR loses it's Federal funding as well.
Click to expand...


They never should have had state funding, PBS either. let them sell their product just like all other outlets.


----------



## Meister

JakeStarkey said:


> NPR is not in any way shape, form, or fashion "a radical left wing radio station."  You, however, sound like a far right wing kook on a bent.  Go for it.



Radical left.....no, but they aren't just left of center either.


----------



## Valerie

Charles_Main said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had a standard of employment which he violated.  He had a track record of injecting his personal bias where it was uncalled for according to that standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong be was fired because the personal Bias he showed was not far left enough.
> 
> NPR does not fire it's other people who regularly inject their Personal Far left bias.
> 
> He was fired for being to moderate of a liberal.
Click to expand...





_NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller sent an internal memo Thursday seeking to clarify why *Williams' contract was terminated*, claiming that *the remarks he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" weren't the problem, he was canned because he's become a pundit rather than an analyst.*_


----------



## WillowTree

Valerie said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had a standard of employment which he violated.  He had a track record of injecting his personal bias where it was uncalled for according to that standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong be was fired because the personal Bias he showed was not far left enough.
> 
> NPR does not fire it's other people who regularly inject their Personal Far left bias.
> 
> He was fired for being to moderate of a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller sent an internal memo Thursday seeking to clarify why *Williams' contract was terminated*, claiming that *the remarks he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" weren't the problem, he was canned because he's become a pundit rather than an analyst.*_
Click to expand...


It's her word against his now isn't it? Unless of course she's carefully documented these problems with Juan. His performance evaluations should reflect these "previous incidents" true?


----------



## mudwhistle

JakeStarkey said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR is not in any way shape, form, or fashion "a radical left wing radio station."  You, however, sound like a far right wing kook on a bent.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions canning Juan Williams confirms it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  It means that someone, Vivian Schiller, made a stupid ass mistake.  I bet she is canned by the end of the week.  And on that scintillating note, I am off to watch some "Glee".
Click to expand...


NPR supplies a couple of the libs Fox uses to counter-balance the discussions. I hear they want to can Moral Ireson just for general purposes. 

Doesn't anyone think this coddling of Muslims is getting out of hand?

What has been a constant threat to Americans at home and abroad has now become a protected class like Blacks and Hispanics.


----------



## WillowTree

mudwhistle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions canning Juan Williams confirms it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  It means that someone, Vivian Schiller, made a stupid ass mistake.  I bet she is canned by the end of the week.  And on that scintillating note, I am off to watch some "Glee".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NPR supplies a couple of the libs Fox uses to counter-balance the discussions. I hear they want to can Moral Ireson just for general purposes.
> 
> Doesn't anyone think this coddling of Muslims is getting out of hand?
> 
> What has been a constant threat to Americans at home and abroad has now become a protected class like Blacks and Hispanics.
Click to expand...


Juan wasn't well protected was he?


----------



## Valerie

WillowTree said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong be was fired because the personal Bias he showed was not far left enough.
> 
> NPR does not fire it's other people who regularly inject their Personal Far left bias.
> 
> He was fired for being to moderate of a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller sent an internal memo Thursday seeking to clarify why *Williams' contract was terminated*, claiming that *the remarks he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" weren't the problem, he was canned because he's become a pundit rather than an analyst.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's her word against his now isn't it? Unless of course she's *carefully documented these problems* with Juan. His *performance evaluations should reflect these "previous incidents"* true?
Click to expand...




Yes, I would think so, but I'm not privy to the contract or the incidents.......you?


----------



## WillowTree

Valerie said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> _NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller sent an internal memo Thursday seeking to clarify why *Williams' contract was terminated*, claiming that *the remarks he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" weren't the problem, he was canned because he's become a pundit rather than an analyst.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's her word against his now isn't it? Unless of course she's *carefully documented these problems* with Juan. His *performance evaluations should reflect these "previous incidents"* true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would think so, but I'm not privy to the contract or the incidents.......you?
Click to expand...


No, I don't, but I wasn't the one spouting off about how right they were to fire Mr. Williams. I'm just saying if it goes to court she better be able to prove her allegations were documented and discussed with the afore mentioned Mr. Williams.


----------



## mudwhistle

WillowTree said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  It means that someone, Vivian Schiller, made a stupid ass mistake.  I bet she is canned by the end of the week.  And on that scintillating note, I am off to watch some "Glee".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR supplies a couple of the libs Fox uses to counter-balance the discussions. I hear they want to can Moral Ireson just for general purposes.
> 
> Doesn't anyone think this coddling of Muslims is getting out of hand?
> 
> What has been a constant threat to Americans at home and abroad has now become a protected class like Blacks and Hispanics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juan wasn't well protected was he?
Click to expand...


Guess what happens to any Black that gets out of line. See Clarence Thomas


----------



## CMike

WillowTree said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong be was fired because the personal Bias he showed was not far left enough.
> 
> NPR does not fire it's other people who regularly inject their Personal Far left bias.
> 
> He was fired for being to moderate of a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller sent an internal memo Thursday seeking to clarify why *Williams' contract was terminated*, claiming that *the remarks he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" weren't the problem, he was canned because he's become a pundit rather than an analyst.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's her word against his now isn't it? Unless of course she's carefully documented these problems with Juan. His performance evaluations should reflect these "previous incidents" true?
Click to expand...



A CYA memo.


----------



## WillowTree

mudwhistle said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR supplies a couple of the libs Fox uses to counter-balance the discussions. I hear they want to can Moral Ireson just for general purposes.
> 
> Doesn't anyone think this coddling of Muslims is getting out of hand?
> 
> What has been a constant threat to Americans at home and abroad has now become a protected class like Blacks and Hispanics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan wasn't well protected was he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what happens to any Black that gets out of line. See Clarence Thomas
Click to expand...


It's his fault. He married a white woman.


----------



## Samson

Meister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR is not in any way shape, form, or fashion "a radical left wing radio station."  You, however, sound like a far right wing kook on a bent.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical left.....no, but they aren't just left of center either.
Click to expand...


Yes, they may be a block or two "left of center?"

I went to NPR's website, where I've never ventured before (probably due to the supposed absense of Octoerotic Art).

I didn't find it much "off center."

NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR

Lemme know what you find that supports the assertation that NPR is anything but middle of the road.


----------



## CMike

NPR is racist that's why Juan was fired. Did you notice Vivian what's her name was white?


----------



## mudwhistle

WillowTree said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan wasn't well protected was he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what happens to any Black that gets out of line. See Clarence Thomas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's his fault. He married a white woman.
Click to expand...


that's not the biggest crime. Being conservative is. Now they're getting them for being sociable to conservatives. George Soros and others don't like that. They hate their message being muddled up with confusing truth.


----------



## Intense

mudwhistle said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR supplies a couple of the libs Fox uses to counter-balance the discussions. I hear they want to can Moral Ireson just for general purposes.
> 
> Doesn't anyone think this coddling of Muslims is getting out of hand?
> 
> What has been a constant threat to Americans at home and abroad has now become a protected class like Blacks and Hispanics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan wasn't well protected was he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what happens to any Black that gets out of line. See Clarence Thomas
Click to expand...


Juan will benefit well from this encounter. My bet is his eye's are opened to the hypocrisy behind NPR. They screwed up big time and there is no hiding it. Vivian Schiller should be busy checking out Unemployment real soon.


----------



## mudwhistle

Samson said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR is not in any way shape, form, or fashion "a radical left wing radio station."  You, however, sound like a far right wing kook on a bent.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical left.....no, but they aren't just left of center either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they may be a block or two "left of center?"
> 
> I went to NPR's website, where I've never ventured before (probably due to the supposed absense of Octoerotic Art).
> 
> I didn't find it much "off center."
> 
> NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR
> 
> Lemme know what you find that supports the assertation that NPR is anything but middle of the road.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what they appear to be. What they believe in and how they run their operation is the issue here.


----------



## Intense

George Soros's picture belongs in the Post Office, not on a stamp, but as #1 on the 10 Most wanted list, He is an enemy of the Republic.


----------



## mudwhistle

Intense said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan wasn't well protected was he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what happens to any Black that gets out of line. See Clarence Thomas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juan will benefit well from this encounter. My bet is his eye's are opened to the hypocrisy behind NPR. They screwed up big time and there is no hiding it. Vivian Schiller should be busy checking out Unemployment real soon.
Click to expand...


Some of those greasy haired black pajama wearing NPR assholes came to my unit and tried to build a case against Bush by videotaping a bunch of the returning 5th Groupers. They wanted to hear some juicy stories about murders and killing of civilians and none of the guys fell for it.


----------



## CMike

NPR hates black people, that's why he was fired.


----------



## Valerie

Looks like Williams is going to land on his feet just fine.





> "I don't fit in their box. I'm not a predictable, black liberal," he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.
> 
> ...
> 
> Williams, who *Fox announced Thursday would be taking on an "expanded" role with that network and had signed a multi-year contract*, joined NPR a decade ago as host of Talk of the Nation and later became a senior correspondent. But he rankled executives with outspoken remarks on Fox News, where he was also a paid commentator, and in newspaper opinion pieces. In the spring of 2008, NPR shifted him from a staff correspondent position, making him instead a senior news analyst on contract. In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen  most recently, after he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress.
> 
> Juan Williams: NPR Went After Me Because 'I Appear On Fox' : The Two-Way : NPR


----------



## Meister

Valerie said:


> Looks like Williams is going to land on his feet just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't fit in their box. I'm not a predictable, black liberal," he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.
> 
> ...
> 
> Williams, who *Fox announced Thursday would be taking on an "expanded" role with that network and had signed a multi-year contract*, joined NPR a decade ago as host of Talk of the Nation and later became a senior correspondent. But he rankled executives with outspoken remarks on Fox News, where he was also a paid commentator, and in newspaper opinion pieces. In the spring of 2008, NPR shifted him from a staff correspondent position, making him instead a senior news analyst on contract. In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen  most recently, after he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress.
> 
> Juan Williams: NPR Went After Me Because 'I Appear On Fox' : The Two-Way : NPR
Click to expand...


Good for him.


----------



## WillowTree

Valerie said:


> Looks like Williams is going to land on his feet just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't fit in their box. I'm not a predictable, black liberal," he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.
> 
> ...
> 
> Williams, who *Fox announced Thursday would be taking on an "expanded" role with that network and had signed a multi-year contract*, joined NPR a decade ago as host of Talk of the Nation and later became a senior correspondent. But he rankled executives with outspoken remarks on Fox News, where he was also a paid commentator, and in newspaper opinion pieces. In the spring of 2008, NPR shifted him from a staff correspondent position, making him instead a senior news analyst on contract. In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen  most recently, after he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress.
> 
> Juan Williams: NPR Went After Me Because 'I Appear On Fox' : The Two-Way : NPR
Click to expand...


But that doesn't let NPR off the proverbial hook.


----------



## WillowTree

CMike said:


> NPR is racist that's why Juan was fired. Did you notice Vivian what's her name was white?



She fired the ONLY black man on the NPR staff.


----------



## Samson

mudwhistle said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Radical left.....no, but they aren't just left of center either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they may be a block or two "left of center?"
> 
> I went to NPR's website, where I've never ventured before (probably due to the supposed absense of Octoerotic Art).
> 
> I didn't find it much "off center."
> 
> NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR
> 
> Lemme know what you find that supports the assertation that NPR is anything but middle of the road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what they appear to be. What they believe in and how they run their operation is the issue here.
Click to expand...


They seem to be "running their operation" like any other government agency: with complete and total political correctness.

What else do you expect?

If any bureaucratic wonk even hints at uttering anything less that total PC IN PUBLIC, then they're eliminated.


----------



## saveliberty

NPR LIKES black people, they just don't necessarily want to...you know...work with them.  Particularly when they won't fit into the stereotype.


----------



## WillowTree

Samson said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they may be a block or two "left of center?"
> 
> I went to NPR's website, where I've never ventured before (probably due to the supposed absense of Octoerotic Art).
> 
> I didn't find it much "off center."
> 
> NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR
> 
> Lemme know what you find that supports the assertation that NPR is anything but middle of the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what they appear to be. What they believe in and how they run their operation is the issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They seem to be "running their operation" like any other government agency: with complete and total political correctness.
> 
> What else do you expect?
> 
> If any bureaucratic wonk even hints at uttering anything less that total PC IN PUBLIC, then they're eliminated.
Click to expand...


Unless you happen to be Harry Reid.


----------



## saveliberty

Let's see I'm racist for not liking President Obama's policies and leadership style.

What the Hell I'm I for liking Juan's honesty and transparency?


----------



## Valerie

saveliberty said:


> NPR LIKES black people, they just don't necessarily want to...you know...work with them.  Particularly when they won't fit into the stereotype.





Come on...It's not about the color of his skin AT ALL.



IMO the fact that he made that statement reinforces their letting him go.

"*I don't fit in their box. I'm not a predictable, black liberal*," he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.


----------



## CMike

Obviously National White Peoples radio hates blacks.


----------



## Sheldon

Valerie said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR LIKES black people, they just don't necessarily want to...you know...work with them.  Particularly when they won't fit into the stereotype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on...It's not about the color of his skin AT ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the fact that he made that statement reinforces their letting him go.
> 
> "*I don't fit in their box. I'm not a predictable, black liberal*," he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.
Click to expand...




Uh-uh, no he di'int. Did Juan just play the race card?  


Seems like there's plenty of race-baiting going on about this topic anyways.


----------



## CaféAuLait

I find it difficult to believe that if Williams said he was nervous in a "typical southern town"   or maybe when he is "stopped by a cop for a traffic stop" and may be worried about racial profiling, he would have been fired.  I see many black people today blame white people for slavery but not a single white person in the US today owned a slave. 

It seems that demands are we tamp down natural instincts and not speak of them. The nervousness is a reaction and perhaps a warning system in place by our brain to watch out for thing that warn us of past experiences IMO. They teach us to be on heightened awareness because of history.  I believe it is a natural reaction.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LYHhI0HkGI[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmP6KzTmizs[/ame]


----------



## Samson

WillowTree said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what they appear to be. What they believe in and how they run their operation is the issue here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They seem to be "running their operation" like any other government agency: with complete and total political correctness.
> 
> What else do you expect?
> 
> If any bureaucratic wonk even hints at uttering anything less that total PC IN PUBLIC, then they're eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be Harry Reid.
Click to expand...


Elected officials can say whatever they want: They may or may not be reelected.


----------



## Samson

saveliberty said:


> Let's see I'm racist for not liking President Obama's policies and leadership style.
> 
> What the Hell I'm I for liking Juan's honesty and transparency?



In Love?


----------



## Titanic Sailor

exactly, a pickle smoocher too?

Just kidding, it was my turn........


----------



## daveman

Kat said:


> No. He isn't. He is telling how it makes HIM feel...worried, nervous. Not that anyone was doing wrong.


Indeed.  He stated his own feelings.

PC advocates wish to dictate _everyone's_ feelings.


----------



## edthecynic

Intense said:


> George Soros's picture belongs in the Post Office, not on a stamp, but as #1 on the 10 Most wanted list, He is an enemy of the Republic.


*SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*


----------



## Samson

daveman said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. He isn't. He is telling how it makes HIM feel...worried, nervous. Not that anyone was doing wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  He stated his own feelings.
> 
> PC advocates wish to dictate _everyone's_ feelings.
Click to expand...


Not their feelings.

Only _what they say._


----------



## Political Junky

Yes, and Fox gave him a huge raise for doing the same thing.


----------



## Trajan

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is an answer to Ravis exact question, as to past offense towards a grp. on NPR etc and how that went down....



_National Public Radio Issues Apology for Rapture Remark_
December 23, 1995|Associated Press

_WASHINGTON  National Public Radio made an on-air apology Friday evening for a commentator's remark on the return of Christ, after the Christian Coalition complained that the comment was anti-Christian.

The remark by humorist Andrei Codrescu occurred Tuesday during a commentary on NPR's popular program "All Things Considered."

Codrescu, *who is on contract *with NPR but not a full-time employee, said on his program: "The evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe in this crap would leave the world a better place."

The apology broadcast Friday evening on NPR's national feed of "All Things Considered" said Codrescu's "remarks crossed a line of taste and tolerance that we should have defended with greater vigilance."

NPR spokeswoman Kathy Scott said: "We spoke to Andrei, who told us he would like to apologize for what, in hindsight, he regards as an inappropriate attempt at humor. It is one that he regrets and so does NPR."
_
National Public Radio Issues Apology for Rapture Remark - Los Angeles Times


Condrescu DID NOT lose his contract.....he was given a stern talking too by NPR staff.....


----------



## Intense

edthecynic said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Soros's picture belongs in the Post Office, not on a stamp, but as #1 on the 10 Most wanted list, He is an enemy of the Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
Click to expand...


Soros is an ass, so are you, maybe you should both get a room.


----------



## Charles_Main

mudwhistle said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what happens to any Black that gets out of line. See Clarence Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's his fault. He married a white woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's not the biggest crime. Being conservative is. Now they're getting them for being sociable to conservatives. George Soros and others don't like that. They hate their message being muddle up with confusing truth.
Click to expand...


Juan a conservative? Hardly. He is a moderate Liberal, and for that they hate him. because in their world only the Far left should be heard.


----------



## Immanuel

mudwhistle said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to hear a SINGLE lefty bring up someone's free speech rights for the next year, unless they start defending Juan now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is still free to say whatever he likes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if he wanted to keep his friggen job with a lefty radio station.
> 
> Notice how this never happens on a right-wing program.
> 
> Why is it the left only pays lip-service to freedom and liberty?
Click to expand...


And tolerance.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

So, unfolding information since earlier.

We already posted that George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters this past week and apparently it was to scrutinize anybody on Fox News and do whatever is necessary to destroy those people.

And apparently George Soros gave $1.8 million to NPR this past week or at least recently and you don't give that kind of donation without some strings being attached.

Coincidence you think?


----------



## Intense

Foxfyre said:


> So, unfolding information since earlier.
> 
> We already posted that George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters this past week and apparently it was to scrutinize anybody on Fox News and do whatever is necessary to destroy those people.
> 
> And apparently George Soros gave $1.8 million to NPR this past week or at least recently and you don't give that kind of donation without some strings being attached.
> 
> Coincidence you think?



I just wonder who would get to play Soros if they did a remake of "The Godfather".


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> So, unfolding information since earlier.
> 
> We already posted that George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters this past week and apparently it was to scrutinize anybody on Fox News and do whatever is necessary to destroy those people.
> 
> And apparently George Soros gave $1.8 million to NPR this past week or at least recently and you don't give that kind of donation without some strings being attached.
> 
> Coincidence you think?


*SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, unfolding information since earlier.
> 
> We already posted that George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters this past week and apparently it was to scrutinize anybody on Fox News and do whatever is necessary to destroy those people.
> 
> And apparently George Soros gave $1.8 million to NPR this past week or at least recently and you don't give that kind of donation without some strings being attached.
> 
> Coincidence you think?
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
Click to expand...


Of course that's all it is....

I'm sure you would give away millions and expecting nothing in return.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

NPR can lie all they want. George Soros and Media Matters were behind this fiasco. Soros is the primary funding source for Media Matters and Media Matters was created to attack Fox News. Soros gives NPR a $1.8 Million contribution and a couple days later a Fox News commentator gets fired and we're supposed to believe that it's just coincidence? What a scam. I really do think our Government should investigate this firing. Something just stinks about it. Either way,NPR should no longer receive Taxpayer funding. They have lost all credibility with this one.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, unfolding information since earlier.
> 
> We already posted that George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters this past week and apparently it was to scrutinize anybody on Fox News and do whatever is necessary to destroy those people.
> 
> And apparently George Soros gave $1.8 million to NPR this past week or at least recently and you don't give that kind of donation without some strings being attached.
> 
> Coincidence you think?
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that's all it is....
> 
> I'm sure you would give away millions and expecting nothing in return.
Click to expand...

Do you mean like FOX donating to the GOP and expecting nothing in return?????


----------



## Revere

Fox commentators don't misdirect about where their political leanings are.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

I heard fox news just gave Juan Williams some deal that is like 2x what NPR was paying him.

Every cloud has a silver lining.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I heard fox news just gave Juan Williams some deal that is like 2x what NPR was paying him.
> 
> Every cloud has a silver lining.


Every successful publicity stunt deserves remuneration.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's all it is....
> 
> I'm sure you would give away millions and expecting nothing in return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean like FOX donating to the GOP and expecting nothing in return?????
Click to expand...


Oh....who has Fox fired lately?


----------



## edthecynic

Revere said:


> Fox commentators don't misdirect about where their political leanings are.


Sure, they are Right there "Fair and Balanced" in the middle like the "registered Independent" Slick Willie O'Rilley.
Oh wait a minute, he's a registered Republican.
Never mind.


----------



## eagleseven

Why do we even have a _state press?_ It's an obsolete relic leaching public funds.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox commentators don't misdirect about where their political leanings are.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they are Right there "Fair and Balanced" in the middle like the "registered Independent" Slick Willie O'Rilley.
> Oh wait a minute, he's a registered Republican.
> Never mind.
Click to expand...


No, he's always said he was an Independent


----------



## Lumpy 1

I think they should just fire NPR.. it's just another liberal waste of taxpayers money..


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's all it is....
> 
> I'm sure you would give away millions and expecting nothing in return.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like FOX donating to the GOP and expecting nothing in return?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh....who has Fox fired lately?
Click to expand...

Fox News Kills Story and Fires Reporters
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0[/ame]

Steve Wilson & Jane Akre, Catherine Herridge, Harmeen Jones, Jennifer Locke, John Loftus, Mike Sheehan, etc.


----------



## taichiliberal

Valerie said:


> Looks like Williams is going to land on his feet just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't fit in their box. I'm not a predictable, black liberal," he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.
> 
> ...
> 
> Williams, who *Fox announced Thursday would be taking on an "expanded" role with that network and had signed a multi-year contract*, joined NPR a decade ago as host of Talk of the Nation and later became a senior correspondent. But he rankled executives with outspoken remarks on Fox News, where he was also a paid commentator, and in newspaper opinion pieces. In the spring of 2008, NPR shifted him from a staff correspondent position, making him instead a senior news analyst on contract. In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen  most recently, after he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress.
> 
> Juan Williams: NPR Went After Me Because 'I Appear On Fox' : The Two-Way : NPR
Click to expand...



Gee, there's a shock!  Seems old Juan had been sidling up to Faux News for sometime.....he'll just be a their new Alan Colmes.


----------



## Foxfyre

Lumpy 1 said:


> I think they should just fire NPR.. it's just another liberal waste of taxpayers money..



I have been a regular contributor to NPR and PBS for a long time now.   But after this last stunt no more.  And I think that is pretty much where a whole lot of people are on this.  Some in Congress are also calling to pull all federal funding too.  I wouldn't be surprised if a number of corporate sponsors also rethink funding NPR programming etc.

When even Whoopie Goldberg goes public and denounces NPR's actions on this, I think we can reasonably guess that there is widespread disapproval of NPR right now.


----------



## eagleseven

taichiliberal said:


> Gee, there's a shock!  Seems old Juan had been sidling up to Faux News for sometime.....he'll just be a their new Alan Colmes.


He's a _traitor_ to the cause, huh?


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like FOX donating to the GOP and expecting nothing in return?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....who has Fox fired lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fox News Kills Story and Fires Reporters
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0[/ame]
> 
> Steve Wilson & Jane Akre, *Catherine Herridge*, Harmeen Jones, Jennifer Locke, John Loftus, Mike Sheehan, etc.
Click to expand...

LIAR

- Political News - FOXNews.com


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they should just fire NPR.. it's just another liberal waste of taxpayers money..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been a regular contributor to NPR and PBS for a long time now.   But after this last stunt no more.  And I think that is pretty much where a whole lot of people are on this.  Some in Congress are also calling to pull all federal funding too.  I wouldn't be surprised if a number of corporate sponsors also rethink funding NPR programming etc.
> 
> When even Whoopie Goldberg goes public and denounces NPR's actions on this, I think we can reasonably guess that there is widespread disapproval of NPR right now.
Click to expand...


Whoopi has to denounce NPR's actions because of the bitching and moaning she and her supporters did when Slimfast dumped her which was another stupid corporate move, but legally within their rights.

In case you forgot, one of many links regarding Slimfast's treatment of Whoopi Goldberg...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/jul/15/advertising.uselections2004

Immie


----------



## Lumpy 1

Foxfyre said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they should just fire NPR.. it's just another liberal waste of taxpayers money..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been a regular contributor to NPR and PBS for a long time now.   But after this last stunt no more.  And I think that is pretty much where a whole lot of people are on this.  Some in Congress are also calling to pull all federal funding too.  I wouldn't be surprised if a number of corporate sponsors also rethink funding NPR programming etc.
> 
> When even Whoopie Goldberg goes public and denounces NPR's actions on this, I think we can reasonably guess that there is widespread disapproval of NPR right now.
Click to expand...


Lady Foxfyre.. you are correct.. as usual


----------



## taichiliberal

AquaAthena said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR wasn't overly fond of Williams' NPR ties being identified on Fox. They've been looking for a reason to cut Williams loose.
> 
> That's what I've read anyway...
> 
> NPR Tells Fox News: Please Don't Associate Juan Williams With Us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur.....over the years Juan Williams was becoming sort of 'Alan Colmes light' when he'd comment on Fox News Sunday morning show.  So it's no surprise that NPR would pounce on any excuse to dump him.....and giving ANY type of credence on any level to one of the neocon punditry's biggest blowhards was that excuse.
> 
> And THAT was NPR's big mistake....because essentially they've handed a major win on the talking points wars to the neocon punditry for the next few months.  *What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color. * That he said it while O'Reilly was blowing the foghorn about the NY mosque construction controversy just rubbed the NPR management (and a large number of their audience, I'll wager) the wrong way.
> 
> I say, give it a rest NPR.  Next time, just have the stones to say flat out WHY you're firing someone, and don't wait to do it on some superfluous point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color." *
> 
> NPR is low to have done what they have, and _in the manner _in which they executed the fatal delivery of this man's job, who has worked for them for ten years. On the frigging phone!!!!!
> 
> And here is what Juan also said, after the remark that is being touted: ( remark included )
> 
> "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." ( Juan explaining his honest feelings )
> 
> Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad *warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.*"*He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts,"* Williams said.
> 
> FoxNews.com - NPR Fires Juan Williams; Fox News Expands His Role
Click to expand...



Ahhh, but he says this post O'Reilly's bullhorning about his latest run in with The View crowd.  Essentially, Williams gives sideways credence to O'Reilly's neocon based rants about the cultural center/mosque proposed construction near Ground Zero in New York. He's been doing a similar verbal dance on the Fox News Sunday morning shows for years now. 

Since NPR is predominantly a news/feature news station.....it does NOT lean hard to the left of politics, nor does it lean hard to the right of politics either.  I suspect the NPR management has been growing impatient with Williams performance for years...but if you're going to fire someone, pick and choose the right and proper time, so when you give a reason, it won't come off like a blatant political partisan attack, as O'Reilly and the rest of the neocon punditry will now state loudly and often for the next few weeks, if not months.

Real bonehead move by NPR.


----------



## DiveCon

taichiliberal said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur.....over the years Juan Williams was becoming sort of 'Alan Colmes light' when he'd comment on Fox News Sunday morning show.  So it's no surprise that NPR would pounce on any excuse to dump him.....and giving ANY type of credence on any level to one of the neocon punditry's biggest blowhards was that excuse.
> 
> And THAT was NPR's big mistake....because essentially they've handed a major win on the talking points wars to the neocon punditry for the next few months.  *What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color. * That he said it while O'Reilly was blowing the foghorn about the NY mosque construction controversy just rubbed the NPR management (and a large number of their audience, I'll wager) the wrong way.
> 
> I say, give it a rest NPR.  Next time, just have the stones to say flat out WHY you're firing someone, and don't wait to do it on some superfluous point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color." *
> 
> NPR is low to have done what they have, and _in the manner _in which they executed the fatal delivery of this man's job, who has worked for them for ten years. On the frigging phone!!!!!
> 
> And here is what Juan also said, after the remark that is being touted: ( remark included )
> 
> "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." ( Juan explaining his honest feelings )
> 
> Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad *warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.*"*He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts,"* Williams said.
> 
> FoxNews.com - NPR Fires Juan Williams; Fox News Expands His Role
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, but he says this post O'Reilly's bullhorning about his latest run in with The View crowd.  Essentially, Williams gives sideways credence to O'Reilly's neocon based rants about the cultural center/mosque proposed construction near Ground Zero in New York. He's been doing a similar verbal dance on the Fox News Sunday morning shows for years now.
> 
> Since NPR is predominantly a news/feature news station.....it does NOT lean hard to the left of politics, nor does it lean hard to the right of politics either.  I suspect the NPR management has been growing impatient with Williams performance for years...but if you're going to fire someone, pick and choose the right and proper time, so when you give a reason, it won't come off like a blatant political partisan attack, as O'Reilly and the rest of the neocon punditry will now state loudly and often for the next few weeks, if not months.
> 
> Real bonehead move by NPR.
Click to expand...

O'Reilly is a neocon now?

when are you going to actually show that you know what the fuck a neocon actually is
cause your post show you are too fucking stupid about the subject


----------



## Kat

taichiliberal said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur.....over the years Juan Williams was becoming sort of 'Alan Colmes light' when he'd comment on Fox News Sunday morning show.  So it's no surprise that NPR would pounce on any excuse to dump him.....and giving ANY type of credence on any level to one of the neocon punditry's biggest blowhards was that excuse.
> 
> And THAT was NPR's big mistake....because essentially they've handed a major win on the talking points wars to the neocon punditry for the next few months.  *What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color. * That he said it while O'Reilly was blowing the foghorn about the NY mosque construction controversy just rubbed the NPR management (and a large number of their audience, I'll wager) the wrong way.
> 
> I say, give it a rest NPR.  Next time, just have the stones to say flat out WHY you're firing someone, and don't wait to do it on some superfluous point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color." *
> 
> NPR is low to have done what they have, and _in the manner _in which they executed the fatal delivery of this man's job, who has worked for them for ten years. On the frigging phone!!!!!
> 
> And here is what Juan also said, after the remark that is being touted: ( remark included )
> 
> "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." ( Juan explaining his honest feelings )
> 
> Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad *warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.*"*He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts,"* Williams said.
> 
> FoxNews.com - NPR Fires Juan Williams; Fox News Expands His Role
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, but he says this post O'Reilly's bullhorning about his latest run in with The View crowd.  Essentially, Williams gives sideways credence to O'Reilly's neocon based rants about the cultural center/mosque proposed construction near Ground Zero in New York. He's been doing a similar verbal dance on the Fox News Sunday morning shows for years now.
> 
> *Since NPR is predominantly a news/feature news station.....it does NOT lean hard to the left of politics*, nor does it lean hard to the right of politics either.  I suspect the NPR management has been growing impatient with Williams performance for years...but if you're going to fire someone, pick and choose the right and proper time, so when you give a reason, it won't come off like a blatant political partisan attack, as O'Reilly and the rest of the neocon punditry will now state loudly and often for the next few weeks, if not months.
> 
> Real bonehead move by NPR.
Click to expand...


  You're teasing us, correct??


----------



## taichiliberal

Oh, and just to keep things on an even keel.......don't anyone think that Fox News won't dump ANY of their on-air talent in a heartbeat if they dare to break ranks and NOT preach the party mantra of the GOP/Tea Bag election committees more than once and/or on a "liberal"/"progressive" show.

Remember how the GOP threw McCain under the bus?  Did Fox punditry stand up for him in earnest?


----------



## Kat

DiveCon said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color." *
> 
> NPR is low to have done what they have, and _in the manner _in which they executed the fatal delivery of this man's job, who has worked for them for ten years. On the frigging phone!!!!!
> 
> And here is what Juan also said, after the remark that is being touted: ( remark included )
> 
> "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." ( Juan explaining his honest feelings )
> 
> Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad *warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.*"*He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts,"* Williams said.
> 
> FoxNews.com - NPR Fires Juan Williams; Fox News Expands His Role
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, but he says this post O'Reilly's bullhorning about his latest run in with The View crowd.  Essentially, Williams gives sideways credence to O'Reilly's neocon based rants about the cultural center/mosque proposed construction near Ground Zero in New York. He's been doing a similar verbal dance on the Fox News Sunday morning shows for years now.
> 
> Since NPR is predominantly a news/feature news station.....it does NOT lean hard to the left of politics, nor does it lean hard to the right of politics either.  I suspect the NPR management has been growing impatient with Williams performance for years...but if you're going to fire someone, pick and choose the right and proper time, so when you give a reason, it won't come off like a blatant political partisan attack, as O'Reilly and the rest of the neocon punditry will now state loudly and often for the next few weeks, if not months.
> 
> Real bonehead move by NPR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> O'Reilly is a neocon now?
> 
> when are you going to actually show that you know what the fuck a neocon actually is
> cause your post show you are too fucking stupid about the subject
Click to expand...




LOL You say it so much better than I.


----------



## eagleseven

taichiliberal said:


> Remember how the GOP threw McCain under the bus?


By running him for President?


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox commentators don't misdirect about where their political leanings are.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they are Right there "Fair and Balanced" in the middle like the "registered Independent" Slick Willie O'Rilley.
> Oh wait a minute, he's a registered Republican.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, *he's always said* he was an Independent
Click to expand...

What he "said" and what he is are two different things. The Daily News in NY checked and found he was a registered Republican since 1994. Being a CON$ervative, he just followed that lie with another. He said he registered as a Republican because there was no way to register as an Independent. THERE WAS!

In this video he starts to admit he's a Republican, then catches himself and changes it to his pretend Independent. Slick Willie OReilly says to Stephanopoulos Youre a Democrat. Im a ReIm an Independent. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9JWE1KSTtA[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon

taichiliberal said:


> Oh, and just to keep things on an even keel.......don't anyone think that Fox News won't dump ANY of their on-air talent in a heartbeat if they dare to break ranks and NOT preach the party mantra of the GOP/Tea Bag election committees more than once and/or on a "liberal"/"progressive" show.
> 
> Remember how the GOP threw McCain under the bus?  Did Fox punditry stand up for him in earnest?


yeah, thats why Bob Bectal and Juan Williams and many other libs work on FNC
you are a pathetic delusional idiot


----------



## Kat

taichiliberal said:


> Oh, and just to keep things on an even keel.......don't anyone think that Fox News won't dump ANY of their on-air talent in a heartbeat if they dare to break ranks and NOT preach the party mantra of the GOP/Tea Bag election committees more than once and/or on a "liberal"/"progressive" show.
> 
> Remember how the GOP threw McCain under the bus?  Did Fox punditry stand up for him in earnest?


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....who has Fox fired lately?
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News Kills Story and Fires Reporters
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0[/ame]
> 
> Steve Wilson & Jane Akre, *Catherine Herridge*, Harmeen Jones, Jennifer Locke, John Loftus, Mike Sheehan, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LIAR
> 
> - Political News - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...

Typical CON$ervoFascist HALF-TRUTH! Only *AFTER* FOX was sued by the EEOC did they offer her a new contract.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News Kills Story and Fires Reporters
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0
> 
> Steve Wilson & Jane Akre, *Catherine Herridge*, Harmeen Jones, Jennifer Locke, John Loftus, Mike Sheehan, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR
> 
> - Political News - FOXNews.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical CON$ervoFascist HALF-TRUTH! Only *AFTER* FOX was sued by the EEOC did they offer her a new contract.
Click to expand...

shes still working there dipshit


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR
> 
> - Political News - FOXNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Typical CON$ervoFascist HALF-TRUTH! Only *AFTER* FOX was sued by the EEOC did they offer her a new contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shes still working there dipshit
Click to expand...

And you're still lying by half-truths.
Fox retaliated against her in 2008 for accusing Fox of gender and age discrimination. THEN Fox got sued by the EEOC for the retaliation. THEN AFTER the EEOC on-site investigation, Fox offered her a new contract in 2009.
I own you yet again.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical CON$ervoFascist HALF-TRUTH! Only *AFTER* FOX was sued by the EEOC did they offer her a new contract.
> 
> 
> 
> shes still working there dipshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're still lying by half-truths.
> Fox retaliated against her in 2008 for accusing Fox of gender and age discrimination. THEN Fox got sued by the EEOC for the retaliation. THEN AFTER the EEOC on-site investigation, Fox offered her a new contract in 2009.
> I own you yet again.
Click to expand...

source?

and you own NO ONE YOU FUCKING MORON


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> shes still working there dipshit
> 
> 
> 
> And you're still lying by half-truths.
> Fox retaliated against her in 2008 for accusing Fox of gender and age discrimination. THEN Fox got sued by the EEOC for the retaliation. THEN AFTER the EEOC on-site investigation, Fox offered her a new contract in 2009.
> I own you yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> source?
> 
> and you own NO ONE YOU FUCKING MORON
Click to expand...

You're a SORE LOSER I've OWNED over 50 times now!

Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation

Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation

National News Network Tried to Punish Female Employee for Complaining About Sex and Age Discrimination, Federal Agency Charges

WASHINGTON  New York-based Fox News Network LLC, which owns and operates the Fox News Channel based in Washington, D.C., retaliated against news reporter Catherine Herridge after she complained to Fox that she was subjected to disparate pay and unequal employment opportunities because of her gender and age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced in a lawsuit filed today.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're still lying by half-truths.
> Fox retaliated against her in 2008 for accusing Fox of gender and age discrimination. THEN Fox got sued by the EEOC for the retaliation. THEN AFTER the EEOC on-site investigation, Fox offered her a new contract in 2009.
> I own you yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> source?
> 
> and you own NO ONE YOU FUCKING MORON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a SORE LOSER I've OWNED over 50 times now!
> 
> Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation
> 
> Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation
> 
> National News Network Tried to Punish Female Employee for Complaining About Sex and Age Discrimination, Federal Agency Charges
> 
> WASHINGTON &#8211; New York-based Fox News Network LLC, which owns and operates the Fox News Channel based in Washington, D.C., retaliated against news reporter Catherine Herridge after she complained to Fox that she was subjected to disparate pay and unequal employment opportunities because of her gender and age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced in a lawsuit filed today.
Click to expand...

you still dont own anything moron
LOL you are fucking pathetic


but yous da winna on da interwebs




and again, dipshit, shes still working there
and she wasnt fired for any report she did


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> source?
> 
> and you own NO ONE YOU FUCKING MORON
> 
> 
> 
> You're a SORE LOSER I've OWNED over 50 times now!
> 
> Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation
> 
> Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation
> 
> National News Network Tried to Punish Female Employee for Complaining About Sex and Age Discrimination, Federal Agency Charges
> 
> WASHINGTON &#8211; New York-based Fox News Network LLC, which owns and operates the Fox News Channel based in Washington, D.C., retaliated against news reporter Catherine Herridge after she complained to Fox that she was subjected to disparate pay and unequal employment opportunities because of her gender and age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced in a lawsuit filed today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you still dont own anything moron
> LOL you are fucking pathetic
> 
> 
> but yous da winna on da interwebs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and again, dipshit, shes still working there
> and she wasnt fired for any report she did
Click to expand...

You admit I OWN you every time I reduce you to nothing but a SPITEFUL neg rep, SUCKER!!!


----------



## Sky Dancer

What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a SORE LOSER I've OWNED over 50 times now!
> 
> Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation
> 
> Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation
> 
> National News Network Tried to Punish Female Employee for Complaining About Sex and Age Discrimination, Federal Agency Charges
> 
> WASHINGTON  New York-based Fox News Network LLC, which owns and operates the Fox News Channel based in Washington, D.C., retaliated against news reporter Catherine Herridge after she complained to Fox that she was subjected to disparate pay and unequal employment opportunities because of her gender and age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced in a lawsuit filed today.
> 
> 
> 
> you still dont own anything moron
> LOL you are fucking pathetic
> 
> 
> but yous da winna on da interwebs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and again, dipshit, shes still working there
> and she wasnt fired for any report she did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You admit I OWN you every time I reduce you to nothing but a SPITEFUL neg rep, SUCKER!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a SORE LOSER I've OWNED over 50 times now!
> 
> Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation
> 
> Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation
> 
> National News Network Tried to Punish Female Employee for Complaining About Sex and Age Discrimination, Federal Agency Charges
> 
> WASHINGTON &#8211; New York-based Fox News Network LLC, which owns and operates the Fox News Channel based in Washington, D.C., retaliated against news reporter Catherine Herridge after she complained to Fox that she was subjected to disparate pay and unequal employment opportunities because of her gender and age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced in a lawsuit filed today.
> 
> 
> 
> you still dont own anything moron
> LOL you are fucking pathetic
> 
> 
> but yous da winna on da interwebs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and again, dipshit, shes still working there
> and she wasnt fired for any report she did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You admit I OWN you every time I reduce you to nothing but a SPITEFUL neg rep, SUCKER!!!
Click to expand...

you are nothing but another pathetic dipshit moron
you own NOTHING
lol


but do keep claiming "winz on da interwebs"


oh, and whine some more about a neg rep
that makes you look SOOOOOO much better


----------



## eagleseven

Sky Dancer said:


> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?


NPR can, and did, fire someone.

Unfortunately for NPR, that someone is well-respected by both the right and left of this nation.


----------



## Immanuel

eagleseven said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?
> 
> 
> 
> NPR can, and did, fire someone.
> 
> Unfortunately for NPR, that someone is well-respected by both the right and left of this nation.
Click to expand...


Evidently not so much by the left.  They are throwing him farther under the bus than Obama threw his pastor.

Immie


----------



## DiveCon

eagleseven said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?
> 
> 
> 
> NPR can, and did, fire someone.
> 
> Unfortunately for NPR, that someone is well-respected by both the right and left of this nation.
Click to expand...

and NPR can fire anyone they wish to
but there will always be repercussions if they fire someone popular


----------



## Kat

DiveCon said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?
> 
> 
> 
> NPR can, and did, fire someone.
> 
> Unfortunately for NPR, that someone is well-respected by both the right and left of this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and NPR can fire anyone they wish to
> but there will always be repercussions if they fire someone popular
Click to expand...


AND the reason they fired him. That is the biggest.


----------



## DiveCon

Immanuel said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?
> 
> 
> 
> NPR can, and did, fire someone.
> 
> Unfortunately for NPR, that someone is well-respected by both the right and left of this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently not so much by the left.  They are throwing him farther under the bus than Obama threw his pastor.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

and grandmother


----------



## DiveCon

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR can, and did, fire someone.
> 
> Unfortunately for NPR, that someone is well-respected by both the right and left of this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> and NPR can fire anyone they wish to
> but there will always be repercussions if they fire someone popular
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND the reason they fired him. That is the biggest.
Click to expand...

that too


----------



## Foxfyre

eagleseven said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?
> 
> 
> 
> NPR can, and did, fire someone.
> 
> Unfortunately for NPR, that someone is well-respected by both the right and left of this nation.
Click to expand...


The Fox News EEOC suit didn't amount to a hill of beans but of course was played up in grand fashion by the Left because it was after all Fox News.

In my earlier life I headed a large agency with roughly 70 to 80 employees.  Year after year we won the employee satisfaction polls but during my tenure we had three EEOC suits filed against us by disgruntled employees.  One of those won her case. The two others did not.  But stuff like that happens in just about all organizations of any size.

NPR fired Juan Williams who had been with them for 10 years.  Meghan Kelley was commenting earlier tonight that he could have a successful lawsuit of his own against them because they never complained about his outside activities before.  If a company does not enforce restrictive clauses for years, it cannot suddenly enforce them by firing the employee.  So it is very possible NPR would be found guilty of breach of contract re Juan Williams.

It is unlikely Williams will sue, however.

But the involvement of CAIR along with mega donations Soros gave to NPR and Media Matters sure makes the whole thing stink to high heaven.


----------



## Sky Dancer

eagleseven said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?
> 
> 
> 
> NPR can, and did, fire someone.
> 
> Unfortunately for NPR, that someone is well-respected by both the right and left of this nation.
Click to expand...


Someone so well respected shouldn't be fired?


----------



## eagleseven

Sky Dancer said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?
> 
> 
> 
> NPR can, and did, fire someone.
> 
> Unfortunately for NPR, that someone is well-respected by both the right and left of this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone so well respected shouldn't be fired?
Click to expand...

Not if your purpose is to enhance national debate.

Or stay in business.


----------



## Sky Dancer

I suspect there is more to the story than one comment.

One reason he was fired, according to Vivian Schiller, NPR&#8217;s CEO, is that the company felt he wasn&#8217;t performing the role of a news analyst:

&#8220;News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that&#8217;s what&#8217;s happened in this situation,&#8221; said Schiller in an email to NPR member stations, some of which are upset about Williams' firing  &#8220;As you all well know," she continued, "we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview &#8211; not our reporters and analysts.&#8221;
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010/10/21/130713285/npr-terminates-contract-with-juan-williams


----------



## DiveCon

Sky Dancer said:


> I suspect there is more to the story than one comment.


there is

$1.8M and the Soros fight against TDFNC


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there is more to the story than one comment.
> 
> 
> 
> there is
> 
> $1.8M and the Soros fight against TDFNC
Click to expand...

*SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*


----------



## Sky Dancer

This latest incident with Williams centers around a collision of values: NPR's values emphasizing fact-based, objective journalism versus the tendency in some parts of the news media, notably Fox News, to promote only one side of the ideological spectrum.

The issue also is whether someone on NPR's payroll should be allowed to say something in one venue that NPR would not allow on its air. NPR&#8217;s ethics code says they cannot.

NPR, like any mainstream news outlet, expects its journalists to be thoughtful and measured in everything they say. What Williams said was deeply offensive to Muslims and inflamed, rather than contributing positively, to an important debate about the role of Muslims in America.

Williams was doing the kind of stereotyping in a public platform that is dangerous to a democracy.  It puts people in categories, as types &#8211; not as individuals with much in common despite their differences.

I can only imagine how Williams, who has chronicled and championed the Civil Rights movement, would have reacted if another prominent journalist had said:

"But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see an African American male in Dashiki with a big Afro, I get worried. I get nervous."
NPR's Firing of Juan Williams Was Poorly Handled : NPR Ombudsman : NPR


----------



## eagleseven

Sky Dancer said:


> I suspect there is more to the story than one comment.
> 
> One reason he was fired, according to Vivian Schiller, NPR&#8217;s CEO, is that the company felt he wasn&#8217;t performing the role of a news analyst:



That's not all...as Vivian put it:



> Fired NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist," the network's CEO told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club earlier today.



NPR CEO Apologizes For 'Psychiatrist' Remark : The Two-Way : NPR

---

There's also the fact that Juan Williams was NPR's only African American show-host. I'm sure the lawyers will have fun with that.


----------



## Sky Dancer

NPR had thoughtful reasons for firing Williams.  Williams is better off on Fox.  They're having a field day over it.


----------



## eagleseven

Sky Dancer said:


> Williams was doing the kind of stereotyping in a public platform that is dangerous to a democracy.  It puts people in categories, as types &#8211; not as individuals with much in common despite their differences.


Did you actually _read_ his full quote? Juan was specifically condemning the stereotyping that NPR claims he supported. They singled one line out of a paragraph of context...very unprofessional.



Sky Dancer said:


> "But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see an African American male in Dashiki with a big Afro, I get worried. I get nervous."


A more appropriate analogy:

_"But when I'm walking the streets at night, I got to tell you, if I see an African American male in a wifebeater and dreadlocks, I get worried. I get nervous."_


----------



## Sky Dancer

No. I did not read Williams full quote.  I posted Vivien Schillers response.


----------



## eagleseven

Sky Dancer said:


> No. I did not read Williams full quote.  I posted Vivien Schillers response.



The controversial comment, in context of the discussion:



> &#8220;I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
> 
> Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don't say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That's crazy.&#8221;



Williams is arguing against stereotyping all Christians as homophobic, and against stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists.

Here is (part) of his rebuttal of NPRs decision:



> This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims. In a debate with Bill O&#8217;Reilly I revealed my fears to set up the case for not making rash judgments about people of any faith. I pointed out that the Atlanta Olympic bomber --  as well as Timothy McVeigh and the people who protest against gay rights at military funerals -- are Christians but we journalists don&#8217;t identify them by their religion.
> 
> And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone&#8217;s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without the fear of having your throat slashed. Bill and I argued after I said he has to take care in the way he talks about the 9/11 attacks so as not to provoke bigotry.


----------



## Flaylo

Well maybe Juan should have been more careful with his words, anytime somebody says "I'm not a bigot/racist/homophobe BUT" you know something stupid is about to come out of their mouths when they put that BUT in there, Juan seemed to be contradicting himself or perhaps he realized he fucked up and tried to smooth it out.


----------



## Flaylo

Well at least NPR does fire idiots for making bigoted statements, Foxnews does jack shit and even promotes bigoted bullshit as fair and balanced, its a fucking joke. I remember foxnews still has Ann Coulter come on even after she called Middle eastern people "camel jockeys" and even tried to defend it on a segment with Alan Colmes.


----------



## Ravi

saveliberty said:


> I don't want to hear a SINGLE lefty bring up someone's free speech rights for the next year, unless they start defending Juan now.


Again, this has nothing to do with the first amendment or freedom of speech. He is certainly free to say whatever he wants without fear of government censorship.

He is not entitled to a platform, however. NPR took away his platform. FAUX gave him a bigger one.


----------



## Ravi

saveliberty said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to hear a SINGLE lefty bring up someone's free speech rights for the next year, unless they start defending Juan now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is still free to say whatever he likes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
Click to expand...

 He violated his employment contract.


----------



## Ravi

WillowTree said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR is racist that's why Juan was fired. Did you notice Vivian what's her name was white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She fired the ONLY black man on the NPR staff.
Click to expand...

Very far from the truth...and he wasn't fired because he is black. But of course you idiots would use the fact that he is as a tool.


----------



## Ravi

Sheldon said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR LIKES black people, they just don't necessarily want to...you know...work with them.  Particularly when they won't fit into the stereotype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on...It's not about the color of his skin AT ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the fact that he made that statement reinforces their letting him go.
> 
> "*I don't fit in their box. I'm not a predictable, black liberal*," he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-uh, no he di'int. Did Juan just play the race card?
> 
> 
> Seems like there's plenty of race-baiting going on about this topic anyways.
Click to expand...

Yes he did...sad.

O'Reilly probably patted him on the back and said, there, there, blacks can't be racist.


----------



## Annie

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to hear a SINGLE lefty bring up someone's free speech rights for the next year, unless they start defending Juan now.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this has nothing to do with the first amendment or freedom of speech. He is certainly free to say whatever he wants without fear of government censorship.
> 
> He is not entitled to a platform, however. NPR took away his platform. FAUX gave him a bigger one.
Click to expand...


FOX doesn't get tax money to preach its vision for the world. To make a profit, their programming has to be something that a significant percentage of viewers want to watch. 

NPR doesn't have the same demands. They can and do have many programs few, if any care to listen to. PBS same thing, while some extremely great programs have aired, few wish to watch.

Stop the funding, let the markets and targeting decide. 

People ask all the time, 'where would you cut taxes?' Both these outlets and the endowment of the arts are one easy choice.


----------



## Ravi

eagleseven said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there is more to the story than one comment.
> 
> One reason he was fired, according to Vivian Schiller, NPRs CEO, is that the company felt he wasnt performing the role of a news analyst:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all...as Vivian put it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fired NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist," the network's CEO told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club earlier today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NPR CEO Apologizes For 'Psychiatrist' Remark : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ---
> 
> There's also the fact that Juan Williams was NPR's only African American show-host. I'm sure the lawyers will have fun with that.
Click to expand...

He wasn't a show host. He was a news analyst. There are black show hosts at NPR.


----------



## mudwhistle

CMike said:


> Obviously National White Peoples radio hates blacks.



Nope....it's now *National Wahhabi Palestinian *radio. And if you're white you're an oppressor.

Most of the time when I tune in they're talking about ecological disasters, human rights violations, etc. Some of the shit they said about Glenn Becks rally was terrible. They claimed they didn't know what it was about yet that didn't stop them from ripping it to shreds.


----------



## Annie

Ravi said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there is more to the story than one comment.
> 
> One reason he was fired, according to Vivian Schiller, NPRs CEO, is that the company felt he wasnt performing the role of a news analyst:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all...as Vivian put it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fired NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist," the network's CEO told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club earlier today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NPR CEO Apologizes For 'Psychiatrist' Remark : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ---
> 
> There's also the fact that Juan Williams was NPR's only African American show-host. I'm sure the lawyers will have fun with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He wasn't a show host. He was a news analyst. There are black show hosts at NPR.
Click to expand...



Well it's starting:

NPR's fed funding questioned after firing analyst



> NPR's fed funding questioned after firing analyst
> 
> 
> NPR's fed funding questioned after firing analyst
> 
> Associated Press | Posted: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:42 am
> 
> ...



It may be a small amount, but the tax payers shouldn't have to pay. Fine if they wish to donate, I used to subscribe to PBS, they have some fine programming IMO. But, it's my opinion, my money. YOU shouldn't have to pay for my choices.


----------



## mudwhistle

Foxfyre said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they should just fire NPR.. it's just another liberal waste of taxpayers money..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been a regular contributor to NPR and PBS for a long time now.   But after this last stunt no more.  And I think that is pretty much where a whole lot of people are on this.  Some in Congress are also calling to pull all federal funding too.  I wouldn't be surprised if a number of corporate sponsors also rethink funding NPR programming etc.
> 
> When even Whoopie Goldberg goes public and denounces NPR's actions on this, I think we can reasonably guess that there is widespread disapproval of NPR right now.
Click to expand...


Whoopie is being a hypocrite right now. She walked off the set when O'Reilly said something similar to what Juan said. She even lied about what O'Reilly said...implying he meant ALL MUSLIMS when he said that Muslims flew those jets into the WTC. Juan said all of the attacks from Muslims makes him uneasy when he boards a plane and sees a few of them wearing traditional garb. *If Bill O'Reilly had said that in her presence she would have gone off. 
*
I think Whoopie needs to STFU till she learns to be less sensitive about the subject.


----------



## mudwhistle

Annie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all...as Vivian put it:
> 
> NPR CEO Apologizes For 'Psychiatrist' Remark : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ---
> 
> There's also the fact that Juan Williams was NPR's only African American show-host. I'm sure the lawyers will have fun with that.
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't a show host. He was a news analyst. There are black show hosts at NPR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's starting:
> 
> NPR's fed funding questioned after firing analyst
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR's fed funding questioned after firing analyst
> 
> 
> NPR's fed funding questioned after firing analyst
> 
> Associated Press | Posted: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:42 am
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may be a small amount, but the tax payers shouldn't have to pay. Fine if they wish to donate, I used to subscribe to PBS, they have some fine programming IMO. But, it's my opinion, my money. YOU shouldn't have to pay for my choices.
Click to expand...


As with the funding for ACORN this will not change. They'll pay lip-service to the outrage but behind the scenes they will continue to fund these Democrat friendly organizations.


----------



## mudwhistle

Sky Dancer said:


> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?



They can....and pay the price for it as well. I hope that million they got from Obama's main supporter, George Soros, was worth it to them.

We need to get rid of this foreign money in politics. All they're doing is screwing us over.


----------



## mudwhistle

eagleseven said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?
> 
> 
> 
> NPR can, and did, fire someone.
> 
> Unfortunately for NPR, that someone is well-respected by both the right and left of this nation.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't go that far. Often times his leftist viewpoint was made to look foolish by other commentators....but still...he seemed to at least posses enough objectivity to come off as a decent human being. I'm afraid that he used too much common-sense, which George Soros wanted to put a stop to.


----------



## mudwhistle

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there is more to the story than one comment.
> 
> 
> 
> there is
> 
> $1.8M and the Soros fight against TDFNC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
Click to expand...


Where's my fucken duct-tape.

Yes asshole. Poor George Soros...we're picking in that SOB.

Jesus....the shit I read when I don't have a gun.


----------



## mudwhistle

Sky Dancer said:


> NPR had thoughtful reasons for firing Williams.  Williams is better off on Fox.  They're having a field day over it.



Thoughtful and deceitful.


----------



## WillowTree

george soros

gave

1 millioon to media doesn't matter muchy
1.8 to Nutty Progressive Radio

soros, media doesn't matter muchy, nutty progressive radio, and cair all now have bigger PR problems. big.


----------



## WillowTree

Some say Mara Liaason is next. Anybody bettin?


----------



## mudwhistle

WillowTree said:


> Some say Mara Liaason is next. Anybody bettin?



I heard that yesterday. They're just looking for an excuse to can her. Media Matters is running the show at NPR. Hillary Clinton is in deep with Media Matters. So she's part of this garbage...never forget that.

Groups like the following are trying to polarize this country:

Center For American Progress Center for American Progress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Media Matters Media Matters for America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Tides Foundation Tides Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://libertychick.com/2009/05/08/rathke-acorn-seiu-the-tides-foundation-oh-my/


----------



## Moon

WillowTree said:


> Some say Mara Liaason is next. Anybody bettin?



Without a doubt.


----------



## masquerade

Moon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some say Mara Liaason is next. Anybody bettin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without a doubt.
Click to expand...

If I were Mara, I'd quit.


----------



## DiveCon

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is still free to say whatever he likes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
Click to expand...

NO, he didnt


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there is more to the story than one comment.
> 
> One reason he was fired, according to Vivian Schiller, NPRs CEO, is that the company felt he wasnt performing the role of a news analyst:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all...as Vivian put it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fired NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist," the network's CEO told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club earlier today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NPR CEO Apologizes For 'Psychiatrist' Remark : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ---
> 
> There's also the fact that Juan Williams was NPR's only African American show-host. I'm sure the lawyers will have fun with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He wasn't a show host. He was a news analyst. There are black show hosts at NPR.
Click to expand...


Name them.


----------



## DiveCon

Moon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some say Mara Liaason is next. Anybody bettin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without a doubt.
Click to expand...

mediamatters is already calling for her to be fired from NPR


----------



## DiveCon

Ravi said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there is more to the story than one comment.
> 
> One reason he was fired, according to Vivian Schiller, NPRs CEO, is that the company felt he wasnt performing the role of a news analyst:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all...as Vivian put it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fired NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist," the network's CEO told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club earlier today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NPR CEO Apologizes For 'Psychiatrist' Remark : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ---
> 
> There's also the fact that Juan Williams was NPR's only African American show-host. I'm sure the lawyers will have fun with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He wasn't a show host. He was a news analyst. There are black show hosts at NPR.
Click to expand...

ravi is showing her stupidity AGAIN


----------



## WillowTree

masquerade said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some say Mara Liaason is next. Anybody bettin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were Mara, I'd quit.
Click to expand...


No, I would not. I'd let them do their dirt.


----------



## Ravi

DiveCon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO, he didnt
Click to expand...

Yes, he did


----------



## DiveCon

Ravi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
> 
> 
> 
> NO, he didnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, he did
Click to expand...

prove it


----------



## Ravi

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all...as Vivian put it:
> 
> NPR CEO Apologizes For 'Psychiatrist' Remark : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ---
> 
> There's also the fact that Juan Williams was NPR's only African American show-host. I'm sure the lawyers will have fun with that.
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't a show host. He was a news analyst. There are black show hosts at NPR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name them.
Click to expand...

Michele Norris, for one. You are welcome to peruse their website and look at skin colors of various show hosts.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't a show host. He was a news analyst. There are black show hosts at NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Michele Norris, for one. You are welcome to peruse their website and look at skin colors of various show hosts.
Click to expand...


We are talking about black males, name them.


----------



## mudwhistle

DiveCon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all...as Vivian put it:
> 
> NPR CEO Apologizes For 'Psychiatrist' Remark : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ---
> 
> There's also the fact that Juan Williams was NPR's only African American show-host. I'm sure the lawyers will have fun with that.
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't a show host. He was a news analyst. There are black show hosts at NPR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ravi is showing her stupidity AGAIN
Click to expand...


We've finally discovered that Ravi isn't as much a racist as she is a Liberal. 

We've been discovering lately that lefty organizations don't support women, don't support blacks, don't support Muslims, don't support Hispanics.....they only support their anti-American/Liberal/Progressive ideology.


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is still free to say whatever he likes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
Click to expand...


In what manner?  NPR never argued he could not be on FOX.  They just didn't want NPR's name attached to Mr. Williams.  That was not violated.  Further, it was a personal observation without reference to his employer in any way.

NPR is being uncovered for the giant sock puppet they are and will lose funding they claim is minimal.  Since it amounts to little according to NPR, they won't mind the government pulling it.


----------



## skookerasbil

Foxfyre said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Fox News was the one who was supposed to dump on the black guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black guys who don't toe the liberal line aren't 'black' any more than women who don't toe the liberal line are 'smart' or 'capable'.
> 
> What frosts my tush is that our tax dollars subsidize a large chunk of every NPR station and there's nothing we can do about the liberal bias.  Or the sudden liberal fascination and love affair with Muslims for that matter.  Apparently Muslims are the new protected class and nobody is allowed to say anything at all critical or truthful about them.  If one does so, that person is immediately branded racist, bigot, and intent on destroying the First Amendment.
> 
> Makes you wonder if they'll get as much mileage out of that as they got out of accusing anybody critical of the President of being racist.
> 
> I wish Williams would sue for breach of contract or something.
Click to expand...





brilliant post bro......and spot on!!!!

This incident is both epic and hysterical: it exposes the total phoniness and hypocrisy of the k00ks on the left. And best of all.......its gonna be a boondoggle for FOX!!! A total coup.........watch their ratings in the coming weeks!!!!!!!!!!

Talk about a PR nightmare for the lefty k00ks!!!!

Here is a liberal Democrat getting major support from people on the right. It is further proof that the left has zero respect for the 1st ammendment. They are phonies beyond the pale.* And now.........more people know it!!!!!!*

ps........Im a conservative and dont often agree with Juan Williams. But he is a stand-up guy I respect and is very reasonable most of the time. I urge fellow conservatives to shoot an e-mail in support of this guy!!!


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is still free to say whatever he likes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
Click to expand...


Does his employment contract state that he cannot practice his right to speak freely?


----------



## skookerasbil




----------



## WillowTree

NPR is catching hell on Morning Joe too and they flat out said it "it's all about Fox News."


----------



## skookerasbil

This thread is the definitive one for proving that most lefites have the political IQ's of a small soap dish!!!

They are posting up drivel posts about "violation of contract"...........and to the rest of the world...........



*NOBODY CARES!!!!!!*



Indeed.........this, my friends, is a MAJOR, MAJOR coup for FOX News and a TOTAL exposure of the level of k00k PC among liberals. A gigantic kick in the balls to the far left...............

LMAO............and a fcukking hoot for conservatives!!! And to think..........we still have November 2nd to look forward to!!!!!


----------



## WillowTree

Sinister shit.


----------



## skookerasbil

Ravi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
> 
> 
> 
> NO, he didnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, he did
Click to expand...







S0n.................holy shit. Talk about putting a big old pumpkin on the tee.............


----------



## Samson

California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does his employment contract state that he cannot practice his right to speak freely?
Click to expand...


Shirley Sherrod anyone?



> A black employee who resigned from the Agriculture Department over comments at a Georgia NAACP meeting said Tuesday the White House forced her out of her job over a manufactured racial controversy.



The Obama administration is terrified that they may be accused of "reverse racism."

Methinks they protest to much.


----------



## California Girl

I think the lefties don't like Juan cuz he's an articulate, intelligent, calm, rational liberal. They hate those almost as much as they hate the right wing.


----------



## skookerasbil

California Girl said:


> I think the lefties don't like Juan cuz he's an articulate, intelligent, calm, rational liberal. They hate those almost as much as they hate the right wing.





Sometimes............California can post up some astute shit............

ps.....I dont think your signature is comprehensive enough!!!!


----------



## Samson

California Girl said:


> I think the lefties don't like Juan cuz he's an articulate, intelligent, calm, rational liberal. They hate those almost as much as they hate the right wing.



The word to can Williams came down (a la Shirley Sherrod) from the Insanely Paranoid Obama White House.


----------



## Ravi

saveliberty said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what manner?  NPR never argued he could not be on FOX.  They just didn't want NPR's name attached to Mr. Williams.  That was not violated.  Further, *it was a personal observation* without reference to his employer in any way.
> 
> NPR is being uncovered for the giant sock puppet they are and will lose funding they claim is minimal.  Since it amounts to little according to NPR, they won't mind the government pulling it.
Click to expand...

Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.

As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what manner?  NPR never argued he could not be on FOX.  They just didn't want NPR's name attached to Mr. Williams.  That was not violated.  Further, *it was a personal observation* without reference to his employer in any way.
> 
> NPR is being uncovered for the giant sock puppet they are and will lose funding they claim is minimal.  Since it amounts to little according to NPR, they won't mind the government pulling it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.
> 
> As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.
Click to expand...


I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about.  Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy.  Spill away.  A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event.  That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.

How is not renewing a grant censorship?  They are free to continue to speak however they choose.  According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget.  I don;t see how you are making a case here.


----------



## edthecynic

mudwhistle said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can....and pay the price for it as well. I hope that million they got from Obama's main supporter, *George Soros*, was worth it to them.
> 
> We need to get rid of this* foreign money* in politics. All they're doing is screwing us over.
Click to expand...

I guess *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*  isn't enough, the insane DittoTards have to pile on with "FOREIGN MONEY." 
When did the Chamber of Commerce start donating to NPR???


----------



## edthecynic

> Originally Posted by eagleseven
> There's also the fact that Juan Williams was* NPR's only African American show-host.* I'm sure the lawyers will have fun with that.





WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> 
> 
> Michele Norris, for one. You are welcome to peruse their website and look at skin colors of various show hosts.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about black* males,* name them.
Click to expand...

Every time CON$ervoFascists get caught in their Bullshit, they move the goalposts.
Tavis Smiley, is he MALE enough for you?


----------



## Ravi

saveliberty said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what manner?  NPR never argued he could not be on FOX.  They just didn't want NPR's name attached to Mr. Williams.  That was not violated.  Further, *it was a personal observation* without reference to his employer in any way.
> 
> NPR is being uncovered for the giant sock puppet they are and will lose funding they claim is minimal.  Since it amounts to little according to NPR, they won't mind the government pulling it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.
> 
> As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about.  Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy.  Spill away.  A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event.  That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.
> 
> How is not renewing a grant censorship?  They are free to continue to speak however they choose.  According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget.  I don;t see how you are making a case here.
Click to expand...

If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.


----------



## Immanuel

saveliberty said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what manner?  NPR never argued he could not be on FOX.  They just didn't want NPR's name attached to Mr. Williams.  That was not violated.  Further, *it was a personal observation* without reference to his employer in any way.
> 
> NPR is being uncovered for the giant sock puppet they are and will lose funding they claim is minimal.  Since it amounts to little according to NPR, they won't mind the government pulling it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.
> 
> As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about.  Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy.  Spill away.  A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event.  That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.
> *
> How is not renewing a grant censorship?*  They are free to continue to speak however they choose.  According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget.  I don;t see how you are making a case here.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I was going to ask the same question.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.
> 
> As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about.  Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy.  Spill away.  A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event.  That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.
> 
> How is not renewing a grant censorship?  They are free to continue to speak however they choose.  According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget.  I don;t see how you are making a case here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.
Click to expand...


No it is not.  No one is preventing them from having their say unless of course you mean they cannot continue to produce their programming without those grants and even then it is not censorship.  They have no "right" to that funding.  It is a gift (look up the word grant) from the government to assist in their programming.  

We, the taxpayers, are under no obligation to continue said funding.  Although, I highly doubt anyone in Washington would actually have the gonads to attempt to end funding of NPR.

Immie


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.
> 
> As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about.  Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy.  Spill away.  A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event.  That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.
> 
> How is not renewing a grant censorship?  They are free to continue to speak however they choose.  According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget.  I don;t see how you are making a case here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.
Click to expand...


Please explain.  I think it is a free speech issue that NPR fails.  The government has a responsibility to protect that speech.  They also have a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars properly.

P.S. Grants also come with rules you must follow.  I think it is very likely NPR violated them when they fired Juan.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.
> 
> As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about.  Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy.  Spill away.  A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event.  That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.
> 
> How is not renewing a grant censorship?  They are free to continue to speak however they choose.  According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget.  I don;t see how you are making a case here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.
Click to expand...


So you agree they censored Juan when they fired him. Which makes it a free speech issue.


----------



## saveliberty

The paint will dry in a couple of hours Ravi.  Until then, want me to throw you a magazine to your corner?


----------



## Intense

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what manner?  NPR never argued he could not be on FOX.  They just didn't want NPR's name attached to Mr. Williams.  That was not violated.  Further, *it was a personal observation* without reference to his employer in any way.
> 
> NPR is being uncovered for the giant sock puppet they are and will lose funding they claim is minimal.  Since it amounts to little according to NPR, they won't mind the government pulling it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.
> 
> As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.
Click to expand...


Proof that Liberals eat their own when they fall out of lock step.   

The pattern here is pack mentality. Anyone bring the Grey Poupon?????

Go Ravi!!!   

Do you want a piece of Maura Liason too???


----------



## Ravi

LOL! Time will show me correct. Enjoy knowing that!


----------



## Intense

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.
> 
> As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about.  Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy.  Spill away.  A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event.  That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.
> 
> How is not renewing a grant censorship?  They are free to continue to speak however they choose.  According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget.  I don;t see how you are making a case here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.
Click to expand...


I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> LOL! Time will show me correct. Enjoy knowing that!



Not without a better argument than what has been presented so far.  Gibbs damage control should be amusing.  Maybe Obama can give a national speech on NPR to clear it all up.


----------



## NYcarbineer

saveliberty said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about.  Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy.  Spill away.  A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event.  That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.
> 
> How is not renewing a grant censorship?  They are free to continue to speak however they choose.  According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget.  I don;t see how you are making a case here.
> 
> 
> 
> If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain.  I think it is a free speech issue that NPR fails.  The government has a responsibility to protect that speech.  They also have a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars properly.
> 
> P.S. Grants also come with rules you must follow.  I think it is very likely NPR violated them when they fired Juan.
Click to expand...


You've seen his contract with NPR?


----------



## Annie

Intense said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about.  Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy.  Spill away.  A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event.  That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.
> 
> How is not renewing a grant censorship?  They are free to continue to speak however they choose.  According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget.  I don;t see how you are making a case here.
> 
> 
> 
> If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
Click to expand...


The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.


----------



## Intense

Ravi said:


> LOL! Time will show me correct. Enjoy knowing that!



Ravi , You are always right.  

You are more right than any one I know.


----------



## saveliberty

NYcarbineer said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain.  I think it is a free speech issue that NPR fails.  The government has a responsibility to protect that speech.  They also have a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars properly.
> 
> P.S. Grants also come with rules you must follow.  I think it is very likely NPR violated them when they fired Juan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've seen his contract with NPR?
Click to expand...


Thought you were clever didn't you?

I don't need to.  NPR did not prevent him from appearing on Fox EVER.  They only asked that NPR's name not be used.  If NPR had the contract language, they would have just enforced it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> A defense would be:
> 
> 1.  He should get his job back.
> 2.  He was wrongly discharged.
> 3.  NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
> 4.  Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does his employment contract state that he cannot practice his right to speak freely?
Click to expand...


Is Juan Williams saying his contract was violated?  He's the only one with standing to claim wrongdoing by NPR, which would only occur if they 'fired' him in violation of his contract.


----------



## saveliberty

Intense said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Time will show me correct. Enjoy knowing that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi , You are always right.
> 
> You are more right than any one I know.
Click to expand...


You need to know more people Intense.


----------



## NYcarbineer

saveliberty said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain.  I think it is a free speech issue that NPR fails.  The government has a responsibility to protect that speech.  They also have a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars properly.
> 
> P.S. Grants also come with rules you must follow.  I think it is very likely NPR violated them when they fired Juan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've seen his contract with NPR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thought you were clever didn't you?
> 
> I don't need to.  NPR did not prevent him from appearing on Fox EVER.  They only asked that NPR's name not be used.  If NPR had the contract language, they would have just enforced it.
Click to expand...


You don't need to see his contract in order to know they violated it?  That is a seriously ignorant statement.

Question:  Is Williams claiming they violated his contract?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Annie said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
Click to expand...


The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.

To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.


----------



## Valerie

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQW5MrITME&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## saveliberty

NYcarbineer said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've seen his contract with NPR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thought you were clever didn't you?
> 
> I don't need to.  NPR did not prevent him from appearing on Fox EVER.  They only asked that NPR's name not be used.  If NPR had the contract language, they would have just enforced it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to see his contract in order to know they violated it.  That is a seriously ignorant statement.
> 
> Question:  Is Williams claiming they violated his contract?
Click to expand...


I'm sure his attorney will be making that statement with the lawsuit.  I see your down to personal insults by the second post.  Keep holding on by your fingertips.


----------



## Intense

Annie said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
Click to expand...


What ever happened to Government encouraging self reliance and the development of knowledge, ability, skills????? We have regressed into a culture of dependency and helplessness. 

Which brings me to this endearing blast from the past. ....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QFwso2gTTM&p=40DF7807A31D8801&playnext=1&index=3[/ame]


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
Click to expand...


This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.


----------



## Ravi

Annie said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
Click to expand...

Or religion...but they do. Actually, they are only barred constitutionally from funding religion...and they still do it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

saveliberty said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought you were clever didn't you?
> 
> I don't need to.  NPR did not prevent him from appearing on Fox EVER.  They only asked that NPR's name not be used.  If NPR had the contract language, they would have just enforced it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to see his contract in order to know they violated it.  That is a seriously ignorant statement.
> 
> Question:  Is Williams claiming they violated his contract?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure his attorney will be making that statement with the lawsuit.  I see your down to personal insults by the second post.  Keep holding on by your fingertips.
Click to expand...


You made an unbelievably ignorant statement.  Don't try to blame me for that.


----------



## Intense

Ravi said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or religion...but they do. Actually, they are only barred constitutionally from funding religion...and they still do it.
Click to expand...


Other than Non Secular Community Programs I agree with you fully.


----------



## Annie

Ravi said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or religion...but they do. Actually, they are only barred constitutionally from funding religion...and they still do it.
Click to expand...


Please elaborate. Something the government funds, that requires religious teachings?


----------



## saveliberty

NYcarbineer said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
Click to expand...


Hmmm...more people watch FOX broadcasting than PBS.  Where's FOX's funding?


----------



## Intense

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
Click to expand...


It is a Shit Storm! NPR really, Really, screwed up.


----------



## California Girl

NYcarbineer said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He violated his employment contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does his employment contract state that he cannot practice his right to speak freely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Juan Williams saying his contract was violated?  He's the only one with standing to claim wrongdoing by NPR, which would only occur if they 'fired' him in violation of his contract.
Click to expand...


Ravi said he violated his contract. I only asked how speaking is in violation of his contract, unless his contract curtails his right to speak freely. 

I would expect lefties to struggle with the concept of free speech. Since many seem unable to grasp very basic concepts, such as the difference between an individual and a group.


----------



## WillowTree

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
Click to expand...


I"m sitting here listening to them beg for money during their fund raiser. I hope it turns out poorly for them. Karma Karma Karma.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or religion...but they do. Actually, they are only barred constitutionally from funding religion...and they still do it.
Click to expand...


They are not Barred from Funding it...

Where in the Constitution does it say that?...

They Fund it in the Supreme Court and the Congress.



peace...


----------



## Annie

NYcarbineer said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
Click to expand...


right, need to make sure the elected representatives hear us.


----------



## WillowTree

Valerie said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQW5MrITME&feature=player_embedded



He's got her now.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
Click to expand...


There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.


----------



## saveliberty

Somebody at the White House has an agenda and are high enough to get their way.  This is not the first time something like this has come up and the results are nearly identical.  Obama needs to come out strongly against this.


----------



## Annie

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
Click to expand...


You missed my point, there's no reason to fund PBS or NPR or the arts. Plenty of people donate, subscribe. If not, there's plenty other venues.


----------



## WillowTree

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
Click to expand...


I see no reason to continue to pour taxpayer money into an organization that allows liberal viewpoints only. De-fund them Write some letters.


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does his employment contract state that he cannot practice his right to speak freely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Juan Williams saying his contract was violated?  He's the only one with standing to claim wrongdoing by NPR, which would only occur if they 'fired' him in violation of his contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ravi said he violated his contract. I only asked how speaking is in violation of his contract, unless his contract curtails his right to speak freely.
> 
> I would expect lefties to struggle with the concept of free speech. Since many seem unable to grasp very basic concepts, such as the difference between an individual and a group.
Click to expand...


Why would expect lefties to struggle with the concept of free speech?  Do you realize the FCC curtails free speech, for starters?  Do you realize a contract can curtail 'free speech'?  Do you really think Juan Williams could have gone on the air and done his version of the Howard Stern show, 

and claimed protection under the first amendment?


----------



## NYcarbineer

WillowTree said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no reason to continue to pour taxpayer money into an organization that allows liberal viewpoints only. De-fund them Write some letters.
Click to expand...


They fired a liberal.


----------



## Valerie

WillowTree said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQW5MrITME&feature=player_embedded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's got her now.
Click to expand...




He's got a $2,000,000. contract with Fox News anyway.


He said in the video they were looking for something to get rid of him and he knew it.



From the article I posted earlier in the thread:

_In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen &#8212; most recently, after* he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress*._


----------



## mal

NYcarbineer said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason to continue to pour taxpayer money into an organization that allows liberal viewpoints only. De-fund them Write some letters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They fired a liberal.
Click to expand...


They Fired a FOXNews Uncle Tom... He would still have his Job had he not wandered from the Reservation... Bet.



peace...


----------



## Annie

WillowTree said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no reason to continue to pour taxpayer money into an organization that allows liberal viewpoints only. De-fund them Write some letters.
Click to expand...


I don't care if 'liberal' or 'conservative' slant, the taxpayer should not be subsidizing industries that thrive in the market.


----------



## saveliberty

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the board as a whole needs to be removed along with the CEO.  Actually if they violated grant terms, it CAN be pulled and not renewed.  The government is not under some requirement to give them a second chance.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQW5MrITME&feature=player_embedded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's got her now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's got a $2,000,000. contract with Fox News anyway.
> 
> 
> He said in the video they were looking for something to get rid of him and he knew it.
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier in the thread:
> 
> _In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen  most recently, after* he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress*._
Click to expand...

It all works out well for him. More money and the freedom to say repulsive things about groups he disagrees with...just like most FAUX commentators.


----------



## Intense

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's got her now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's got a $2,000,000. contract with Fox News anyway.
> 
> 
> He said in the video they were looking for something to get rid of him and he knew it.
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier in the thread:
> 
> _In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen  most recently, after* he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress*._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all works out well for him. More money and the freedom to say repulsive things about groups he disagrees with...just like most FAUX commentators.
Click to expand...


Deep down you know that FOX is the best right now.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Annie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed my point, there's no reason to fund PBS or NPR or the arts. Plenty of people donate, subscribe. If not, there's plenty other venues.
Click to expand...


There's a very good reason to fund it.  The morning and evening news shows on NPR, whose names escape me - All Things Considered, and the other one, are the 2nd and 3rd most listened to talk radio programs in America.  Behind Limbaugh and ahead of Hannity.  

And you don't get plagued by con artist and scam commercials every 5 minutes.  That's enough reason for me.


----------



## saveliberty

Valerie said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQW5MrITME&feature=player_embedded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's got her now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's got a $2,000,000. contract with Fox News anyway.
> 
> 
> He said in the video they were looking for something to get rid of him and he knew it.
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier in the thread:
> 
> _In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen  most recently, after* he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress*._
Click to expand...


Three excuses to violate someone's free speech rights.


----------



## NYcarbineer

mal said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason to continue to pour taxpayer money into an organization that allows liberal viewpoints only. De-fund them Write some letters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fired a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They Fired a FOXNews Uncle Tom... He would still have his Job had he not wandered from the Reservation... Bet.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


He confessed to being Islamophobic.  Are you saying that Islamophobia is a *conservative *position?

lol

...can't argue with that...


----------



## mal

NYcarbineer said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fired a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They Fired a FOXNews Uncle Tom... He would still have his Job had he not wandered from the Reservation... Bet.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He confessed to being Islamophobic.  Are you saying that Islamophobia is a *conservative *position?
> 
> lol
> 
> ...can't argue with that...
Click to expand...


I Think you meant "isn't"...

And no, I Think it's a Human Instinct Considering Recent History...

He was just being Honest.

Many Liberals Lie about their Islamaphobia... Juan's not a Liar. 



peace...


----------



## Valerie

saveliberty said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's got her now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's got a $2,000,000. contract with Fox News anyway.
> 
> 
> He said in the video they were looking for something to get rid of him and he knew it.
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier in the thread:
> 
> _In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen &#8212; most recently, after* he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress*._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three excuses to violate someone's free speech rights.
Click to expand...



He's still free to say it again tonight on Fox!


----------



## NYcarbineer

Oh, incidentally, I don't think he should have been fired.  Personal opinion.


----------



## NYcarbineer

mal said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> They Fired a FOXNews Uncle Tom... He would still have his Job had he not wandered from the Reservation... Bet.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He confessed to being Islamophobic.  Are you saying that Islamophobia is a *conservative *position?
> 
> lol
> 
> ...can't argue with that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Think you meant "isn't"...
> 
> And no, I Think it's a Human Instinct Considering Recent History...
> 
> He was just being Honest.
> 
> Many Liberals Lie about their Islamaphobia... Juan's not a Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


I didn't see too many liberals here oppose the building of the mosque in NYC.


----------



## Valerie

Here's some info about the funding...From Wiki:




> *Funding*
> 
> According to the 2005 financial statement, NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees and dues it charges member stations to receive programming. Public funding accounts for 16% of the average member station's revenue, with 10% of this coming in the form of grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a federally funded organization.[14][15][16] Some more of that money originates from local and state governments and government-funded universities subsidizing member stations' fees and dues to NPR.[17] Member stations that serve rural and "minority" communities receive significantly more funding from the CPB; in some cases up to 70%.[14] About 2% of NPR's non-membership created funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the CPB itself.
> 
> Over the years, the portion of the total NPR budget that comes from government funding has decreased. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations, and less from the federal government.
> [edit]
> 
> *Underwriting spots vs. commercials*
> 
> In contrast with commercial radio, NPR does not carry traditional commercials, but has advertising in the form of brief statements from major donors, such as Allstate, Merck, and Archer Daniels Midland. These statements are called "underwriting spots", not commercials, and, unlike commercials, are governed by FCC restrictions; they cannot advocate a product or contain any "call to action". In 2005, corporate sponsorship made up 23% of the NPR budget.[18] NPR is not as dependent on revenue from underwriting spots as commercial stations are on revenue from advertising.[citation needed]
> [edit]
> 
> *Joan Kroc Grant*
> 
> On November 6, 2003, NPR was given over US$225 million from the estate of the late Joan B. Kroc, the widow of Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald's Corporation. This was a record&#8212;the largest monetary gift ever to a cultural institution.[19][20] For context, the 2003 annual budget of NPR was US$101 million. In 2004 that number increased by over 50% to US$153 million due to the Kroc gift. US$34 million of the money was deposited in its endowment.[21] The endowment fund before the gift totaled $35 million.[19] NPR will use the interest from the bequest to expand its news staff and reduce some member stations' fees.[citation needed] The 2005 budget was about US$120 million.
> [edit]
> 
> *George Soros grant*
> 
> In October 2010, NPR accepted a $1.8 million grant from George Soros, given through his Open Society Foundation. The grant is meant to begin a project called Impact of Government that is intended to add at least 100 journalists at NPR member radio stations in all 50 states over the next three years[22]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio#Funding


----------



## WillowTree

NYcarbineer said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He confessed to being Islamophobic.  Are you saying that Islamophobia is a *conservative *position?
> 
> lol
> 
> ...can't argue with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Think you meant "isn't"...
> 
> And no, I Think it's a Human Instinct Considering Recent History...
> 
> He was just being Honest.
> 
> Many Liberals Lie about their Islamaphobia... Juan's not a Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see too many liberals here oppose the building of the mosque in NYC.
Click to expand...


No conservatives oppose building a mosque in NYC either. Most of us just don't want it where they want to put it. It's just not good Karma.


----------



## mal

NYcarbineer said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He confessed to being Islamophobic.  Are you saying that Islamophobia is a *conservative *position?
> 
> lol
> 
> ...can't argue with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Think you meant "isn't"...
> 
> And no, I Think it's a Human Instinct Considering Recent History...
> 
> He was just being Honest.
> 
> Many Liberals Lie about their Islamaphobia... Juan's not a Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see too many liberals here oppose the building of the mosque in NYC.
Click to expand...


Most People who Commented on that are a Safe Distance from it... Assuming they would Attack their own Building... Absurd.

And Juan was Talking about on an Airplane...

Context Matters.



peace...


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
Click to expand...


Duly noted, NYcarbineer thinks there is no reason to defund NPR.  Got it.


----------



## Meister

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's got her now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's got a $2,000,000. contract with Fox News anyway.
> 
> 
> He said in the video they were looking for something to get rid of him and he knew it.
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier in the thread:
> 
> _In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen  most recently, after* he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress*._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all works out well for him. More money and the freedom to say repulsive things about groups he disagrees with...just like most FAUX commentators.
Click to expand...


Ever watch MSNBC?


----------



## Ravi

Meister said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's got a $2,000,000. contract with Fox News anyway.
> 
> 
> He said in the video they were looking for something to get rid of him and he knew it.
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier in the thread:
> 
> _In 2009, NPR also asked Fox News not to identify him as an NPR analyst on screen  most recently, after* he described first lady Michelle Obama as being like the black militant Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress*._
> 
> 
> 
> It all works out well for him. More money and the freedom to say repulsive things about groups he disagrees with...just like most FAUX commentators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever watch MSNBC?
Click to expand...

No...I think they are on FAUX's level.


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason to continue to pour taxpayer money into an organization that allows liberal viewpoints only. De-fund them Write some letters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They fired a liberal.
Click to expand...


A Black liberal who strayed from the reservation.


----------



## boedicca

Indeed.   The Ideology that claims to Celebrate Diversity punishes anyone who doesn't conform to their Thought Orthodoxy.


----------



## Moon

NYcarbineer said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
Click to expand...


If Congress decides not to continue funding, then that means the People, through their elected representatives, chose to not fund broadcasting.  Can't have it both ways.


----------



## AquaAthena

boedicca said:


> Indeed.   The Ideology that claims to Celebrate Diversity punishes anyone who doesn't conform to their Thought Orthodoxy.



And someone_ I like very much,_ just might be next, *if* NPR gets away with firing Juan.


UPDATE: Williams isnt the only person to deal with this. Theres also Mara Liasson (h/t YidwithLid):

Executives at National Public Radio recently asked the networks top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the networks political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.

According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October by NPRs executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the networks supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Foxs programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that_ shed seen no significant change in Foxs programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said._  

Wonder if Liasson will give up her contract now too?



Read more at the Washington Examiner: NPR has been wanting to fire Juan Williams for some time | Washington Examiner


----------



## boedicca

I hope Mara resigns from NPR in protest of how Juan was treated.

That would be a wonderful display of integrity.


----------



## Foxfyre

I am still pondering whether it is "Islamophobic" or realistic to be concerned about Muslims on airplanes given the fact that it has been ONLY Muslims blowing up or attempting to blow up airplanes in recent years.

This morning Dr. Zuhdi Jasser was on with Bill Hemmer on Fox expressing his support for Juan Williams.  Dr. Jasser is a proud and devout Muslim as well as a proud and patriotic American who, if all Muslims followed his example, could defuse all uncertainty immediately.  He's terrific.

As he said, if we cannot even talk about our fears without the wrath of political correctness or the militant leftists descending upon us, we will soon be a nation afraid to speak at all and the militant Islamic extremists/fundamentalists will have won.  People will be afraid to expose real threats and real concerns.  We simply must allow and encourage conversations about race, fears, realities vs phobias, etc.

I wasn't posting on USMB two or three years ago when the 'flying Imans" incident came up but it created quite a media storm for a short period.  Here is Dr. Jasser re that incident:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el1Q8pX7CUo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el1Q8pX7CUo[/ame]


----------



## CMike

Obviously fired NPR because he is black.

Where is the NAALCP?


----------



## AquaAthena

boedicca said:


> I hope Mara resigns from NPR in protest of how Juan was treated.
> 
> That would be a wonderful display of integrity.



 I put her in the same category with Juan and agree with this statement by Bob Ellis and taken out of context from his article:

"Juan Williams is one of those rarest of animals: the semi-reasonable liberal.  Most liberals are so divorced from reality that even the most compelling of facts will not penetrate their fantasy world, making it difficult for normal people to carry on a meaningful conversation with them."

Double Standard of Taxpayer-Funded NPR


----------



## Valerie

> So did NPR do the right thing?
> 
> First, as to Williams' First Amendment rights, a citizen generally only has free speech rights in regard to government action.  If a private employer wants to fire someone for a something offensive they say they generally can.  If the government fires someone for their speech there is a much higher standard involved.  While NPR is called National "Public" Radio, the reality is that only a small amount of their funding comes from government sources.  About 16% of NPR's funding comes from local, state, and federal government sources.  Much of that funding comes from government grants which NPR applies for as part of a competitive process.  Just like a private company which applies for a tax credit, or for a government grant, NPR does not lose the rights to hire and fire people like a normal employers simply because they receive some government funding.  Conservatives are already calling for the federal government to "defund" NPR, thinking this will shut down the media operation.  In reality, if Republicans succeed in defunding NPR it will hurt the organization for sure, but unlikely shut the broadcasting network down.  In fact, liberals may rush to the defense of NPR with more private donations if conservatives succeed.
> 
> Simply because NPR had the right to fire Williams, it does not mean that necessarily should have fired Williams.  In their statement on the firing NPR stated, "His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."  NPR does have a reputation among liberals as a more enlightened, tolerant network.  Liberals generally also believe (while I know conservatives disagree) that NPR sticks to the facts in their broadcasting, avoiding much of the slanted coverage seen on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.  Liberals may be wrong in this belief, but the reality is that much of NPR's audience is built upon this liberal base who believes in the network's objectivity.  NPR was likely correct in believing many of their viewers would be bothered by Williams' statements.  In the past Fox News has refused to extend contract of some liberal voices who do not agree with their overall conservative narrative.  In the same way, NPR is making the decision that Williams' comments took him too far away from their brand.  Only time will tell whether NPR made the right business decision.
> 
> As to the political correctness issue, ultimately "politically correct" is a very vague term, if one believes it exists at all.  If there is a standard for political correctness, what makes one statement correct and another statement incorrect?  If the standard is what the majority of people find to be offensive then Williams' comments were probably not "incorrect."  If the standard is what comments would be offensive to a fairly large minority (Muslims), then Williams' comments likely were "incorrect."


Did NPR do the right thing in firing Juan Williams? - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com


----------



## CMike

If it was a conservative we know that the liberals would be screaming racism.

Where is the outrage?


----------



## saveliberty

boedicca said:


> Indeed.   The Ideology that claims to Celebrate Diversity punishes anyone who doesn't conform to their Thought Orthodoxy.



Let's give it a name:  Obama's Diversity Corollary.


----------



## WillowTree

Moon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.
> 
> To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Congress decides not to continue funding, then that means the People, through their elected representatives, chose to not fund broadcasting.  Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


----------



## The T

AquaAthena said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. The Ideology that claims to Celebrate Diversity punishes anyone who doesn't conform to their Thought Orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And someone_ I like very much,_ just might be next, *if* NPR gets away with firing Juan.
> 
> 
> UPDATE: Williams isnt the only person to deal with this. Theres also Mara Liasson (h/t YidwithLid):
> 
> Executives at National Public Radio recently asked the networks top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the networks political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.
> 
> According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October by NPRs executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the networks supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Foxs programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.
> 
> At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that_ shed seen no significant change in Foxs programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said._
> 
> Wonder if Liasson will give up her contract now too?
> 
> 
> 
> Read more at the Washington Examiner: NPR has been wanting to fire Juan Williams for some time | Washington Examiner
Click to expand...

 

For _'her_ _bias_'? Really? I say "_Pot? Meet Kettle_"...


----------



## The T

CMike said:


> Obviously fired NPR because he is black.
> 
> Where is the NAALCP?


 
Where are they? They busy publishing  Rascist Reports of the _Tea Party..._


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously fired NPR because he is black.
> 
> Where is the NAALCP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are they? They busy publishing  Rascist Reports of the _Tea Party..._
Click to expand...


I may have missed something, but I don't recall the NAACP EVER coming to the defense of anybody other than a leftwing professed Democrat.  Like I said, according to leftist doctrine, if you're conservative you can't also be black.  If you're conservative you can't be a woman.  Being conservative automatically turns you into an "Uncle Tom" or an "oreo" or a "batshit crazy loonbat".

Look what NPR has already tried to do to Juan Williams other than firing him for being honest about his fears.  They've _insinuated_--not specified mind you but insinuated--multiple offenses and problems.  And strongly suggested he has mental problems.

How can some of you people defend that?


----------



## Sarah G

I really love NPR, I was on their message board for awhile but they really screwed up here.  It was handled terribly wrong.


----------



## Stephanie

As soon as Republicans take control of things, FIRST ORDER OF BUSSINESS..

Repeal Obamacommiecare
DEFUND NPR.


----------



## Missourian

AquaAthena said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope Mara resigns from NPR in protest of how Juan was treated.
> 
> That would be a wonderful display of integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put her in the same category with Juan and agree with this statement by Bob Ellis and taken out of context from his article:
> 
> *"Juan Williams is one of those rarest of animals: the semi-reasonable liberal.  Most liberals are so divorced from reality that even the most compelling of facts will not penetrate their fantasy world, making it difficult for normal people to carry on a meaningful conversation with them."*
> 
> Double Standard of Taxpayer-Funded NPR
Click to expand...



That's a great point...it's one of the things I admire about Juan Williams...he has the rarest ability among tv's talking heads both liberal and conservative...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The ability to say to his political opponents "When you put it that way I see your point" or "I can't argue with that" or simply "You were right and I was wrong".

I rarely agreed with Williams,  but I considered his position arguments because I felt he truly considered the arguments in favor of positions I held...instead of dismissing them out of hand the way an ideologue would.

It is a lesson many on here from both sides of the political spectrum could learn from.


----------



## Sarah G

Stephanie said:


> As soon as Republicans take control of things, FIRST ORDER OF BUSSINESS..
> 
> Repeal Obamacommiecare
> DEFUND NPR.



Uhm, if that is their first order of business, they're dumber than I thought.  

It may be your priority but then who listens to you?


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously fired NPR because he is black.
> 
> Where is the NAALCP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are they? They busy publishing Rascist Reports of the _Tea Party..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have missed something, but I don't recall the NAACP EVER coming to the defense of anybody other than a leftwing professed Democrat. Like I said, according to leftist doctrine, if you're conservative you can't also be black. If you're conservative you can't be a woman. Being conservative automatically turns you into an "Uncle Tom" or an "oreo" or a "batshit crazy loonbat".
> 
> Look what NPR has already tried to do to Juan Williams other than firing him for being honest about his fears. They've _insinuated_--not specified mind you but insinuated--multiple offenses and problems. And strongly suggested he has mental problems.
> 
> How can some of you people defend that?
Click to expand...

 
True. 
Here's something I haven't seen on the boards yet...

*Williams signs new contract with Fox News *

 Desired effect? I say good for Juan...NPR? You blew it.


----------



## Stephanie

Sarah G said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Republicans take control of things, FIRST ORDER OF BUSSINESS..
> 
> Repeal Obamacommiecare
> DEFUND NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, if that is their first order of business, they're dumber than I thought.
> 
> It may be your priority but then who listens to you?
Click to expand...



awww, my good buddy is back..
still holding a grudge, I see.


----------



## Toro

Good for FoxNews.

Shame on NPR.


----------



## The T

Sarah G said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Republicans take control of things, FIRST ORDER OF BUSSINESS..
> 
> Repeal Obamacommiecare
> DEFUND NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, if that is their first order of business, they're dumber than I thought.
> 
> It may be your priority but then who listens to you?
Click to expand...

 
Many more than you think. Enjoy.


----------



## saveliberty

Sarah G said:


> I really love NPR, I was on their message board for awhile but they really screwed up here.  It was handled terribly wrong.



Did they have free speech diversity issues there too?


----------



## Stephanie

The T said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Republicans take control of things, FIRST ORDER OF BUSSINESS..
> 
> Repeal Obamacommiecare
> DEFUND NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, if that is their first order of business, they're dumber than I thought.
> 
> It may be your priority but then who listens to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many more than you think. Enjoy.
Click to expand...


----------



## The T

Stephanie said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, if that is their first order of business, they're dumber than I thought.
> 
> It may be your priority but then who listens to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many more than you think. Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Sarah G

Stephanie said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, if that is their first order of business, they're dumber than I thought.
> 
> It may be your priority but then who listens to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many more than you think. Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Ok, your sock puppets listen to you.  As it should be.


----------



## saveliberty

I have to think many campaigns will want to latch on to the Juan Williams free speech issue before election time.  NPR couldn't ahve picked a worse time with their fund drive and the election so close.


----------



## Stephanie

Sarah G said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many more than you think. Enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, your sock puppets listen to you.  As it should be.
Click to expand...



meow


----------



## Muscovite

boedicca said:


> Indeed.   The Ideology that claims to Celebrate Diversity punishes anyone who doesn't conform to their Thought Orthodoxy.


Speaking of an ideology that claims to foster and celebrate diversity, MSNBC needs to put up or shut up.  Look at their line up!  Where are the Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc.?

     1. Scarborough, Mika, Willie                      "LILLY WHITE"
     2. Chuck Todd                                          "LILLY WHITE"
     3. Andrea Mitchell                                     "LILLY WHITE"
     4. Dylan Ratigan                                        "LILLY WHITE"
     5. Chris Matthews                                     "LiLLY WHITE"
     6. Ed Schultz                                             "LILLY WHITE" 
     7. Keith Olbermann                                    "LILLY WHITE"
     8. Rachael Maddow                                    "LILLY WHITE"
     9. Lawrence O'Donnell                                "LILLY WHITE"  
    10. David Shuster                                        "LILLY WHITE"


----------



## Sunni Man

Free Speech to the Left.

Means that you are "Free" to speak about anything the Left *agrees *with.

Anything else will be viciously attacked as racist, bigoted, intolerant, etc.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sunni Man said:


> Free Speech to the Left.
> 
> Means that you are "Free" to speak about anything the Left *agrees *with.
> 
> Anything else will be viciously attacked as racist, bigoted, intolerant, etc.



Both sides will attack those with whom they disagree.  That's not the point, Sunni Man.  The point is that a journalist got hammered for an honest and free expression, then not given the courtesy for a face to face meeting.  Vivian Schiller needs to resign before the days is over.

But don't cry about the left hitting as hard as the right on issues.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stop the fauxrage, Cmike: you are being silly.


----------



## The T

Sarah G said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many more than you think. Enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, your sock puppets listen to you. As it should be.
Click to expand...


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free Speech to the Left.
> 
> Means that you are "Free" to speak about anything the Left *agrees *with.
> 
> Anything else will be viciously attacked as racist, bigoted, intolerant, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides will attack those with whom they disagree. That's not the point, Sunni Man. The point is that a journalist got hammered for an honest and free expression, then not given the courtesy for a face to face meeting. Vivian Schiller needs to resign before the days is over.
> 
> But don't cry about the left hitting as hard as the right on issues.
Click to expand...

 
Except the Left is dead wrong.


----------



## Intense

Sunni Man said:


> Free Speech to the Left.
> 
> Means that you are "Free" to speak about anything the Left *agrees *with.
> 
> Anything else will be viciously attacked as racist, bigoted, intolerant, etc.



Only for as long as they approve, and only if you are on the list.


----------



## Intense

The T said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, your sock puppets listen to you. As it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## saveliberty

Wow!  Discussing the employment status of an employee in a memo.  WRONG!

Vivian Schiller Sends Memo to Clarify Juan Williams Situation | ThirdAge


----------



## Ravi

saveliberty said:


> Wow!  Discussing the employment status of an employee in a memo.  WRONG!
> 
> Vivian Schiller Sends Memo to Clarify Juan Williams Situation | ThirdAge


He isn't now, or wasn't yesterday, an employee. He is a former independent contractor.


----------



## saveliberty

You never disclose employee information period.  NPR has opened itself to a huge lawsuit by stating Williams was acting in an unethical manner.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Discussing the employment status of an employee in a memo.  WRONG!
> 
> Vivian Schiller Sends Memo to Clarify Juan Williams Situation | ThirdAge
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't now, or wasn't yesterday, an employee. He is a former independent contractor.
Click to expand...


If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all.  An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee.  He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product.  Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Discussing the employment status of an employee in a memo.  WRONG!
> 
> Vivian Schiller Sends Memo to Clarify Juan Williams Situation | ThirdAge
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't now, or wasn't yesterday, an employee. He is a former independent contractor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all.  An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee.  He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product.  Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.
Click to expand...

He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.

It's pretty basic.


----------



## Sheldon

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Discussing the employment status of an employee in a memo.  WRONG!
> 
> Vivian Schiller Sends Memo to Clarify Juan Williams Situation | ThirdAge
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't now, or wasn't yesterday, an employee. He is a former independent contractor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all.  An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee.  He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product.  Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.
Click to expand...




I thought that was what the NPR head was saying; Williams failed to "complete a specified product", so they tore up his contract. In this case, he was becoming less of an analyst--what he was hired for--and more of a talking head hack? I guess it's his word versus hers, and I wouldn't be surprised if his participation at Fox Nooz played a role in NPR terminating his contract.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't now, or wasn't yesterday, an employee. He is a former independent contractor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all.  An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee.  He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product.  Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.
> 
> It's pretty basic.
Click to expand...


Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product.  They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.


----------



## saveliberty

Who paid Juan's social security?  If it was NPR, then he is an employee.  If it was Juan, but his activities were directed by NPR, then NPR is guilty of avoiding taxes.


----------



## WillowTree

Fox's America Live opens with attack on Media Matters' Boehlert







http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010220025


----------



## Foxfyre

And even if his contract DID specify an expectation of certain protocol or confidentiality or behavior when representing the company issuing the contract--I have worked under such restrictions as an independent contractor for decades--once the company waives such provisions and continues to use the contractor, they cannot then enforce those provisions later on just to get rid of that contractor.  Juan, if an employee, does indeed have a legitimate complaint.  If an independent contractor, he likely has a valid suit for breach of contract.

Either way NPR screwed up.


----------



## Missourian

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't now, or wasn't yesterday, an employee. He is a former independent contractor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all.  An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee.  He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product.  Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.
> 
> It's pretty basic.
Click to expand...


Even if your "basic" definition is presumed as correct for arguments sake,  Williams wasn't terminated due to the his contracted job performance...therefore PBS is still in the wrong.

Goalposts moved in 5...4...3...2...


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all.  An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee.  He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product.  Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.
> 
> 
> 
> He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.
> 
> It's pretty basic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product.  They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.
Click to expand...

Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.


----------



## Ravi

Missourian said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all.  An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee.  He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product.  Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.
> 
> 
> 
> He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.
> 
> It's pretty basic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if your "basic" definition is presumed as correct for arguments sake,  Williams wasn't terminated due to the his contracted job performance...therefore PBS is still in the wrong.
> 
> Goalposts moved in 5...4...3...2...
Click to expand...

NPR but I'm sure those rational news outlets all look the same to you. 

According to statements by NPR he was terminated because his comments as a pundit damaged his credibility as a news analyst.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.
> 
> It's pretty basic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product.  They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.
Click to expand...


You think Juan has lost credibility? Boy, you sure got your head up your ass today. Don't look now but the tide is coming in.


----------



## Stephanie

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product.  They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think Juan has lost credibility? Boy, you sure got your head up your ass today. Don't look now but the tide is coming in.
Click to expand...


they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.

so off with him..


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.
> 
> It's pretty basic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product.  They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.
Click to expand...


Unless his contract specifies that he cannot work for any other media entity, in which case he would be an employee, he is NOT representing NPR anywhere other than when he is working for NPR.  IF he had been violating certain terms of his contract with NPR for, as they say, for years and they had concerns for years, they should have enforced it at the time the terms of the contract were violated.  They didn't.  In almost ALL states, that would automatically be a waiver of those terms of the contract.  Without letters of warning or written reminders of the provisions of the contract, they cannot waive them for a length of time and then arbitrarily use them as an excuse for punative measures.

If he was an Independent Contractor, they had every right to not renew his contract for any reason.  They most likely did not have legal justification to terminate it for the reasons they did.


----------



## Sunni Man

Stephanie said:


> they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.


That 1% is what got him fired.

The Left demands 100% compliance or else you are a traitor to their agenda.


----------



## Sheldon

Sunni Man said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.
> 
> 
> 
> That 1% is what got him fired.
> 
> The Left demands 100% compliance or else you are a traitor to their agenda.
Click to expand...




Who is that in your avatar?


----------



## Sunni Man

Sheldon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.
> 
> 
> 
> That 1% is what got him fired.
> 
> The Left demands 100% compliance or else you are a traitor to their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is that in your avatar?
Click to expand...

Colonel Count Klaus von Stauffenberg 

The man selected to carry out the plot to kill Hitler in Operation Valkyrie.

Operation Valkyrie: German Officer's Plot to Assassinate Adolf Hitler


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product.  They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless his contract specifies that he cannot work for any other media entity, in which case he would be an employee, he is NOT representing NPR anywhere other than when he is working for NPR.  IF he had been violating certain terms of his contract with NPR for, as they say, for years and they had concerns for years, they should have enforced it at the time the terms of the contract were violated.  They didn't.  In almost ALL states, that would automatically be a waiver of those terms of the contract.  Without letters of warning or written reminders of the provisions of the contract, they cannot waive them for a length of time and then arbitrarily use them as an excuse for punative measures.
> 
> If he was an Independent Contractor, they had every right to not renew his contract for any reason.  They most likely did not have legal justification to terminate it for the reasons they did.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, he's never made any public, bigoted remarks in the past. So, no, there is no waiver granted as you are trying to describe.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.
> 
> 
> 
> That 1% is what got him fired.
> 
> The Left demands 100% compliance or else you are a traitor to their agenda.
Click to expand...


I don't think it was even that.  Is there an ideology involved in saying that one is nervous around somebody or feals fear even though they know and admit it is irrational?  Similar to feeling fear even though you know the snake or the spider is non poisonous and won't hurt you.

Those on the left describe such irrational nervousness and fear or concern around Christians, Tea Partiers, Republican leaders, etc. with impunity.

What Juan did was 1) he was an honest man who refused to deal in dishonest diatribes against people he disagreed with and  2) the remark he made involved Muslims.

Muslims are now the new protected and inviolate class among the extreme left.  We are not allowed to treat Muslims as anybody else is treated.  We cannot note or acknowledge that a person committing or attempting or plotting a crime is Muslim even if the crime is an expression of his faith.  We cannot discuss that there are Muslims who are admirable and decent and distinguished citizens, neighbors, friends and there are Muslims who are dangerous and to be treated with great caution.

If CAIR or a George Soros backed entity or an extreme Leftist proclaims a statement about Muslims racists or Islamophobic, then the guilty must be destroyed immediately.

And if good people don't continue to strongly speak out against this kind of tactic we are going to see a hell of a lot more of it.


----------



## mal

Shouldn't it be Won Juilliams?...



peace...


----------



## WillowTree

Stephanie said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Juan has lost credibility? Boy, you sure got your head up your ass today. Don't look now but the tide is coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.
> 
> so off with him..
Click to expand...


I'm sure this incident just gave birth to a new conservative. Yes I am.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless his contract specifies that he cannot work for any other media entity, in which case he would be an employee, he is NOT representing NPR anywhere other than when he is working for NPR.  IF he had been violating certain terms of his contract with NPR for, as they say, for years and they had concerns for years, they should have enforced it at the time the terms of the contract were violated.  They didn't.  In almost ALL states, that would automatically be a waiver of those terms of the contract.  Without letters of warning or written reminders of the provisions of the contract, they cannot waive them for a length of time and then arbitrarily use them as an excuse for punative measures.
> 
> If he was an Independent Contractor, they had every right to not renew his contract for any reason.  They most likely did not have legal justification to terminate it for the reasons they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as I can tell, he's never made any public, bigoted remarks in the past. So, no, there is no waiver granted as you are trying to describe.
Click to expand...


Well the implications that they are making on air and in that memo suggest that there was.  Also that he is mentally unstable.

What they have done to Juan Williams is despicable.  And I don't see how anybody can defend that.


----------



## Sheldon

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless his contract specifies that he cannot work for any other media entity, in which case he would be an employee, he is NOT representing NPR anywhere other than when he is working for NPR.  IF he had been violating certain terms of his contract with NPR for, as they say, for years and they had concerns for years, they should have enforced it at the time the terms of the contract were violated.  They didn't.  In almost ALL states, that would automatically be a waiver of those terms of the contract.  Without letters of warning or written reminders of the provisions of the contract, they cannot waive them for a length of time and then arbitrarily use them as an excuse for punative measures.
> 
> If he was an Independent Contractor, they had every right to not renew his contract for any reason.  They most likely did not have legal justification to terminate it for the reasons they did.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell, he's never made any public, bigoted remarks in the past. So, no, there is no waiver granted as you are trying to describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the implications that they are making on air and in that memo suggest that there was.  Also that he is mentally unstable.
> 
> *What they have done to Juan Williams is despicable.  And I don't see how anybody can defend that.*
Click to expand...


Yeah, the way it was handled has been a major PR fumble. I won't be surprised if the NPR's whats-her-name's head is on the block because of the public backlash.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless his contract specifies that he cannot work for any other media entity, in which case he would be an employee, he is NOT representing NPR anywhere other than when he is working for NPR.  IF he had been violating certain terms of his contract with NPR for, as they say, for years and they had concerns for years, they should have enforced it at the time the terms of the contract were violated.  They didn't.  In almost ALL states, that would automatically be a waiver of those terms of the contract.  Without letters of warning or written reminders of the provisions of the contract, they cannot waive them for a length of time and then arbitrarily use them as an excuse for punative measures.
> 
> If he was an Independent Contractor, they had every right to not renew his contract for any reason.  They most likely did not have legal justification to terminate it for the reasons they did.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell, he's never made any public, bigoted remarks in the past. So, no, there is no waiver granted as you are trying to describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the implications that they are making on air and in that memo suggest that there was.  Also that he is mentally unstable.
> 
> What they have done to Juan Williams is despicable.  And I don't see how anybody can defend that.
Click to expand...

I can't see how anyone can deny an employer a right to boot a bigoted employee.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell, he's never made any public, bigoted remarks in the past. So, no, there is no waiver granted as you are trying to describe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the implications that they are making on air and in that memo suggest that there was.  Also that he is mentally unstable.
> 
> What they have done to Juan Williams is despicable.  And I don't see how anybody can defend that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't see how anyone can deny an employer a right to boot a bigoted employee.
Click to expand...


There was nothing Bigoted about what Juan said...



peace...


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.
> 
> It's pretty basic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product.  They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.
Click to expand...


Did Juan represent FOX when on NPR?  He either is an independent contractor, which means he can work for multiple companies, or he is exclusive to NPR, in which case he really is an employee.


----------



## Stephanie

lol, I'm remembering the Shirley Sherrod firing and the lefties howls and screams about...HOW UNFAIR.

but hey, no such sympathies for poor ole Liberal Juan..you have to wonder why..


----------



## Ravi

saveliberty said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product.  They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Juan represent FOX when on NPR?  He either is an independent contractor, which means he can work for multiple companies, or he is exclusive to NPR, in which case he really is an employee.
Click to expand...

He violated NPR's code of ethics. I seriously doubt FAUX has a code of ethics to violate.


----------



## chanel

NPR's Code of Ethics?  You must have missed this posted earlier:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Stephanie

NPR has a "code of eithics"

don't make me laugh..

And notice the lefties aren't SCREAMING RACISM for the firing of the Liberal Black man...

you have to wonder why...I think we all know..

Juan strayed off the Liberal PLANTATION..so off with him..


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Juan represent FOX when on NPR?  He either is an independent contractor, which means he can work for multiple companies, or he is exclusive to NPR, in which case he really is an employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He violated NPR's code of ethics. I seriously doubt FAUX has a code of ethics to violate.
Click to expand...


If he did, they have a damn weird and offensive code of ethics.  But even if we go with your (now irrational and monotonous) diatribe that he made a bigoted statement, THEY are implying it isn't the first time.  And because THEY didn't deal with it before, never said a word about it before, didn't make an issue of it before, they are out of line making an issue of it now.

From all appearances, they have been coerced and bought by CAIR, Media Matters, and George Soros who is funding the whole rat's nest.

And that is despicable.


----------



## saveliberty

This is building momentum as I suspected it would.  The White House is silent on this so far.  Who gets thrown under the Obama bus?  I think Vivian Shiller will be the first sacrifice, but it won't stop there.  No funding for NPR before its done.


----------



## JakeStarkey

NPR made an incredible political and PR faux pas.

The radio program has been the necessary fulcrum of the center to balance the inanities of Fox and the growing shrillness of the cable lib stations.  Any lefty who defends Vivian Schiller and the firing is flatly wrong, period.  His comments were not racist, they were honest about his apprehensions, and in no way shape or form were they mean spirited.  Now the faux right swarms like demons from Lords of the Ring to make hay while the sun shines.

This issue stands perfectly as the metaphor for the disconnect in American political life.

A pox on both your houses.


----------



## Ame®icano

WillowTree said:


> I wonder how Whoopie and Joyless feel now? Their assinine behavior led to the conversation that got a black man fired from a libturd organization funded by we the people. Wonder how that shit sits in their craws?    oh the irony!


I wonder how liberals @ NPR feel, now when they know what will happen to them if they go of the track, or try to think for themselves.


----------



## Ame®icano

DiveCon said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mark of totalitarians is to co-opt psychiatry to achieve their ends.
> 
> Juan, meet Gulag.
> 
> NPR CEO: Williams' Views Should Stay Between Himself And 'His Psychiatrist' : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> 
> 
> WOW
> 
> now they call him insane
Click to expand...


That's what libs do to anyone who doesn't agree with them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Americano, you are also describing fauxcons.


----------



## Stephanie

oh it's building momentum alright. all in the right direction..come on people, contact your congresscritter and tell them to get BEHIND THIS..


Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, October 22, 2010, 12:07 PM
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) submitted legislation today to stop taxpayer subsidies of public radio and television.
From Senator DeMints website:

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee which oversees the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), announced he will introduce legislation to stop taxpayer subsidies of public radio and television. CPB-funded television and radio programs are distributed through National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 

Once again we find the only free speech liberals support is the speech with which they agree. The incident with Mr. Williams shows that NPR is not concerned about providing the listening public with an honest debate of todays issues, but rather with promoting a one-sided liberal agenda, said Senator DeMint.

Since 2001, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds programming for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, has received nearly $4 billion in taxpayer money, said DeMint. The country is over $13 trillion in debt and Congress must find ways to start trimming the federal budget to cut spending. NPR and PBS get about 15 percent of their total budget through federal funding, so these programs should be able to find a way to stand on their own. With record debt and unemployment, theres simply no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize a liberal programming they disagree with.

We cant keep borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars from China each year to fund public radio and public TV when there are so many choices already in the market for news and entertainment. If CPB is defunded taxpayers will save billions. This is just one of the many cuts Congress should make next year.

I plan to introduce legislation to defund CPB and force a vote on it as well as other measures to start getting our fiscal house in order, said Senator DeMint.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was incorporated in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation under the authority of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives virtually all of its funding through federal appropriations. For fiscal year 2010 the CPB received $420 million and for fiscal year 2011 it will be $430 million. Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has grown considerably over the years. In 2001, it received $340 million. In 2011, it will be getting $90 million more than that, $430 million.

List of federal funding for CPB over the years, provided by the Congressional Research Service:

2001: $340 million
2002: $350 million
2003: $362.8 million
2004: $377.8 million
2005: $386.8 million
2006: $396 million
2007: $400 million
2008: $393 million
2009: $400 million
2010: $420 million
2011: $430 million

from with comments.
Gateway Pundit


----------



## Ame®icano

jillian said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that Juan is racist?

I'd rather say stupidity shouldn't be tolerated...


----------



## chanel




----------



## Charles_Main

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, unfolding information since earlier.
> 
> We already posted that George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters this past week and apparently it was to scrutinize anybody on Fox News and do whatever is necessary to destroy those people.
> 
> And apparently George Soros gave $1.8 million to NPR this past week or at least recently and you don't give that kind of donation without some strings being attached.
> 
> Coincidence you think?
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
Click to expand...


You need to look into how Soros has made his Billions sir.

There is good reason to not like that man.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Juan represent FOX when on NPR?  He either is an independent contractor, which means he can work for multiple companies, or he is exclusive to NPR, in which case he really is an employee.
> 
> 
> 
> He violated NPR's code of ethics. I seriously doubt FAUX has a code of ethics to violate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he did, they have a damn weird and offensive code of ethics.  But even if we go with your (now irrational and monotonous) diatribe that he made a bigoted statement, THEY are implying it isn't the first time.  And because THEY didn't deal with it before, never said a word about it before, didn't make an issue of it before, they are out of line making an issue of it now.
> 
> From all appearances, they have been coerced and bought by CAIR, Media Matters, and George Soros who is funding the whole rat's nest.
> 
> And that is despicable.
Click to expand...

I have not seen them imply he has made bigoted remarks before. In fact, I believe you are totally wrong on that point.

There is nothing irrational about considering the remark bigoted. It would be bigoted no matter what group it was directed at. Perhaps you can't see that because it is a group you either fear or look down on.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ame®icano;2876750 said:
			
		

> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals do NOT equal tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone be tolerant of rightwingnut hatred?
> 
> racism and homophobia should NEVER be tolerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Juan is racist?
> 
> I'd rather say stupidity shouldn't be tolerated...
Click to expand...


Racism and Homaphobia?

You do know Islam is not a race or a sexual orientation right. 

All Juan did was admit to a personal Feeling when he is on a plane. So if that should not be tolerated then what you are saying is any personal Feeling you do not like should not be tolerated.

There goes the freedom of expression. Killed by the PC police.


----------



## Ame®icano

Oddball said:


> Any doubt that Mara Liasson is next?



I think with all that smoke around Juan, Mara just got more leverage and will feel safer there. 

What I find funny from comments here is that, most of lefties on this board support NPR decision, they knew all along that Juan was bad for NPR since he is also contributor at FOX. I can't resist to ask, how many of them actually bitch about Juan before he was fired?

What NPR did was probably ordered from above, no doubt about it. I think Juan was wrongly dismissed for being honest. How many of you can be honest as Juan was? After 9/11, what do you think about when you see person in muslim garm boarding a plane? How sexy is he?

When I was watching a show, I didn't even pay attention what he said at first, but now after all this circus I applaud Juan for being real and honest. All those who attack him for that can return to their PC fairy tale.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> Muslims are now the new protected and inviolate class among the extreme left.  We are not allowed to treat Muslims as anybody else is treated.  We cannot note or acknowledge that a person committing or attempting or plotting a crime is Muslim even if the crime is an expression of his faith.  We cannot discuss that there are Muslims who are admirable and decent and distinguished citizens, neighbors, friends and there are Muslims who are dangerous and to be treated with great caution.


True, Juan got the shaft big time and I say it was wrong.

As a personal note:

I attend the largest Mosque in New England. And am involved in many of the leadership decisions and activities.

Everyday we are dealing with all kinds of cyber attacks to our web site, property damage and defacement, members being harrassed out in public, job discrimination, hate mail, etc.

As a Muslims, we feel that we are fair game with little recourse.

The ones who bare the brunt of this abuse in public are the muslim women who wear hijab.

I hear stories from them all the time. Cars swerving to hit them as they try to cross the street. People cussing and throwing things at them as they drive by. And public transportation buss drivers not stoping to pick them up when they are the only ones at the buss stop. They just drive past out of spite.

So even though Juan's firing wasn't right. It does show Muslims that at least someone is on their side.


----------



## chanel

Yet you still make your wife where the burka eh?  Can't really get my head around that one.


----------



## Charles_Main

WillowTree said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...except those that claim his first amendment rights were violated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Federal government was complicit in the firing, his First Amendment rights WERE violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. They are a partially federally funded entity. Our money is a representation of us. He was punished for voicing a fear.
Click to expand...


Yep, and the NPR representative who spoke about it yesterday. Wrongly called it an Opinion.

it is not an opinion to admit you have a moment of worry when you see Muslims in Muslim Garb on a plane. That is simply stating your own feelings. If he had suggest that Everyone should feel the way he does, that would have been an opinion.


----------



## Ame®icano

Charles_Main said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, NPR which gets Public Funding is basically admitting they are liberally biased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What NPR is, is a news station that gives you the news without stupid fear mongering cowardly opinions like Juan Williams opines. They don't want to be associated with that kind of biggoted rhetoric. So if you call that liberally biased, then yeah, I've heard it said, truth has a liberal bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So admitting that when you are at an airport and see Muslims you have a moment of anxiety is Bigoted in your view?
> 
> Please. He stated the truth, and the Far left Liberal Ideologues who run the publicly funded NPR fired him for it.
> 
> Never mind that he then said that we must be careful not to blame all Muslims for the actions of Radicals.
> 
> You Libs are unbelievable.
Click to expand...


Libs are hypocrites. Or just ignoramus that never heard of "implicit prejudice". Juan was honest and came forward with his emotions, unlike majority of libs who feel just like him when they board the plane and say nothing.


----------



## Modbert

Really USMB? Juan Williams finally getting fired from NPR and going full-time to where he should of gone in the first place really gets over 600 posts?


----------



## chanel

Not sure if this was posted yet:



> As National Public Radio weathered a storm of criticism Thursday for its decision to fire news analyst Juan Williams for his comments about Muslims, Fox News moved aggressively to turn the controversy to its advantage by signing Williams to an expanded role at the cable news network.
> 
> Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning,* in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million,* a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column on FoxNews.com.
> 
> &#8220;Juan has been a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints since his tenure began at Fox News in 1997,&#8221; Ailes said in a statement, adding a jab at NPR: &#8220;He&#8217;s an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by Fox News on a daily basis.&#8221;



Surprise: Fox News signs Juan Williams to new $2 million deal  Hot Air

Fox is just scooping up the best and the brightest, ain't they?


----------



## Charles_Main

Modbert said:


> Really USMB? Juan Williams finally getting fired from NPR and going full-time to where he should of gone in the first place really gets over 600 posts?



Oh yes, because Juan is such a hard core right winger. I disagree with him like 99% of the time, and scream at the TV when he is on spewing his Liberal Crap, and now you libs are going to try and disown him and claim he is really a conservative.

To rich.


----------



## Sunni Man

chanel said:


> Yet you still make your wife where the burka eh?  Can't really get my head around that one.


For the 100th time on this board

I Do Not "make her" wear the burqa  She wore it before I met her.

She is a highly educated woman (M.D.) and very religious.

Even if you offered her a million dollars cash money.

She would NEVER go out in public without it.


----------



## WillowTree

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are now the new protected and inviolate class among the extreme left.  We are not allowed to treat Muslims as anybody else is treated.  We cannot note or acknowledge that a person committing or attempting or plotting a crime is Muslim even if the crime is an expression of his faith.  We cannot discuss that there are Muslims who are admirable and decent and distinguished citizens, neighbors, friends and there are Muslims who are dangerous and to be treated with great caution.
> 
> 
> 
> True, Juan got the shaft big time and I say it was wrong.
> 
> As a personal note:
> 
> I attend the largest Mosque in New England. And am involved in many of the leadership decisions and activities.
> 
> Everyday we are dealing with all kinds of cyber attacks to our web site, property damage and defacement, members being harrassed out in public, job discrimination, hate mail, etc.
> 
> As a Muslims, we feel that we are fair game with little recourse.
> 
> The ones who bare the brunt of this abuse in public are the muslim women who wear hijab.
> 
> I hear stories from them all the time. Cars swerving to hit them as they try to cross the street. People cussing and throwing things at them as they drive by. And public transportation buss drivers not stoping to pick them up when they are the only ones at the buss stop. They just drive past out of spite.
> 
> So even though Juan's firing wasn't right. It does show Muslims that at least someone is on their side.
Click to expand...



Has it ever crossed your mind how big you would look to the world to stand in solidarity defending Juan?


----------



## WillowTree

Modbert said:


> Really USMB? Juan Williams finally getting fired from NPR and going full-time to where he should of gone in the first place really gets over 600 posts?



Shut the fuck up asshole.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ame®icano;2876881 said:
			
		

> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What NPR is, is a news station that gives you the news without stupid fear mongering cowardly opinions like Juan Williams opines. They don't want to be associated with that kind of biggoted rhetoric. So if you call that liberally biased, then yeah, I've heard it said, truth has a liberal bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So admitting that when you are at an airport and see Muslims you have a moment of anxiety is Bigoted in your view?
> 
> Please. He stated the truth, and the Far left Liberal Ideologues who run the publicly funded NPR fired him for it.
> 
> Never mind that he then said that we must be careful not to blame all Muslims for the actions of Radicals.
> 
> You Libs are unbelievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libs are hypocrites. Or just ignoramus that never heard of "implicit prejudice". Juan was honest and came forward with his emotions, unlike majority of libs who feel just like him when they board the plane and say nothing.
Click to expand...


Which was what the point that the good doctor, a devout Muslim, I posted earlier was expressing.  If we jump on people, punish people, try to destroy people for expressing their personal fears, people will stop expressing all fears.  And that gives the green light to those who intend no good to anybody and who will use such PC generated anonymity to commit whatever mayhem they wish.

He, a devout Muslim, encourages America to wake up and get sensible.  I think we should take his advice.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

WillowTree said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really USMB? Juan Williams finally getting fired from NPR and going full-time to where he should of gone in the first place really gets over 600 posts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up asshole.
Click to expand...


Williams uttered an opinion outside of the Collective, he HAD to go!

He represented a threat to the Collective and GroupThink


----------



## Ravi

Sunni Man said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you still make your wife where the burka eh?  Can't really get my head around that one.
> 
> 
> 
> For the 100th time on this board
> 
> I Do Not "make her" wear the burqa  She wore it before I met her.
> 
> She is a highly educated woman (M.D.) and very religious.
> 
> Even if you offered her a million dollars cash money.
> 
> She would NEVER go out in public without it.
Click to expand...

Do people freak out in fear when they see her in public? How about on a plane?


----------



## chanel

Muslim women in "Arab garb" don't frighten me in the least.  They just make me sad.


----------



## WillowTree

CrusaderFrank said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really USMB? Juan Williams finally getting fired from NPR and going full-time to where he should of gone in the first place really gets over 600 posts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Williams uttered an opinion outside of the Collective, he HAD to go!
> 
> He represented a threat to the Collective and GroupThink
Click to expand...


It's obvious Juan doesn't live in his mama's basement.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

If elderly Japanese women were strapping themselves with explosives and doing all the Jihadism, Juan would have said that elderly Japanese women on a plane make him nervous.

Why is it so wrong for Progressives to state the obvious?


----------



## Modbert

Charles_Main said:


> Oh yes, because Juan is such a hard core right winger. I disagree with him like 99% of the time, and scream at the TV when he is on spewing his Liberal Crap, and now you libs are going to try and disown him and claim he is really a conservative.
> 
> To rich.



Juan Williams was clearly happy on Fox, he should of been there in the first place. It has nothing to do with his personal views. It's the same with Alan Colmes. My post was more focused on the fact the amount of attention this non-issue has been given.

Once again, you make illogical assumptions on a basis of no evidence.


----------



## Modbert

WillowTree said:


> Shut the fuck up asshole.



No.


----------



## WillowTree

Modbert said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, because Juan is such a hard core right winger. I disagree with him like 99% of the time, and scream at the TV when he is on spewing his Liberal Crap, and now you libs are going to try and disown him and claim he is really a conservative.
> 
> To rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams was clearly happy on Fox, he should of been there in the first place. It has nothing to do with his personal views. It's the same with Alan Colmes. My post was more focused on the fact the amount of attention this non-issue has been given.
> 
> Once again, you make illogical assumptions on a basis of no evidence.
Click to expand...


 everyone just  when retarded basement dwelling libturds tell them they make "illogical assumptions" and declare shit to be a "non issue" Asshole.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Progressives are intolerant toward independent thought.






Juan must go!


----------



## Immanuel

saveliberty said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Time will show me correct. Enjoy knowing that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without a better argument than what has been presented so far.  Gibbs damage control should be amusing.  Maybe Obama can give a national speech on NPR to clear it all up.
Click to expand...


I just realized something.  

Obama is likely to announce that because NPR has proven its intention to remain impartial at all costs and fight against "far right pundits" such as Juan Williams, he will work to increase NPR's grant by something like a hundred-fold and raise taxes on everyone making less than $250,000 to do so.

Immie


----------



## WillowTree

This "non issue" is a nation wide scandal. It won't end well for libturds.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ravi said:


> She would NEVER go out in public without it.


Do people freak out in fear when they see her in public? How about on a plane?[/QUOTE]
Really can't say how people feel internally. But I never saw anyone "freak out" in public.

But I have notice two basic reactions from sales people toward her.

They are either very, very friendly and almost over accomodating in their help.

Or they are very short and snippy if asked a question. And will many times just walk away without really assisting her.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are now the new protected and inviolate class among the extreme left.  We are not allowed to treat Muslims as anybody else is treated.  We cannot note or acknowledge that a person committing or attempting or plotting a crime is Muslim even if the crime is an expression of his faith.  We cannot discuss that there are Muslims who are admirable and decent and distinguished citizens, neighbors, friends and there are Muslims who are dangerous and to be treated with great caution.
> 
> 
> 
> True, Juan got the shaft big time and I say it was wrong.
> 
> As a personal note:
> 
> I attend the largest Mosque in New England. And am involved in many of the leadership decisions and activities.
> 
> Everyday we are dealing with all kinds of cyber attacks to our web site, property damage and defacement, members being harrassed out in public, job discrimination, hate mail, etc.
> 
> As a Muslims, we feel that we are fair game with little recourse.
> 
> The ones who bare the brunt of this abuse in public are the muslim women who wear hijab.
> 
> I hear stories from them all the time. Cars swerving to hit them as they try to cross the street. People cussing and throwing things at them as they drive by. And public transportation buss drivers not stoping to pick them up when they are the only ones at the buss stop. They just drive past out of spite.
> 
> So even though Juan's firing wasn't right. It does show Muslims that at least someone is on their side.
Click to expand...


I don't know about your area so I will accept what you are describing as the truth about your area.  Such is not the case in our area.  My Muslim neighbor, who sometimes does wear hijab,  says she does not feel animosity, most especially on the coasts where such is pretty commonplace along with East Indian women in their saris, the Sikh turbans, the Orthodox Jews in their ominous black robes, and various other ethnic dress.

But welcome to the world of the Christian who has been experiencing such irrational hate for decades now.  I can honestly say that I have taken more pure spiteful and hateful comments directed at me because of my Christian beliefs than for all other reasons put together.  I was neg repped three times in a single thread for refusing to admit that I was a crazy wild eyed radical Christian fundamentalist.

It does bother me that you would see the mistreatment of another human being who bears no apparent hateful feelings toward anybody or any group as evidence of 'being on your side'.

I don't believe two wrongs make a right.   I think hatefulness and unjust treatment purely because others are different should not be acceptable or applauded for ANY reason.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I heard the Soros Sock puppet at NPR say that Juan Williams called Michelle Obama Stokley Carmichael in Jan 2009 and he was warned then not to think outside the Collective.


----------



## WillowTree

Foxfyre said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are now the new protected and inviolate class among the extreme left.  We are not allowed to treat Muslims as anybody else is treated.  We cannot note or acknowledge that a person committing or attempting or plotting a crime is Muslim even if the crime is an expression of his faith.  We cannot discuss that there are Muslims who are admirable and decent and distinguished citizens, neighbors, friends and there are Muslims who are dangerous and to be treated with great caution.
> 
> 
> 
> True, Juan got the shaft big time and I say it was wrong.
> 
> As a personal note:
> 
> I attend the largest Mosque in New England. And am involved in many of the leadership decisions and activities.
> 
> Everyday we are dealing with all kinds of cyber attacks to our web site, property damage and defacement, members being harrassed out in public, job discrimination, hate mail, etc.
> 
> As a Muslims, we feel that we are fair game with little recourse.
> 
> The ones who bare the brunt of this abuse in public are the muslim women who wear hijab.
> 
> I hear stories from them all the time. Cars swerving to hit them as they try to cross the street. People cussing and throwing things at them as they drive by. And public transportation buss drivers not stoping to pick them up when they are the only ones at the buss stop. They just drive past out of spite.
> 
> So even though Juan's firing wasn't right. It does show Muslims that at least someone is on their side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about your area so I will accept what you are describing as the truth about your area.  Such is not the case in our area.  My Muslim neighbor, who sometimes does wear hijab,  says she does not feel animosity, most especially on the coasts where such is pretty commonplace along with East Indian women in their saris, the Sikh turbans, the Orthodox Jews in their ominous black robes, and various other ethnic dress.
> 
> But welcome to the world of the Christian who has been experiencing such irrational hate for decades now.  I can honestly say that I have taken more pure spiteful and hateful comments directed at me because of my Christian beliefs than for all other reasons put together.  I was neg repped three times in a single thread for refusing to admit that I was a crazy wild eyed radical Christian fundamentalist.
> 
> It does bother me that you would see the mistreatment of another human being who bears no apparent hateful feelings toward anybody or any group as evidence of 'being on your side'.
> 
> I don't believe two wrongs make a right.   I think hatefulness and unjust treatment purely because others are different should not be acceptable or applauded for ANY reason.
Click to expand...


 Best Post of the Day.


----------



## DiveCon

Modbert said:


> Really USMB? Juan Williams finally getting fired from NPR and going full-time to where he should of gone in the first place really gets over 600 posts?


this is fucking PATHETIC, even for you


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Do you see how far Left the Left Wing is, Juan Williams is now considered a Conservative


----------



## Ravi

Sunni Man said:


> Really can't say how people feel internally. But I never saw anyone "freak out" in public.
> 
> But I have notice two basic reactions from sales people toward her.
> 
> They are either very, very friendly and almost over accomodating in their help.
> 
> Or they are very short and snippy if asked a question. And will many times just walk away without really assisting her.


So why is it, exactly, that you applaud Juan Williams in continuing the stereotypical viewpoint that Muslims in Muslim garb are to be feared?


----------



## DiveCon

Sunni Man said:


> Really can't say how people feel internally. But I never saw anyone "freak out" in public.
> 
> But I have notice two basic reactions from sales people toward her.
> 
> *They are either very, very friendly and almost over accomodating in their help.
> 
> Or they are very short and snippy if asked a question. And will many times just walk away without really assisting her.*


they would do that even if she wasnt wearing a burka
thats called poor customer service, and your wife wearing the burka likely had very little to do with it


----------



## Meister

Ravi said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really can't say how people feel internally. But I never saw anyone "freak out" in public.
> 
> But I have notice two basic reactions from sales people toward her.
> 
> They are either very, very friendly and almost over accomodating in their help.
> 
> Or they are very short and snippy if asked a question. And will many times just walk away without really assisting her.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is it, exactly, that you applaud Juan Williams in continuing the stereotypical viewpoint that Muslims in Muslim garb are to be feared?
Click to expand...


Juan never stated that Muslims in Muslim garb *ARE TO BE FEARED*.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Progressives are to be feared


----------



## Ravi

Meister said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really can't say how people feel internally. But I never saw anyone "freak out" in public.
> 
> But I have notice two basic reactions from sales people toward her.
> 
> They are either very, very friendly and almost over accomodating in their help.
> 
> Or they are very short and snippy if asked a question. And will many times just walk away without really assisting her.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is it, exactly, that you applaud Juan Williams in continuing the stereotypical viewpoint that Muslims in Muslim garb are to be feared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juan never stated that Muslims in Muslim garb *ARE TO BE FEARED*.
Click to expand...

No, he just implied it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ravi, Williams said nothing of the sort.  I heard it.  He said he admitted HE got apprehensive when he saw Muslims in full garb on planes on which he was flying.  That's not racist, simply an honest statement.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is it, exactly, that you applaud Juan Williams in continuing the stereotypical viewpoint that Muslims in Muslim garb are to be feared?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan never stated that Muslims in Muslim garb *ARE TO BE FEARED*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he just implied it.
Click to expand...


He didn't do that either you lying peice of shit. He said he was uneasy. Period.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell, he's never made any public, bigoted remarks in the past. So, no, there is no waiver granted as you are trying to describe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the implications that they are making on air and in that memo suggest that there was.  Also that he is mentally unstable.
> 
> What they have done to Juan Williams is despicable.  And I don't see how anybody can defend that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't see how anyone can deny an employer a right to boot a bigoted employee.
Click to expand...


It seems the truth is not respected in the halls of NPR.  A man truthfully confesses that he is concerned for his safety when flying with people who are openly displaying their allegiance to a faith that declared war on America on Sept. 11, 2001 and that man is summarily court martial-ed for his honesty. 

Truth... something that can not be tolerated amongst the media elite. 

Immie


----------



## skookerasbil




----------



## skookerasbil




----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really can't say how people feel internally. But I never saw anyone "freak out" in public.
> 
> But I have notice two basic reactions from sales people toward her.
> 
> *They are either very, very friendly and almost over accomodating in their help.
> 
> Or they are very short and snippy if asked a question. And will many times just walk away without really assisting her.*
> 
> 
> 
> they would do that even if she wasnt wearing a burka
> thats called poor customer service, and your wife wearing the burka likely had very little to do with it
Click to expand...


This is true.  I think all of us who have ever gone shopping have at times been almost annoyed by a hovering sales clerk and more annoyed by the one who is obviously avoiding making eye contact or is rude and unpleasant.  And that seems to be true no matter WHAT I wear to the store.


----------



## skookerasbil




----------



## NYcarbineer

WillowTree said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could have been the tipping point with funding NPR.  It's my understanding that there are a lot of upset democrats over this too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to defund NPR here.  IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I see no reason to continue to pour taxpayer money into an organization that allows liberal viewpoints only.* De-fund them Write some letters.
Click to expand...


Odd you would think that.  It took me about 2 minutes to go to npr.org and find this piece on the opinion page:

Justice And The Justice's Wife : NPR

by Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor-at-large of National Review Online,

National Review, as in one of the most prominent conservative publications.

It's really not that difficult to overcome ignorance, you should try it.


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the implications that they are making on air and in that memo suggest that there was.  Also that he is mentally unstable.
> 
> What they have done to Juan Williams is despicable.  And I don't see how anybody can defend that.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see how anyone can deny an employer a right to boot a bigoted employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems the truth is not respected in the halls of NPR.  A man truthfully confesses that he is concerned for his safety when flying with people who are openly displaying their allegiance to a faith that declared war on America on Sept. 11, 2001 and that man is summarily court martial-ed for his honesty.
> 
> Truth... something that can not be tolerated amongst the media elite.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Except, it wasn't a FAITH that declared war...it was a faction of a faith made up of fuckheads that declared war. You are using the same broad brush.


----------



## skookerasbil




----------



## NYcarbineer

Juan Williams is the black Alan Colmes.


----------



## DiveCon

NYcarbineer said:


> Juan Williams is the black Alan Colmes.


yup, under the bus with him too


----------



## WillowTree

nycarbineer said:


> willowtree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nycarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's no reason to defund npr here.  If any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *i see no reason to continue to pour taxpayer money into an organization that allows liberal viewpoints only.* de-fund them write some letters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> odd you would think that.  It took me about 2 minutes to go to npr.org and find this piece on the opinion page:
> 
> justice and the justice's wife : Npr
> 
> by kathryn jean lopez, editor-at-large of national review online,
> 
> national review, as in one of the most prominent conservative publications.
> 
> It's really not that difficult to overcome ignorance, you should try it.
Click to expand...


fail


----------



## WillowTree

NYcarbineer said:


> Juan Williams is the black Alan Colmes.



racist peice of shit. that's what you izz.


----------



## skookerasbil

Indeed little guy..........this is a spectacular PR blunder exposing the left as collassal phonies with their politically correct BS........oh, and a major victory for FOX. Yet the liberal k00ks are still thinking this issue is about the rights of NPR!!!! And nobody out there gives a rats ass!!!


----------



## CurveLight

Mad Scientist said:


> See, this is what happens when you wander off the NPR reservation and voice an independent thought:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR  has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior  news analysts, after he made  comments about Muslims on the Fox News  Channel.
> On the show, the host,Bill O'Reilly asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a  Muslim dilemma.  Mr. OReilly said,  The cold truth is that in the  world today *jihad*, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, *is the  biggest threat on the planet*.
> Mr. Williams said *he concurred* with Mr. OReilly.
> He continued: I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of  books Ive written about the civil rights movement in this country. But  when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, *if I see people who are in  Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first  and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous*.
Click to expand...


I love how american idiots pass on fear based on myth.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am very glad that our public schools here clearly make sure inane propaganda like that above and from such like Capitalist are put in proper perspective.


----------



## NYcarbineer

WillowTree said:


> nycarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> willowtree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *i see no reason to continue to pour taxpayer money into an organization that allows liberal viewpoints only.* de-fund them write some letters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> odd you would think that.  It took me about 2 minutes to go to npr.org and find this piece on the opinion page:
> 
> justice and the justice's wife : Npr
> 
> by kathryn jean lopez, editor-at-large of national review online,
> 
> national review, as in one of the most prominent conservative publications.
> 
> It's really not that difficult to overcome ignorance, you should try it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fail
Click to expand...


You said they only allowed liberal viewpoints.  I proved you wrong in 2 minutes.  Go pull your head out of your useless fanny and trying acting like something other than an abysmally stupid, tediously annoying airhead for once in your wretched existence.


----------



## CurveLight

WillowTree said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams is the black Alan Colmes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> racist peice of shit. that's what you izz.
Click to expand...


I've always seen juansullowt as being a neocon so this move to fox is as surprising as when snow moved from fox to the white house.


----------



## CurveLight

As an aside....if we are going to see palin's face in ad banners can't we get some larry flynt version?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Lets face it,Socialists/Progressives suck hard. Anyone with common sense understands this. George Soros now owns NPR just like he owns the Democratic Party. There is no reason for them to receive Taxpayer funding. Btw,look at the Socialist/Progressive nutters on this thread calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger." Juan Williams is a lifelong Liberal Democrat for God's sake. He is a true Liberal in the classic sense and there aren't very many of them left in the Democratic Party. People just need to stop thinking that today's Democrats are real Liberals. Most Democrats are now Socialists/Progressives. There is a difference. Calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger" just shows you how far Left and deranged most Democrats are at this point. They're just miserable loons in the end. Juan Williams can and will do better. Watch and see.


----------



## Foxfyre

LibocalypseNow said:


> Lets face it,Socialists/Progressives suck hard. Anyone with common sense understands this. George Soros now owns NPR just like he owns the Democratic Party. There is no reason for them to receive Taxpayer funding. Btw,look at the Socialist/Progressive nutters on this thread calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger." Juan Williams is a lifelong Liberal Democrat for God's sake. He is a true Liberal in the classic sense and there aren't very many of them left in the Democratic Party. People just need to stop thinking that today's Democrats are real Liberals. Most Democrats are now Socialists/Progressives. There is a difference. Calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger" just shows you how far Left and deranged most Democrats are at this point. They're just miserable loons in the end. Juan Williams can and will do better. Watch and see.



This is true.  Juan Williams is a true liberal in that he can articulate a rationale for his convictions and will do so when asked--this is something almost no socialist progressive can or will do.

In my book that puts him in the ranks with Thurgood Marshall (who Juan immortalized in a wonderful biography), with William Raspberry RIP whom I still miss terribly, with Michael Kinsley, Molly Ivans (RIP), Camille Paglia, and even sometimes, when she is in a lucid moment, Maureen Dowd.   These are people who know why they hold the convictions that they do and who provide a brilliant rationale for a liberal point of view.  Disagree with all of them?   Sure I often do.  But I admire their integrity and intellectual honesty very much.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see how anyone can deny an employer a right to boot a bigoted employee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the truth is not respected in the halls of NPR.  A man truthfully confesses that he is concerned for his safety when flying with people who are openly displaying their allegiance to a faith that declared war on America on Sept. 11, 2001 and that man is summarily court martial-ed for his honesty.
> 
> Truth... something that can not be tolerated amongst the media elite.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, it wasn't a FAITH that declared war...it was a faction of a faith made up of fuckheads that declared war. You are using the same broad brush.
Click to expand...


It was people of the faith that declared war on America and most of us Americans cannot tell the difference between a peaceful Muslim and one that is at war with us.  I know I can't.  I suppose we are all to assume that every Muslim that gets on a plane is a peaceful Muslim... a fair assumption, but one that can prove fatal at times.

Immie


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Juan Williams a "Right Winger?" Man,Socialists/Progressives really are miserable dummies. I guess if you're not an Ultra-Left Marxist like them,that makes you an "Evil Right Winger." Juan Williams is a lifelong Liberal Democrat. He's a real Liberal and not a shameful Socialist/Progressive. GEESH!


----------



## Paulie

I don't think a terrorist with bad intentions is going to board a plane in his "traditional muslim garb".

Maybe he will, though.  And maybe he'll also be carrying a black ball with a lit fuse hanging from it.  No one would even notice!


----------



## Immanuel

LibocalypseNow said:


> Juan Williams a "Right Winger?" Man,Socialists/Progressives really are miserable dummies. I guess if you're not an Ultra-Left Marxist like them,that makes you an "Evil Right Winger." Juan Williams is a lifelong Liberal Democrat. He's a real Liberal and not a shameful Socialist/Progressive. GEESH!



Let's be honest here, the right wing is no different.  How many of us have said that George W. Bush was a liberal?  I know I have read it dozens of times on this site and even typed it a few times myself.  It is true, Bush acted like a liberal.  But, Liberals who are saying that Williams is not liberal are no different than conservatives speaking the truth about Bush.

Immie


----------



## DiveCon

Paulie said:


> I don't think a terrorist with bad intentions is going to board a plane in his "traditional muslim garb".
> 
> Maybe he will, though.  And maybe he'll also be carrying a black ball with a lit fuse hanging from it.  No one would even notice!


true, the 9/11 terrorists did not wear traditional muslim garb
but he was only stating his irrational fear, and he admitted that it was not only irrational, but WRONG
i see nothing wrong in what he said or how he said it


----------



## Foxfyre

Paulie said:


> I don't think a terrorist with bad intentions is going to board a plane in his "traditional muslim garb".
> 
> Maybe he will, though.  And maybe he'll also be carrying a black ball with a lit fuse hanging from it.  No one would even notice!



California Girl made pretty much the same point pages and pages ago and that made me back up and think.  She was far more apprehensive of Muslims who were not in Muslim garb and trying to be inconspicuous.  Not apprehensive of Muslims in Muslim garb who obviously are not trying to be inconspicuous.  And that makes a lot of sense.

But, since most of us can seldom tell by looking that an 'inconspicuous Muslim' is a Muslim, we quickly identify those in Muslim garb as Muslim.  And given the Muslim efforts, successful and attempted and plotted, to blow up or bring down airplanes, I don't think it is irrational or racist to at least think about that.  During a time of a rabies epidemic, every animal you encounter becomes suspect and, if behaving at all erratically, we will fear it even knowing that 99% of the animals encountered won't be rabid.

I truly regret that innocent Muslims get caught up in that kind of scenario.   But as Dr. Jasser explained on that video I posted earlier today, the Muslim community must also stand up and speak out against and denounce Islamic extremist terrorism and terrorists before this situation is likely to get better.

As it is, the list of Islamic extremist terrorist attacks is lengthy and getting longer for the last five decades, before and after 9/11.   Only pure fatalists would not at least think about that.


----------



## DiveCon

many innocent Sikh and Hindu have been mistaken for Muslim


btw, there are also Arab Christians


----------



## WillowTree

nycarbineer said:


> willowtree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nycarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> odd you would think that.  It took me about 2 minutes to go to npr.org and find this piece on the opinion page:
> 
> justice and the justice's wife : Npr
> 
> by kathryn jean lopez, editor-at-large of national review online,
> 
> national review, as in one of the most prominent conservative publications.
> 
> It's really not that difficult to overcome ignorance, you should try it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said they only allowed liberal viewpoints.  I proved you wrong in 2 minutes.  Go pull your head out of your useless fanny and trying acting like something other than an abysmally stupid, tediously annoying airhead for once in your wretched existence.
Click to expand...


failed again


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Joe Lieberman was banished for supporting the troops and as hard as it is to imagine, the American Left has now moved further left so that Juan Williams is considered a Conservative.

They're out on a limb and I'm handing them a buzzsaw


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a terrorist with bad intentions is going to board a plane in his "traditional muslim garb".
> 
> Maybe he will, though.  And maybe he'll also be carrying a black ball with a lit fuse hanging from it.  No one would even notice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl made pretty much the same point pages and pages ago and that made me back up and think.  She was far more apprehensive of Muslims who were not in Muslim garb and trying to be inconspicuous.  Not apprehensive of Muslims in Muslim garb who obviously are not trying to be inconspicuous.  And that makes a lot of sense.
> 
> But, since most of us can seldom tell by looking that an 'inconspicuous Muslim' is a Muslim, we quickly identify those in Muslim garb as Muslim.  And given the Muslim efforts, successful and attempted and plotted, to blow up or bring down airplanes, I don't think it is irrational or racist to at least think about that.  During a time of a rabies epidemic, every animal you encounter becomes suspect and, if behaving at all erratically, we will fear it even knowing that 99% of the animals encountered won't be rabid.
> 
> I truly regret that innocent Muslims get caught up in that kind of scenario.   But as Dr. Jasser explained on that video I posted earlier today, the Muslim community must also stand up and speak out against and denounce Islamic extremist terrorism and terrorists before this situation is likely to get better.
> 
> As it is, the list of Islamic extremist terrorist attacks is lengthy and getting longer for the last five decades, before and after 9/11.   Only pure fatalists would not at least think about that.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should MAKE them wear Muslim garb so it is easy to identify them.


----------



## Ravi

It's odd that no one melted down over Rick Sanchez's firing.


----------



## Paulie

DiveCon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a terrorist with bad intentions is going to board a plane in his "traditional muslim garb".
> 
> Maybe he will, though.  And maybe he'll also be carrying a black ball with a lit fuse hanging from it.  No one would even notice!
> 
> 
> 
> true, the 9/11 terrorists did not wear traditional muslim garb
> but he was only stating his irrational fear, and he admitted that it was not only irrational, but WRONG
> i see nothing wrong in what he said or how he said it
Click to expand...


Yeah its weird because I was actually watching the interview the other night and I never watch TV news, let alone O'reilly.  But I missed some of it and apparently this is the part I missed.

Anyway though, this is a non issue to me.  I don't give a fuck about what happens to media personalities.  Really.  I fucking just don't _care_.


----------



## CurveLight

LibocalypseNow said:


> Lets face it,Socialists/Progressives suck hard. Anyone with common sense understands this. George Soros now owns NPR just like he owns the Democratic Party. There is no reason for them to receive Taxpayer funding. Btw,look at the Socialist/Progressive nutters on this thread calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger." Juan Williams is a lifelong Liberal Democrat for God's sake. He is a true Liberal in the classic sense and there aren't very many of them left in the Democratic Party. People just need to stop thinking that today's Democrats are real Liberals. Most Democrats are now Socialists/Progressives. There is a difference. Calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger" just shows you how far Left and deranged most Democrats are at this point. They're just miserable loons in the end. Juan Williams can and will do better. Watch and see.



It's Curvelight Community Service time.

Juansullowt has long been supporting aspects of the neoconservative agenda and since neocons are Liberals it is correct to say he is a Liberal.  However, this does not mean he is a Liberal in the flavor fox fans have been cooking for several years.  Here is one example:

Liberal Juan Williams Agrees With Schlussel on Obama Muslim Background | Debbie Schlussel

Juansullowt has been paraded under fallacies with the clear goal of trying to prove bush supporters are correct simply because Juansullowt makes agreeable comments.  Why the hell do you think fox has had him as a regular?  One reason: to try and legitimize its agenda on the basis of a token.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

CurveLight said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets face it,Socialists/Progressives suck hard. Anyone with common sense understands this. George Soros now owns NPR just like he owns the Democratic Party. There is no reason for them to receive Taxpayer funding. Btw,look at the Socialist/Progressive nutters on this thread calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger." Juan Williams is a lifelong Liberal Democrat for God's sake. He is a true Liberal in the classic sense and there aren't very many of them left in the Democratic Party. People just need to stop thinking that today's Democrats are real Liberals. Most Democrats are now Socialists/Progressives. There is a difference. Calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger" just shows you how far Left and deranged most Democrats are at this point. They're just miserable loons in the end. Juan Williams can and will do better. Watch and see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's Curvelight Community Service time.
> 
> Juansullowt has long been supporting aspects of the neoconservative agenda and since neocons are Liberals it is correct to say he is a Liberal.  However, this does not mean he is a Liberal in the flavor fox fans have been cooking for several years.  Here is one example:
> 
> Liberal Juan Williams Agrees With Schlussel on Obama Muslim Background | Debbie Schlussel
> 
> Juansullowt has been paraded under fallacies with the clear goal of trying to prove bush supporters are correct simply because Juansullowt makes agreeable comments.  Why the hell do you think fox has had him as a regular?  One reason: to try and legitimize its agenda on the basis of a token.
Click to expand...

















 Juan Williams NeoCon


----------



## CurveLight

CrusaderFrank said:


> Joe Lieberman was banished for supporting the troops and as hard as it is to imagine, the American Left has now moved further left so that Juan Williams is considered a Conservative.
> 
> They're out on a limb and I'm handing them a buzzsaw



Somehow your camp has managed to convert dishonesty from a mere term to a full blown orgy.


----------



## daveman

CrusaderFrank said:


> Do you see how far Left the Left Wing is, Juan Williams is now considered a Conservative


Politics is relative.  To a Marxist, a socialist is a fundy rethuglican.


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really can't say how people feel internally. But I never saw anyone "freak out" in public.
> 
> But I have notice two basic reactions from sales people toward her.
> 
> They are either very, very friendly and almost over accomodating in their help.
> 
> Or they are very short and snippy if asked a question. And will many times just walk away without really assisting her.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is it, exactly, that you applaud Juan Williams in continuing the stereotypical viewpoint that Muslims in Muslim garb are to be feared?
Click to expand...

He said that's the way he feels.  He didn't say YOU should feel that way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

CurveLight said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Lieberman was banished for supporting the troops and as hard as it is to imagine, the American Left has now moved further left so that Juan Williams is considered a Conservative.
> 
> They're out on a limb and I'm handing them a buzzsaw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow your camp has managed to convert dishonesty from a mere term to a full blown orgy.
Click to expand...


Juan Williams: Neo Con

You should try stand up comedy because that's fucking hilarious


----------



## Meister

CrusaderFrank said:


> Joe Lieberman was banished for supporting the troops and as hard as it is to imagine, the American Left has now moved further left so that Juan Williams is considered a Conservative.
> 
> They're out on a limb and I'm handing them a buzzsaw



Once a liberal strays from the reservation, they're thrown under the bus.


----------



## DiveCon

daveman said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really can't say how people feel internally. But I never saw anyone "freak out" in public.
> 
> But I have notice two basic reactions from sales people toward her.
> 
> They are either very, very friendly and almost over accomodating in their help.
> 
> Or they are very short and snippy if asked a question. And will many times just walk away without really assisting her.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is it, exactly, that you applaud Juan Williams in continuing the stereotypical viewpoint that Muslims in Muslim garb are to be feared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said that's the way he feels.  He didn't say YOU should feel that way.
Click to expand...

in fact, he said it was "irrational" and "wrong"
but that was how he felt
he was admitting his own issues


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Meister said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Lieberman was banished for supporting the troops and as hard as it is to imagine, the American Left has now moved further left so that Juan Williams is considered a Conservative.
> 
> They're out on a limb and I'm handing them a buzzsaw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once a liberal strays from the reservation, they're thrown under the bus.
Click to expand...


The bus is now to the Left of Mao.

Juan Williams is now considered a NeoCon


----------



## daveman

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is it, exactly, that you applaud Juan Williams in continuing the stereotypical viewpoint that Muslims in Muslim garb are to be feared?
> 
> 
> 
> He said that's the way he feels.  He didn't say YOU should feel that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in fact, he said it was "irrational" and "wrong"
> but that was how he felt
> he was admitting his own issues
Click to expand...


Apparently, some people think that's endorsement and advocacy.


----------



## Ravi

And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.

I'd have fired him just for that.


----------



## Moon

CurveLight said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams is the black Alan Colmes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> racist peice of shit. that's what you izz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always seen juansullowt as being a neocon so this move to fox is as surprising as when snow moved from fox to the white house.
Click to expand...


What makes him a sellout (sullowt?) and a neocon?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Ravi said:


> And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.
> 
> I'd have fired him just for that.



Uh huh, you're the fearless one.


----------



## Moon

Ravi said:


> And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.
> 
> I'd have fired him just for that.



The cowards in this whole affair are the NPR leadership and whoever is calling the shots for them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Moon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.
> 
> I'd have fired him just for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cowards in this whole affair are the NPR leadership and whoever is calling the shots for them.
Click to expand...


George Soros.


----------



## Ravi

CrusaderFrank said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.
> 
> I'd have fired him just for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh, you're the fearless one.
Click to expand...

And you're the one hiding under his bed peeing in his pants.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Ravi said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.
> 
> I'd have fired him just for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh, you're the fearless one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're the one hiding under his bed peeing in his pants.
Click to expand...


Sure, Ravi, sure.

Progressives are fearless and brave.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

It's amazing how deeply ingrained the GroupThink is on the Left.

Have any of the USMB "Liberal Intellectual Elite" said NPR might be wrong for this?


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.
> 
> I'd have fired him just for that.



The Left used to be FOR Diversity and Freedom of Thought and Speech...

Now when a Black Man doesn't Tow the Liberal Line...

He's Gone.

Real Courageous! 



peace...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

mal said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.
> 
> I'd have fired him just for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Left used to be FOR Diversity and Freedom of Thought and Speech...
> 
> Now when a Black Man doesn't Tow the Liberal Line...
> 
> He's Gone.
> 
> Real Courageous!
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


That's how it works on the Progressive Plantation


----------



## Immanuel

mal said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.
> 
> I'd have fired him just for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Left used to be FOR Diversity and Freedom of Thought and Speech*...
> 
> Now when a Black Man doesn't Tow the Liberal Line...
> 
> He's Gone.
> 
> Real Courageous!
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


When was that?

Immie


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Immanuel said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.
> 
> I'd have fired him just for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Left used to be FOR Diversity and Freedom of Thought and Speech*...
> 
> Now when a Black Man doesn't Tow the Liberal Line...
> 
> He's Gone.
> 
> Real Courageous!
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When was that?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


It's a myth just like there's such a thing as the "Liberal Intellectual Elite"


----------



## boedicca

CrusaderFrank said:


> The bus is now to the Left of Mao.
> 
> Juan Williams is now considered a NeoCon





And don't forget:  he's also a RACIST!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

boedicca said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bus is now to the Left of Mao.
> 
> Juan Williams is now considered a NeoCon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't forget:  he's also a RACIST!
Click to expand...


Juan Williams: Racist and NeoCon


----------



## daveman

The fabled Liberal Big Tent really is quite tiny.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Isn't there a single fucking Democrat Progressive Liberal that is starting to feel like their Ring of Power just got tossed into Mount Doom?

I mean how fucked up do you have to be before you realize you're calling Juan Williams a NeoCon and a racist?


----------



## JiggsCasey

daveman said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait to see all you guys at the "Rally to Keep Fear Alive!" ... I know you'll all do USMB proud with your vocal support, racial profiling and spooky language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, just keep ignoring the fact that the left insists we have to be afraid of conservatives.
Click to expand...


They do? LOL...  I sure don't.

Try not to confuse "fear" with "disappointment"... They are two very different emotions.


----------



## boedicca

Maybe the NAACP can do a special report on Juan's racism now that they've released the one on rampant racism in the Tea Party Movement.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

When will Soros have NPR do a story that Juan Williams was part of the PNAC?


----------



## taichiliberal

And for those who want information that is not derived from the "break Obama" DeMint or the Rev. Moon backed Washington Weekly, check out an actual Congressional Report from 2007 regarding NPR funding

Order Code RS22168
Updated June 1, 2007

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting:
Federal Funding Facts and Status

Glenn J. McLoughlin
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science and Industry Division

Here's an interesting quote from it:

_... *Overall, 15.6% of all public television and radio broadcasting funding comes from
the federal appropriations that CPB distributes.* However, among individual public
broadcasting stations, the amount of federal dollars that contributes to a station&#8217;s annual
budget depends on whether it is a television or radio station, the funds it receives from
non-federal sources, the number and extent of broadcast transmitters required to service
its coverage area, and the extent a station is serving rural areas and minority audiences._


----------



## Immanuel

boedicca said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bus is now to the Left of Mao.
> 
> Juan Williams is now considered a NeoCon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't forget:  he's also a RACIST!
Click to expand...


Aren't all Neocons?

Immie


----------



## daveman

CrusaderFrank said:


> Isn't there a single fucking Democrat Progressive Liberal that is starting to feel like their Ring of Power just got tossed into Mount Doom?


----------



## DiveCon

taichiliberal said:


> And for those who want information that is not derived from the "break Obama" DeMint or the Rev. Moon backed Washington Weekly, check out an actual Congressional Report from 2007 regarding NPR funding
> 
> Order Code RS22168
> Updated June 1, 2007
> 
> The Corporation for Public Broadcasting:
> Federal Funding Facts and Status
> 
> Glenn J. McLoughlin
> Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
> Resources, Science and Industry Division
> 
> Here's an interesting quote from it:
> 
> _... *Overall, 15.6% of all public television and radio broadcasting funding comes from
> the federal appropriations that CPB distributes.* However, among individual public
> broadcasting stations, the amount of federal dollars that contributes to a station&#8217;s annual
> budget depends on whether it is a television or radio station, the funds it receives from
> non-federal sources, the number and extent of broadcast transmitters required to service
> its coverage area, and the extent a station is serving rural areas and minority audiences._


if its so small, then they dont NEED it


----------



## JiggsCasey

daveman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a single fucking Democrat Progressive Liberal that is starting to feel like their Ring of Power just got tossed into Mount Doom?
Click to expand...


It's funny when you guys use the same jokes we used on the Boy King 2+ years ago. Reminds me of Mike Barnicle when he stole George Carlin's material.


----------



## taichiliberal

Kat said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"What Williams said was NOTHING that hasn't gone through the minds of the majority of non-muslim Americans regardless of race creed or color." *
> 
> NPR is low to have done what they have, and _in the manner _in which they executed the fatal delivery of this man's job, who has worked for them for ten years. On the frigging phone!!!!!
> 
> And here is what Juan also said, after the remark that is being touted: ( remark included )
> 
> "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." ( Juan explaining his honest feelings )
> 
> Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad *warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.*"*He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts,"* Williams said.
> 
> FoxNews.com - NPR Fires Juan Williams; Fox News Expands His Role
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, but he says this post O'Reilly's bullhorning about his latest run in with The View crowd.  Essentially, Williams gives sideways credence to O'Reilly's neocon based rants about the cultural center/mosque proposed construction near Ground Zero in New York. He's been doing a similar verbal dance on the Fox News Sunday morning shows for years now.
> 
> *Since NPR is predominantly a news/feature news station.....it does NOT lean hard to the left of politics*, nor does it lean hard to the right of politics either.  I suspect the NPR management has been growing impatient with Williams performance for years...but if you're going to fire someone, pick and choose the right and proper time, so when you give a reason, it won't come off like a blatant political partisan attack, as O'Reilly and the rest of the neocon punditry will now state loudly and often for the next few weeks, if not months.
> 
> Real bonehead move by NPR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're teasing us, correct??
Click to expand...


Nope!  I've YET to see any valid, documented proof that NPR is the rabid left wing propoganda machine that the neocon parrots and pundits have been wailing about for decades.  I mean, I've listened to NPR programs for YEARS, and I kind of consider them like the audio version of Reader's Digest (before Reader's Digest went more conservative in the last 25 years or so).  I hardly consider _The Prairie Home Companion _radical leftist programming!


----------



## daveman

JiggsCasey said:


> It's funny when you guys use the same jokes we used on the Boy King 2+ years ago. Reminds me of Mike Barnicle when he stole George Carlin's material.



Yes, but it's actually funny when we do it.


----------



## saveliberty

WillowTree said:


> I wonder how Whoopie and Joyless feel now? Their assinine behavior led to the conversation that got a black man fired from a libturd organization funded by we the people. Wonder how that shit sits in their craws?    oh the irony!



Thought I heard Whoopi say Juan's firing was wrong today.

Williams' firing has triggered a backlash against NPR with people ranging from comedian Whoopi Goldberg to conservatives like Sarah Palin and William Kristol arguing that dismissing Williams for that comment was wrong.

Juan Williams Calls Firing 'Chilling Assault on Free Speech' - ABC News


----------



## taichiliberal

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, but he says this post O'Reilly's bullhorning about his latest run in with The View crowd.  Essentially, Williams gives sideways credence to O'Reilly's neocon based rants about the cultural center/mosque proposed construction near Ground Zero in New York. He's been doing a similar verbal dance on the Fox News Sunday morning shows for years now.
> 
> Since NPR is predominantly a news/feature news station.....it does NOT lean hard to the left of politics, nor does it lean hard to the right of politics either.  I suspect the NPR management has been growing impatient with Williams performance for years...but if you're going to fire someone, pick and choose the right and proper time, so when you give a reason, it won't come off like a blatant political partisan attack, as O'Reilly and the rest of the neocon punditry will now state loudly and often for the next few weeks, if not months.
> 
> Real bonehead move by NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly is a neocon now?
> 
> when are you going to actually show that you know what the fuck a neocon actually is
> cause your post show you are too fucking stupid about the subject
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You say it so much better than I.
Click to expand...


I had lengthy exchanges with Dive Con before, in which I gave dictionary definitions and historic documentations of what a "new conservative" or "neocon" is.  DiveCon just doesn't like the label because of the negative actions that have been attached to those who fulfill the definition by their actions and words, so he rejects the definition.  Subsequently, I placed him on IA...as it's pointless to try and have a rational discussion with people who just deny what they don't like and then proceed as if their supposition and conjecture is a replacement for those facts.  

If you are of a similar mindset as Dive Con, then please state so now, so time won't be wasted.  If not, then we'll have a rational exchange.


----------



## edthecynic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, it makes Juan Williams look like a coward. And his proclamation that most Americans agree with him makes most Americans look like cowards.
> 
> I'd have fired him just for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cowards in this whole affair are the NPR leadership and whoever is calling the shots for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Soros.
Click to expand...

*SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*


----------



## taichiliberal

eagleseven said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember how the GOP threw McCain under the bus?
> 
> 
> 
> By running him for President?
Click to expand...


No genius, do some research as to what happened to McCain when he FIRST ran for the GOP nomination for the 2000 election.  He got the 2008 push AFTER he got in line and drank the kool-aid for 8 years.


----------



## Queen

How do you people feel about Helen Thomas getting fired for saying something stupid? 

I bet you'll find you're being totally hypocritical.

Think about it.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cowards in this whole affair are the NPR leadership and whoever is calling the shots for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Soros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
Click to expand...

you claiming it doesnt make it so
moron


----------



## saveliberty

Queen said:


> How do you people feel about Helen Thomas getting fired for saying something stupid?
> 
> I bet you'll find you're being totally hypocritical.
> 
> Think about it.



Making excuses instead of defending free speech I see.


----------



## DiveCon

taichiliberal said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly is a neocon now?
> 
> when are you going to actually show that you know what the fuck a neocon actually is
> cause your post show you are too fucking stupid about the subject
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You say it so much better than I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had lengthy exchanges with Dive Con before, in which I gave dictionary definitions and historic documentations of what a "new conservative" or "neocon" is.  DiveCon just doesn't like the label because of the negative actions that have been attached to those who fulfill the definition by their actions and words, so he rejects the definition.  Subsequently, I placed him on IA...as it's pointless to try and have a rational discussion with people who just deny what they don't like and then proceed as if their supposition and conjecture is a replacement for those facts.
> 
> If you are of a similar mindset as Dive Con, then please state so now, so time won't be wasted.  If not, then we'll have a rational exchange.
Click to expand...

you NEVER did that
liar


----------



## taichiliberal

Kat said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and just to keep things on an even keel.......don't anyone think that Fox News won't dump ANY of their on-air talent in a heartbeat if they dare to break ranks and NOT preach the party mantra of the GOP/Tea Bag election committees more than once and/or on a "liberal"/"progressive" show.
> 
> Remember how the GOP threw McCain under the bus?  Did Fox punditry stand up for him in earnest?
Click to expand...


Okay, if you don't have the will or the information to rationally debate someone elses viewpoint, then do continue to react with cartoons or insult laden generalities like a jr. high schooler.

If not, then please tell me how you consider how the GOP treated McCain in his 2000 bid for the Presidential nomination candidate.


----------



## DiveCon

Queen said:


> How do you people feel about Helen Thomas getting fired for saying something stupid?
> 
> I bet you'll find you're being totally hypocritical.
> 
> Think about it.


WOW
she actually said something bigoted
Juan did NOT


----------



## edthecynic

CrusaderFrank said:


> When will Soros have NPR do a story that Juan Williams was part of the PNAC?


*SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME* 

These Right Wing disciples of Saul Alinsky just keep parroting their programming. 

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Dont try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.


----------



## Queen

DiveCon said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you people feel about Helen Thomas getting fired for saying something stupid?
> 
> I bet you'll find you're being totally hypocritical.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> WOW
> she actually said something bigoted
> Juan did NOT
Click to expand...


Really? 

She said Jews should get out of Palestine and go home to Poland and Germany. 

He said he's afraid of Muslims in Muslim garb, on planes. 

So you admit your a big hypocrite then?


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Soros.
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you claiming it doesnt make it so
> moron
Click to expand...

You denying it makes it so, SUCKER


----------



## Queen

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will Soros have NPR do a story that Juan Williams was part of the PNAC?
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
> 
> These Right Wing disciples of Saul Alinsky just keep parroting their programming.
> 
> Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Dont try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
Click to expand...


Isn't it weird? We have one billionaire who gives to liberal causes. They have ALL THE REST even in China and India giving to conservative causes. 

Why are they so greedy and selfish to constantly mock our one little billionaire?


----------



## saveliberty

Queen said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you people feel about Helen Thomas getting fired for saying something stupid?
> 
> I bet you'll find you're being totally hypocritical.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> WOW
> she actually said something bigoted
> Juan did NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> She said Jews should get out of Palestine and go home to Poland and Germany.
> 
> He said he's afraid of Muslims in Muslim garb, on planes.
> 
> So you admit your a big hypocrite then?
Click to expand...


You have a creative, yet wrong version of both incidents.  Educate yourself.


----------



## Meister

Queen said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you people feel about Helen Thomas getting fired for saying something stupid?
> 
> I bet you'll find you're being totally hypocritical.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> WOW
> she actually said something bigoted
> Juan did NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> She said Jews should get out of Palestine and go home to Poland and Germany.
> 
> He said he's afraid of Muslims in Muslim garb, on planes.
> 
> So you admit your a big hypocrite then?
Click to expand...

Queen, your argueing two different issues, and they are not the same


----------



## Meister

Queen said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will Soros have NPR do a story that Juan Williams was part of the PNAC?
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
> 
> These Right Wing disciples of Saul Alinsky just keep parroting their programming.
> 
> Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don&#8217;t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it weird? We have one billionaire who gives to liberal causes. They have ALL THE REST even in China and India giving to conservative causes.
> 
> Why are they so greedy and selfish to constantly mock our one little billionaire?
Click to expand...


Because tax dollars of liberals* and conservatives *are paying into NPR


----------



## boedicca

Queen said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you people feel about Helen Thomas getting fired for saying something stupid?
> 
> I bet you'll find you're being totally hypocritical.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> WOW
> she actually said something bigoted
> Juan did NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> She said Jews should get out of Palestine and go home to Poland and Germany.
> 
> He said he's afraid of Muslims in Muslim garb, on planes.
> 
> So you admit your a big hypocrite then?
Click to expand...




Juan having a visceral reaction of fear to seeing Muslims in Muslim garb on a plan is not remotely similar to Helen Thomas suggesting that Jews return to concentration camps and gas chambers.


----------



## Sunni Man

Immanuel said:


> A man truthfully confesses that he is concerned for his safety when flying with people who are openly displaying their allegiance to *a faith that declared war on America on Sept. 11, 2001*


Dang, I must be out of the loop, cause I didn't get the memo about war being declared.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dance, Ed, dance. Defend the power behind the throne

October 11, 2010, 8:38 am
Soros: I Can&#8217;t Stop a Republican &#8216;Avalanche&#8217;

Soros: I Can&#039;t Stop a Republican "Avalanche" - NYTimes.com

Billionaire Soros Funds 100 Reporters for NPR
Oct 22, 2010 6:10 PM EDT

FOX News - Top Stories - Billionaire Soros Funds 100 Reporters for NPR

Dance, you fool!


----------



## edthecynic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dance, Ed, dance. Defend the power behind the throne
> 
> October 11, 2010, 8:38 am
> Soros: I Cant Stop a Republican Avalanche
> 
> Soros: I Can't Stop a Republican "Avalanche" - NYTimes.com
> 
> Billionaire Soros Funds 100 Reporters for NPR
> Oct 22, 2010 6:10 PM EDT
> 
> FOX News - Top Stories - Billionaire Soros Funds 100 Reporters for NPR
> 
> Dance, you fool!


*SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*


----------



## Sunni Man

Queen said:


> How do you people feel about Helen Thomas getting fired for saying something stupid?
> 
> I bet you'll find you're being totally hypocritical.
> 
> Think about it.


Helen Thomas was the one who got a raw deal.

All she did was tell the Truth.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dance, Ed, dance. Defend the power behind the throne
> 
> October 11, 2010, 8:38 am
> Soros: I Cant Stop a Republican Avalanche
> 
> Soros: I Can't Stop a Republican "Avalanche" - NYTimes.com
> 
> Billionaire Soros Funds 100 Reporters for NPR
> Oct 22, 2010 6:10 PM EDT
> 
> FOX News - Top Stories - Billionaire Soros Funds 100 Reporters for NPR
> 
> Dance, you fool!
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
Click to expand...

still a pathetic fucking moron


----------



## Ame®icano

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't a show host. He was a news analyst. There are black show hosts at NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Michele Norris, for one. You are welcome to peruse their website and look at skin colors of various show hosts.
Click to expand...


You went thru big deal of finding black host on NPR. Actually, if you look at their Staff & Contributors page, you can hardly find any... Ratio could be better if you count Baxter Black, David Brown, Paul Brown and Lloyd Schwartz (black in German). 

BTW, you're right... 




Michele Norris​


----------



## DiveCon

different women
this is the one on NPR


----------



## sitarro

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cowards in this whole affair are the NPR leadership and whoever is calling the shots for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Soros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
Click to expand...


How rich coming from an asshole that is scared shitless by Rush Limbaugh, what would you call the syndrome you suffer from?


----------



## Ravi

CrusaderFrank said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh, you're the fearless one.
> 
> 
> 
> And you're the one hiding under his bed peeing in his pants.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, Ravi, sure.
> 
> Progressives are fearless and brave.
Click to expand...

Right...that's why you supported the Patriot Act and invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. 



Stock up on Depends, boyo...you might even want to consider investing in them to balance out your expenditures.


----------



## sitarro

DiveCon said:


> different women
> this is the one on NPR



I'm darker than she is.


----------



## sitarro

Juan is substitute host for O'Reilly tonight, he is kicking NPR's bigoted ass.


----------



## edthecynic

sitarro said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Soros.
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How rich coming from an asshole that is scared shitless by Rush Limbaugh, what would you call the syndrome you suffer from?
Click to expand...

Your MessoahRushie is the biggest sufferer from
*SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME* 

*Friday Quotes: It's Open Line Friday!* *
October 22, 2010*
RUSH: Right now, George Soros is trying to figure out who he can pay to get me fired.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How rich coming from an asshole that is scared shitless by Rush Limbaugh, what would you call the syndrome you suffer from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your MessoahRushie is the biggest sufferer from
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
> 
> *Friday Quotes: It's Open Line Friday!* *
> October 22, 2010*
> RUSH: Right now, George Soros is trying to figure out who he can pay to get me fired.
Click to expand...

can you find any clinical examples?


----------



## Trajan

boedicca said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW
> she actually said something bigoted
> Juan did NOT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> She said Jews should get out of Palestine and go home to Poland and Germany.
> 
> He said he's afraid of Muslims in Muslim garb, on planes.
> 
> So you admit your a big hypocrite then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan having a visceral reaction of fear to seeing Muslims in Muslim garb on a plan is not remotely similar to Helen Thomas suggesting that Jews return to concentration camps and gas chambers.
Click to expand...


hey, but she got that life time achievement award from CAIR...whats that compared to some ashes floating around eh?


----------



## WillowTree

sitarro said:


> Juan is substitute host for O'Reilly tonight, he is kicking NPR's bigoted ass.



He sure as heck is.


----------



## California Girl

WillowTree said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is substitute host for O'Reilly tonight, he is kicking NPR's bigoted ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He sure as heck is.
Click to expand...


I'd say he's a tad pissed, you?


----------



## Trajan

megan kelly kicked that sanctimonious  jackasses butt from CAIR as well.


----------



## California Girl

Ohhhhh goodie, he's gonna hammer them on taxpayer funding now. This should be fun! I hope the right dog pile in behind Juan. 

It would be cool to get him to speak at a TEA Party or two... that should REALLY piss the left off!


----------



## Kat

I have been watching him too. He has been very ''forceful''. Much more so than usual. Loving it!


----------



## Trajan

I think now is the time Obama will jump in and tell us how stupidly the CEO of NPR acted.....



what?No?


----------



## California Girl

Trajan said:


> I think now is the time Obama will jump in and tell us how stupidly the CEO of NPR acted.....
> 
> 
> 
> what?No?



This is a tricky one for Obama. He's stuck between dissing a female or a black liberal.  Who to choose? Who to choose?


----------



## sitarro

California Girl said:


> Ohhhhh goodie, he's gonna hammer them on taxpayer funding now. This should be fun! I hope the right dog pile in behind Juan.
> 
> It would be cool to get him to speak at a TEA Party or two... that should REALLY piss the left off!



This is definitely the type of wake up call a liberal needs to understand how pathetic the left are, Juan is definitely showing signs that he learned a hell of a lot in the last couple of days.
What is amazing is how quick the message gets out to hate........ I was sitting in a break room at work yesterday when Juan showed up on the TV, a couple of my black co-workers immediately said....."there's FOX's house ******"........ I was floored.


----------



## Kat

sitarro said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh goodie, he's gonna hammer them on taxpayer funding now. This should be fun! I hope the right dog pile in behind Juan.
> 
> It would be cool to get him to speak at a TEA Party or two... that should REALLY piss the left off!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is definitely the type of wake up call a liberal needs to understand how pathetic the left are, Juan is definitely showing signs that he learned a hell of a lot in the last couple of days.
> What is amazing is how quick the message gets out to hate........ I was sitting in a break room at work yesterday when Juan showed up on the TV, a couple of my black co-workers immediately said....."there's FOX's house ******"........ I was floored.
Click to expand...


How disgusting. :evil  Did you say anything?


----------



## California Girl

sitarro said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh goodie, he's gonna hammer them on taxpayer funding now. This should be fun! I hope the right dog pile in behind Juan.
> 
> It would be cool to get him to speak at a TEA Party or two... that should REALLY piss the left off!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is definitely the type of wake up call a liberal needs to understand how pathetic the left are, Juan is definitely showing signs that he learned a hell of a lot in the last couple of days.
> What is amazing is how quick the message gets out to hate........ I was sitting in a break room at work yesterday when Juan showed up on the TV, a couple of my black co-workers immediately said....."there's FOX's house ******"........ I was floored.
Click to expand...


Shame on them.


----------



## WillowTree

California Girl said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is substitute host for O'Reilly tonight, he is kicking NPR's bigoted ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He sure as heck is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say he's a tad pissed, you?
Click to expand...


Very!


----------



## WillowTree

sitarro said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh goodie, he's gonna hammer them on taxpayer funding now. This should be fun! I hope the right dog pile in behind Juan.
> 
> It would be cool to get him to speak at a TEA Party or two... that should REALLY piss the left off!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is definitely the type of wake up call a liberal needs to understand how pathetic the left are, Juan is definitely showing signs that he learned a hell of a lot in the last couple of days.
> What is amazing is how quick the message gets out to hate........ I was sitting in a break room at work yesterday when Juan showed up on the TV, a couple of my black co-workers immediately said....."there's FOX's house ******"........ I was floored.
Click to expand...


That's what this is all about. Fox News. I knew the liberals hated Fox news but I admit I did not realize the depths of this hatred. It is somewhat stunning.


----------



## saveliberty

sitarro said:


> Juan is substitute host for O'Reilly tonight, he is kicking NPR's bigoted ass.



A cure for liberal kool-aid is found!


----------



## Samson

saveliberty said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is substitute host for O'Reilly tonight, he is kicking NPR's bigoted ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A cure for liberal kool-aid is found!
Click to expand...




It seems Radicals cannot help but eat their own.


----------



## Capitalist

*
*


----------



## mudwhistle

Kat said:


> I have been watching him too. He has been very ''forceful''. Much more so than usual. Loving it!



Maybe he's finally seen the light.


----------



## mudwhistle

Trajan said:


> I think now is the time Obama will jump in and tell us how stupidly the CEO of NPR acted.....
> 
> 
> 
> what?No?



Let's have another beer.


----------



## Kat

mudwhistle said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been watching him too. He has been very ''forceful''. Much more so than usual. Loving it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he's finally seen the light.
Click to expand...


Or...maybe he didn't like being slapped in the face.


----------



## saveliberty

VPR News: On NPR: Harsh Criticism Over Juan Williams' Firing

It was "a very poor decision," New York Times conservative columnist and NPR contributor David Brooks said on the air just a short time ago. "The merits of what Juan said ... (were) certainly within the realm of acceptable discourse."

"He should have been given a chance to talk" to NPR management in person before the dismissal, said E.J. Dionne, liberal columnist for The Washington Post and another NPR contributor.

Finally, American Journalism Review editor Rem Rieder said NPR appears to have acted "abrupty ... rashly" and made "an overly hasty decision."

One other point of agreement among the analysts on ATC: As Rieder put it, this is "a totally unnecessary black eye" for NPR.

"It looks like (NPR is) hell bent on enforcing political correctness," he added. "It kind of just reinforces all those notions."

Even NPR has issues with NPR.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> It's odd that no one melted down over Rick Sanchez's firing.



Actually I thought that was rather stupid as well, But then Rick didn't work for a Network that Takes our tax dollars and uses them to push a one sided political Agenda.

That might just be the difference you want to ignore.


----------



## Ame®icano

JakeStarkey said:


> Americano, you are also describing fauxcons.



There is some truth in that.


----------



## Ame®icano

CrusaderFrank said:


> If elderly Japanese women were strapping themselves with explosives and doing all the Jihadism, Juan would have said that elderly Japanese women on a plane make him nervous.
> 
> Why is it so wrong for Progressives to state the obvious?



I'm scared of clowns. Especially of those in white house.


----------



## Trajan

Capitalist said:


> *
> *



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Capitalist again.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kat said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been watching him too. He has been very ''forceful''. Much more so than usual. Loving it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he's finally seen the light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...maybe he didn't like being slapped in the face.
Click to expand...


He did actually say today that this has been an eye opening experience.


----------



## mudwhistle

Ravi said:


> It's odd that no one melted down over Rick Sanchez's firing.



Bullshit....they're still talking bout it.


----------



## JiggsCasey

daveman said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when you guys use the same jokes we used on the Boy King 2+ years ago. Reminds me of Mike Barnicle when he stole George Carlin's material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's actually funny when we do it.
Click to expand...


No, it's kind of retarded...  And unoriginal.


----------



## mudwhistle

Juan Williams is subbing for Bill O'Reilly tonight. 

At NBC and CBS all you have to do is act like an asshole to the GOP and you get a great gig.

Juan is getting one for being a decent human-being.......



.......and getting fired by the left for it.


----------



## JiggsCasey

This thread is a fine litmus test for all those who truly do look at a person in Muslim garb and feel threatened, like their new Foxy hero, JW.

Ah, Cons... re-affirming their tendency to racial profile at every turn. 

"We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! <bacaw!!!!!!>"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ame®icano;2878234 said:
			
		

> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> If elderly Japanese women were strapping themselves with explosives and doing all the Jihadism, Juan would have said that elderly Japanese women on a plane make him nervous.
> 
> Why is it so wrong for Progressives to state the obvious?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm scared of clowns. Especially of those in white house.
Click to expand...


I'm nervous about wierdos who wear white sheets and burn crosses.

While libs and cons can be equally stupid on these issues, NPR went beyond the pale into darkness.  Vivian Schiller must resign.


----------



## mudwhistle

JiggsCasey said:


> This thread is a fine litmus test for all those who truly do look at a person in Muslim garb and feel threatened, like their new Foxy hero, JW.
> 
> Ah, Cons... re-affirming their tendency to racial profile at every turn.
> 
> "We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! <bacaw!!!!!!>"


*
If White Blue-haired Grandmas* were blowing up thousands of innocent people for the last 10 years I'd be kind of worried about being on a plane full of them too.


----------



## Immanuel

JakeStarkey said:


> Ame®icano;2878234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> If elderly Japanese women were strapping themselves with explosives and doing all the Jihadism, Juan would have said that elderly Japanese women on a plane make him nervous.
> 
> Why is it so wrong for Progressives to state the obvious?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm scared of clowns. Especially of those in white house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm nervous about wierdos who wear white sheets and burn crosses.
> 
> While libs and cons can be equally stupid on these issues, NPR went beyond the pale into darkness.  Vivian Schiller must resign.
Click to expand...


I hear she's in line to replace Gibbs as White House Press Secretary.   

Wait!  I heard that wrong!  It is she's in line for Rahm Emanuel's Job as Chief of Staff.

j/k

Immie


----------



## California Girl

JiggsCasey said:


> This thread is a fine litmus test for all those who truly do look at a person in Muslim garb and feel threatened, like their new Foxy hero, JW.
> 
> Ah, Cons... re-affirming their tendency to racial profile at every turn.
> 
> "We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! <bacaw!!!!!!>"



Clearly, you lack the comprehension skills required to understand what Juan said. He said that he recognized that his feelings were wrong.And he clearly stated that he did not refer to ALL Muslims. Juan is a liberal, by the way. And he's black, by the way.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mudwhistle said:


> If White Blue-haired Grandmas[/B] were blowing up thousands of innocent people for the last 10 years I'd be kind of worried about being on a plane full of them too.



Right... that makes perfect sense.


----------



## JakeStarkey

He's black, he's not as liberal as some think (JW stands just this side of Marx to far right cons), he's a straight shooter, and Vivian Shiller can go to journalist hell.  This was wrong, flatly wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JiggsCasey said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If White Blue-haired Grandmas[/B] were blowing up thousands of innocent people for the last 10 years I'd be kind of worried about being on a plane full of them too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... that makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...


Jiggs, you are not on the side of angels on this one.  NPR screwed the pooch, the cat, the mouse, and have committed autoeroticism on itself.  Amazing melt down.


----------



## California Girl

JakeStarkey said:


> He's black, he's not as liberal as some think (JW stands just this side of Marx to far right cons), he's a straight shooter, and Vivian Shiller can go to journalist hell.  This was wrong, flatly wrong.



Ohhhhh, so now you're the arbitor of who is and is not a liberal too? Cool. How'd you get that gig? Cuz Juan calls himself a liberal.... and he is a liberal. He is intelligent, articulate, and honorable - all attributes of liberals. What he is not is a left wing whiny assed loon.


----------



## JiggsCasey

California Girl said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is a fine litmus test for all those who truly do look at a person in Muslim garb and feel threatened, like their new Foxy hero, JW.
> 
> Ah, Cons... re-affirming their tendency to racial profile at every turn.
> 
> "We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! <bacaw!!!!!!>"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you lack the comprehension skills required to understand what Juan said. He said that he recognized that his feelings were wrong.And he clearly stated that he did not refer to ALL Muslims. Juan is a liberal, by the way. And he's black, by the way.
Click to expand...


Epic spin...   my statement was about blood lusting cons' overall... Not Williams.

Anyhow, by your logic, how come YOU GUYS can't ever admit that your perpetual anti-Muslim "feelings are wrong?" That's not part of the con man play book, we get it. 

Chapter 1, subsection A: "Never admit being wrong... Ever."


----------



## mudwhistle

JiggsCasey said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If White Blue-haired Grandmas[/B] were blowing up thousands of innocent people for the last 10 years I'd be kind of worried about being on a plane full of them too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... that makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...


Guess you've never seen Monty Python.

The problem is these folks are committing hundreds of attacks all over the world. Of course people are worried and should be. 

I remember the last time I was in Kuwait right after Desert Storm. A kid was screaming in fear because I was wearing a uniform. He remembered the Iraqis that invaded his country. He couldn't tell the difference. Any soldier caused him to be afraid. It's a natural reaction that most reasonable people feel but keep to themselves.


----------



## California Girl

JiggsCasey said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is a fine litmus test for all those who truly do look at a person in Muslim garb and feel threatened, like their new Foxy hero, JW.
> 
> Ah, Cons... re-affirming their tendency to racial profile at every turn.
> 
> "We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! <bacaw!!!!!!>"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you lack the comprehension skills required to understand what Juan said. He said that he recognized that his feelings were wrong.And he clearly stated that he did not refer to ALL Muslims. Juan is a liberal, by the way. And he's black, by the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Epic spin...   my statement was about blood lusting cons' overall... Not Williams.
> 
> Anyhow, by your logic, how come YOU GUYS can't ever admit that your perpetual anti-Muslim "feelings are wrong?" That's not part of the con man play book, we get it.
> 
> Chapter 1, subsection A: "Never admit being wrong... Ever."
Click to expand...


I am not 'YOU GUYS', I am an individual. One with Muslim friends and Muslim family. I have no problem with Muslims. In fact, earlier in the thread I specifically said that I disagreed with Juan. I'm not worried at all about Muslims in Muslim 'garb'. I am far more concerned about the ones who look like us.... and dress like us (except they wear suicide vests).

Yet again, you show yourself incapable of recognizing anything outside your own partisan view.


----------



## JakeStarkey

California Girl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's black, he's not as liberal as some think (JW stands just this side of Marx to far right cons), he's a straight shooter, and Vivian Shiller can go to journalist hell.  This was wrong, flatly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh, so now you're the arbitor of who is and is not a liberal too? Cool. How'd you get that gig? Cuz Juan calls himself a liberal.... and he is a liberal. He is intelligent, articulate, and honorable - all attributes of liberals. What he is not is a left wing whiny assed loon.
Click to expand...

 
Because you like to arbitrate, CG?  He is a man of all seasons then!  Williams can call himself a frog but he's not, and I think he is not a liberal but a centrist American journalist.  Indeed, he is intelligent, articulate, and honorable -- like David Brooks, George Will.  He is not a loon; Vivian Shiller is a whiny assed left-wing loon.


----------



## DiveCon

JakeStarkey said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's black, he's not as liberal as some think (JW stands just this side of Marx to far right cons), he's a straight shooter, and Vivian Shiller can go to journalist hell.  This was wrong, flatly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh, so now you're the arbitor of who is and is not a liberal too? Cool. How'd you get that gig? Cuz Juan calls himself a liberal.... and he is a liberal. He is intelligent, articulate, and honorable - all attributes of liberals. What he is not is a left wing whiny assed loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you like to arbitrate, CG?  He is a man of all seasons then!  Williams can call himself a frog but he's not, and I think he is not a liberal but a centrist American journalist.  Indeed, he is intelligent, articulate, and honorable -- like David Brooks, George Will.  He is not a loon; Vivian Shiller is a whiny assed left-wing loon.
Click to expand...

so, you see Juan as the same as yourself?


----------



## mudwhistle

JakeStarkey said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's black, he's not as liberal as some think (JW stands just this side of Marx to far right cons), he's a straight shooter, and Vivian Shiller can go to journalist hell.  This was wrong, flatly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh, so now you're the arbitor of who is and is not a liberal too? Cool. How'd you get that gig? Cuz Juan calls himself a liberal.... and he is a liberal. He is intelligent, articulate, and honorable - all attributes of liberals. What he is not is a left wing whiny assed loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you like to arbitrate, CG?  He is a man of all seasons then!  Williams can call himself a frog but he's not, and I think he is not a liberal but a centrist American journalist.  Indeed, he is intelligent, articulate, and honorable -- like David Brooks, George Will.  He is not a loon; Vivian Shiller is a whiny assed left-wing loon.
Click to expand...


Juan is a Liberal. 

His only mistake was not acting like a total asshole. 

NPR is supported by folks that don't like Fox News and because they dislike Fox News to such an extent they don't like it when anyone associates with them in a decent manner. Juan said this today on the radio.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I know that far right cons think he is a liberal, but that does not make it so.  However, I will leave that field to you guys.  Not worth arguing about tonight.


----------



## California Girl

JakeStarkey said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's black, he's not as liberal as some think (JW stands just this side of Marx to far right cons), he's a straight shooter, and Vivian Shiller can go to journalist hell.  This was wrong, flatly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh, so now you're the arbitor of who is and is not a liberal too? Cool. How'd you get that gig? Cuz Juan calls himself a liberal.... and he is a liberal. He is intelligent, articulate, and honorable - all attributes of liberals. What he is not is a left wing whiny assed loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you like to arbitrate, CG?  He is a man of all seasons then!  Williams can call himself a frog but he's not, and I think he is not a liberal but a centrist American journalist.  Indeed, he is intelligent, articulate, and honorable -- like David Brooks, George Will.  He is not a loon; Vivian Shiller is a whiny assed left-wing loon.
Click to expand...


Nope, I don't to arbitration.... Nor do I make pronouncements. I leave that to you. I just speak as I find, offend or please.


----------



## mudwhistle

JakeStarkey said:


> I know that far right cons think he is a liberal, but that does not make it so.  However, I will leave that field to you guys.  Not worth arguing about tonight.



He's a Liberal in every sense.....he's just not so much an asshole about it. He's not a radical...which is part of the reason NPR wanted to fire him.


----------



## DiveCon

JakeStarkey said:


> I know that far right cons think he is a liberal, but that does not make it so.  However, I will leave that field to you guys.  Not worth arguing about tonight.


you dont even know what "far right" is
hell, you think I am far right


----------



## Kat

mudwhistle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh, so now you're the arbitor of who is and is not a liberal too? Cool. How'd you get that gig? Cuz Juan calls himself a liberal.... and he is a liberal. He is intelligent, articulate, and honorable - all attributes of liberals. What he is not is a left wing whiny assed loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you like to arbitrate, CG?  He is a man of all seasons then!  Williams can call himself a frog but he's not, and I think he is not a liberal but a centrist American journalist.  Indeed, he is intelligent, articulate, and honorable -- like David Brooks, George Will.  He is not a loon; Vivian Shiller is a whiny assed left-wing loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juan is a Liberal.
> 
> His only mistake was not acting like a total asshole.
> 
> NPR is supported by folks that don't like Fox News and because they dislike Fox News to such an extent they don't like it when anyone associates with them in a decent manner. Juan said this today on the radio.
Click to expand...


Juan himself says he is a liberal. Not sure why folks want to deny that.


----------



## California Girl

Kat said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you like to arbitrate, CG?  He is a man of all seasons then!  Williams can call himself a frog but he's not, and I think he is not a liberal but a centrist American journalist.  Indeed, he is intelligent, articulate, and honorable -- like David Brooks, George Will.  He is not a loon; Vivian Shiller is a whiny assed left-wing loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is a Liberal.
> 
> His only mistake was not acting like a total asshole.
> 
> NPR is supported by folks that don't like Fox News and because they dislike Fox News to such an extent they don't like it when anyone associates with them in a decent manner. Juan said this today on the radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juan himself says he is a liberal. Not sure why folks want to deny that.
Click to expand...


Because Joke has decided that Juan is not, in fact, a liberal. I am sure that there has been some breakdown in communications and Juan hasn't yet read the memo from Joke informing Juan of his own political leaning.


----------



## Queen

kat said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jakestarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> because you like to arbitrate, cg?  He is a man of all seasons then!  Williams can call himself a frog but he's not, and i think he is not a liberal but a centrist american journalist.  Indeed, he is intelligent, articulate, and honorable -- like david brooks, george will.  He is not a loon; vivian shiller is a whiny assed left-wing loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> juan is a liberal.
> 
> His only mistake was not acting like a total asshole.
> 
> Npr is supported by folks that don't like fox news and because they dislike fox news to such an extent they don't like it when anyone associates with them in a decent manner. Juan said this today on the radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> juan himself says he is a liberal. Not sure why folks want to deny that.
Click to expand...


link please


----------



## California Girl

Queen said:


> kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> juan is a liberal.
> 
> His only mistake was not acting like a total asshole.
> 
> Npr is supported by folks that don't like fox news and because they dislike fox news to such an extent they don't like it when anyone associates with them in a decent manner. Juan said this today on the radio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> juan himself says he is a liberal. Not sure why folks want to deny that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> link please
Click to expand...


Are you not smart enough to find out for yourself?


----------



## DiveCon

California Girl said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is a Liberal.
> 
> His only mistake was not acting like a total asshole.
> 
> NPR is supported by folks that don't like Fox News and because they dislike Fox News to such an extent they don't like it when anyone associates with them in a decent manner. Juan said this today on the radio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan himself says he is a liberal. Not sure why folks want to deny that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Joke has decided that Juan is not, in fact, a liberal. I am sure that there has been some breakdown in communications and Juan hasn't yet read the memo from Joke informing Juan of his own political leaning.
Click to expand...

thats likely because jokey is to the left of Juan and he(jokey) considers himself a conservative


----------



## DiveCon

California Girl said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> juan himself says he is a liberal. Not sure why folks want to deny that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you not smart enough to find out for yourself?
Click to expand...

you actually have to ask?

LOL
i think her posts have shown she lacks critical thinking skills


----------



## Queen

California Girl said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> juan himself says he is a liberal. Not sure why folks want to deny that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you not smart enough to find out for yourself?
Click to expand...


I googled it and didn't see any links with a quote from the man calling himself a liberal. 

So I asked for a link. Does this bother you? That I am asking for the truth? I know you cons really hate the truth. Whenever I post it, you guys all freak out, Willow, Elvis, DiamondDave, Ollie, Divecon, Yurt, all give me hella neg reps. 

Why does the right hate the truth so much? Why are you against this kat from proving this claim? 

Why do you want so badly to believe this, even if it's not true? 

What the heck do you people have against facts and reality?


----------



## Queen

DiveCon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> link please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not smart enough to find out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you actually have to ask?
> 
> LOL
> i think her posts have shown she lacks critical thinking skills
Click to expand...


Oooooo opposite world!! Cool. 

I ask for proof and am accused of lacking critical thinking. 

That's brilliant.


----------



## JiggsCasey

I love that the few left-leaners on this forum have taken up calling unbending conservatives cons. It fits on so many levels.


----------



## Sallow

Juan Williams is a center left moderate that FOX trots out when they want a foil for their propagandists like Hannity or O'Reilly.


----------



## NYcarbineer

LibocalypseNow said:


> Lets face it,Socialists/Progressives suck hard. Anyone with common sense understands this. George Soros now owns NPR just like he owns the Democratic Party. There is no reason for them to receive Taxpayer funding. Btw,look at the Socialist/Progressive nutters on this thread calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger." Juan Williams is a lifelong Liberal Democrat for God's sake. He is a true Liberal in the classic sense and there aren't very many of them left in the Democratic Party. People just need to stop thinking that today's Democrats are real Liberals. Most Democrats are now Socialists/Progressives. There is a difference. Calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger" just shows you how far Left and deranged most Democrats are at this point. They're just miserable loons in the end. Juan Williams can and will do better. Watch and see.



Juan Williams admits to Islamophobia and suddenly he's conservatism's hero-du-jour.  'Real liberals'  lolol.


----------



## Queen

JiggsCasey said:


> I love that the few left-leaners on this forum have taken up calling unbending conservatives cons. It fits on so many levels.



Sorry, simple minded tonight. Explain this sentence to me, I can't quite understand it.


----------



## Queen

Sallow said:


> Juan Williams is a center left moderate that FOX trots out when they want a foil for their propagandists like Hannity or O'Reilly.



And when I've watched, he agrees with them most of the time.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Queen said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> link please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not smart enough to find out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it and didn't see any links with a quote from the man calling himself a liberal.
> 
> So I asked for a link. Does this bother you? That I am asking for the truth? I know you cons really hate the truth. Whenever I post it, you guys all freak out, Willow, Elvis, DiamondDave, Ollie, Divecon, Yurt, all give me hella neg reps.
> 
> Why does the right hate the truth so much? Why are you against this kat from proving this claim?
> 
> Why do you want so badly to believe this, even if it's not true?
> 
> What the heck do you people have against facts and reality?
Click to expand...


Use your secret sources you're always babbling about.


----------



## Queen

mudwhistle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that far right cons think he is a liberal, but that does not make it so.  However, I will leave that field to you guys.  Not worth arguing about tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's a Liberal in every sense.....he's just not so much an asshole about it. He's not a radical...which is part of the reason NPR wanted to fire him.
Click to expand...


You think NPR is radical? 

LOL!!!!

You've never listened, obviously.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Defund NPR and CPB


----------



## DiveCon

Queen said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> link please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not smart enough to find out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it and didn't see any links with a quote from the man calling himself a liberal.
> 
> So I asked for a link. Does this bother you? That I am asking for the truth? I know you cons really hate the truth. Whenever I post it, you guys all freak out, Willow, Elvis, DiamondDave, Ollie, Divecon, Yurt, all give me *hella* neg reps.
> 
> Why does the right hate the truth so much? Why are you against this kat from proving this claim?
> 
> Why do you want so badly to believe this, even if it's not true?
> 
> What the heck do you people have against facts and reality?
Click to expand...

what are you? 14?


----------



## Queen

DiveCon said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not smart enough to find out for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it and didn't see any links with a quote from the man calling himself a liberal.
> 
> So I asked for a link. Does this bother you? That I am asking for the truth? I know you cons really hate the truth. Whenever I post it, you guys all freak out, Willow, Elvis, DiamondDave, Ollie, Divecon, Yurt, all give me *hella* neg reps.
> 
> Why does the right hate the truth so much? Why are you against this kat from proving this claim?
> 
> Why do you want so badly to believe this, even if it's not true?
> 
> What the heck do you people have against facts and reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what are you? 14?
Click to expand...


What are you 75?


----------



## DiveCon

Queen said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it and didn't see any links with a quote from the man calling himself a liberal.
> 
> So I asked for a link. Does this bother you? That I am asking for the truth? I know you cons really hate the truth. Whenever I post it, you guys all freak out, Willow, Elvis, DiamondDave, Ollie, Divecon, Yurt, all give me *hella* neg reps.
> 
> Why does the right hate the truth so much? Why are you against this kat from proving this claim?
> 
> Why do you want so badly to believe this, even if it's not true?
> 
> What the heck do you people have against facts and reality?
> 
> 
> 
> what are you? 14?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you 75?
Click to expand...

yes, got a problem with it

moron
LOL


----------



## Annie

Queen said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> link please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not smart enough to find out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it and didn't see any links with a quote from the man calling himself a liberal.
> 
> So I asked for a link. Does this bother you? That I am asking for the truth? I know you cons really hate the truth. Whenever I post it, you guys all freak out, Willow, Elvis, DiamondDave, Ollie, Divecon, Yurt, all give me hella neg reps.
> 
> Why does the right hate the truth so much? Why are you against this kat from proving this claim?
> 
> Why do you want so badly to believe this, even if it's not true?
> 
> What the heck do you people have against facts and reality?
Click to expand...


Juan Williams is and has been a liberal, in the modern classic use of the term. He's not a knee-jerk liberal, but nearly always in the mainstream of the thought processes on the left. While the wiki entry has obviously been changed in the past few days, you can pretty easily see that:

Juan Williams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

then of course, not so easily changed are the books he's written and won awards for:



> # Williams, Juan (1988). Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965. Penguin (Non-Classics). ISBN 0140096531.
> # Williams, Juan (2000). Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0812932994.
> # Williams, Juan (2003). This Far by Faith: Stories from the African American Religious Experience. Harper Paperbacks. ISBN 0060934247.
> # Williams, Juan (2004). I'll Find a Way or Make One : A Tribute to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. HarperCollins. ISBN 0060094532.
> # Williams, Juan (2005). My Soul Looks Back in Wonder: Voices of the Civil Rights Experience. Sterling. ISBN 1402722338.
> # Williams, Juan (2006). Black Farmers in America. The University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813123992.
> # Williams, Juan (2007). The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 030733824X.


----------



## Ravi

NYcarbineer said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets face it,Socialists/Progressives suck hard. Anyone with common sense understands this. George Soros now owns NPR just like he owns the Democratic Party. There is no reason for them to receive Taxpayer funding. Btw,look at the Socialist/Progressive nutters on this thread calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger." Juan Williams is a lifelong Liberal Democrat for God's sake. He is a true Liberal in the classic sense and there aren't very many of them left in the Democratic Party. People just need to stop thinking that today's Democrats are real Liberals. Most Democrats are now Socialists/Progressives. There is a difference. Calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger" just shows you how far Left and deranged most Democrats are at this point. They're just miserable loons in the end. Juan Williams can and will do better. Watch and see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams admits to Islamophobia and suddenly he's conservatism's hero-du-jour.  'Real liberals'  lolol.
Click to expand...

Yes. Not to mention that he makes himself look like a coward for being afraid of Muslims. He makes those that agree with him look like cowards as well.

I imagine over in bin ladens cave they are chuckling that Americans cower in fear at the site of robes.


----------



## Annie

Ravi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets face it,Socialists/Progressives suck hard. Anyone with common sense understands this. George Soros now owns NPR just like he owns the Democratic Party. There is no reason for them to receive Taxpayer funding. Btw,look at the Socialist/Progressive nutters on this thread calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger." Juan Williams is a lifelong Liberal Democrat for God's sake. He is a true Liberal in the classic sense and there aren't very many of them left in the Democratic Party. People just need to stop thinking that today's Democrats are real Liberals. Most Democrats are now Socialists/Progressives. There is a difference. Calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger" just shows you how far Left and deranged most Democrats are at this point. They're just miserable loons in the end. Juan Williams can and will do better. Watch and see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams admits to Islamophobia and suddenly he's conservatism's hero-du-jour.  'Real liberals'  lolol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Not to mention that he makes himself look like a coward for being afraid of Muslims. He makes those that agree with him look like cowards as well.
> 
> I imagine over in bin ladens cave they are chuckling that Americans cower in fear at the site of robes.
Click to expand...


If OBL was chuckling at anyone, it would be the supporters of NPR:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/138397-npr-has-been-wrong-before.html


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sorry, lefties who defend this: you are flat wrong.  Righties, many of you would act the same way if Billy O went off the reservation the other way.   Unsubscribe.


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets face it,Socialists/Progressives suck hard. Anyone with common sense understands this. George Soros now owns NPR just like he owns the Democratic Party. There is no reason for them to receive Taxpayer funding. Btw,look at the Socialist/Progressive nutters on this thread calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger." Juan Williams is a lifelong Liberal Democrat for God's sake. He is a true Liberal in the classic sense and there aren't very many of them left in the Democratic Party. People just need to stop thinking that today's Democrats are real Liberals. Most Democrats are now Socialists/Progressives. There is a difference. Calling Juan Williams a "Conservative" and "Right Winger" just shows you how far Left and deranged most Democrats are at this point. They're just miserable loons in the end. Juan Williams can and will do better. Watch and see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams admits to Islamophobia and suddenly he's conservatism's hero-du-jour.  'Real liberals'  lolol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Not to mention that he makes himself look like a coward for being afraid of Muslims. He makes those that agree with him look like cowards as well.
> 
> I imagine over in bin ladens cave they are chuckling that Americans cower in fear at the site of robes.
Click to expand...


He's far more likely to be laughing at the left, saying 'Suckers'.


----------



## chanel

I heard he's planning a dinner party in honor of Helen Thomas.


----------



## Stephanie

California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams admits to Islamophobia and suddenly he's conservatism's hero-du-jour.  'Real liberals'  lolol.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Not to mention that he makes himself look like a coward for being afraid of Muslims. He makes those that agree with him look like cowards as well.
> 
> I imagine over in bin ladens cave they are chuckling that Americans cower in fear at the site of robes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's far more likely to be laughing at the left, saying 'Suckers'.
Click to expand...


He already is and is most likely calling them, USEFUL IDIOTS.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kat said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you like to arbitrate, CG?  He is a man of all seasons then!  Williams can call himself a frog but he's not, and I think he is not a liberal but a centrist American journalist.  Indeed, he is intelligent, articulate, and honorable -- like David Brooks, George Will.  He is not a loon; Vivian Shiller is a whiny assed left-wing loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan is a Liberal.
> 
> His only mistake was not acting like a total asshole.
> 
> NPR is supported by folks that don't like Fox News and because they dislike Fox News to such an extent they don't like it when anyone associates with them in a decent manner. Juan said this today on the radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juan himself says he is a liberal. Not sure why folks want to deny that.
Click to expand...


Because *Liberal *is a four letter word these days....even to some liberals. Let's just call them the *"L" word*.


----------



## Ravi

chanel said:


> I heard he's planning a dinner party in honor of Helen Thomas.


There's another one...no one cared that she got fired, either.

Bigotry is bigotry and does not belong in the mouth of a reporter.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Juan Williams and Liberal credibility are but the latest casualties in Soros's Jihad against FoxNews.


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard he's planning a dinner party in honor of Helen Thomas.
> 
> 
> 
> There's another one...no one cared that she got fired, either.
> 
> Bigotry is bigotry and does not belong in the mouth of a reporter.
Click to expand...


Difference is that Helen is a bigot. Juan is not. No one with an IQ over room temperature could not understand what he said.... which explains why the lefties are struggling to understand it.


----------



## Stephanie

So now the lefties want to make up the RULES of what a "reporter" can or can't say.

People better wake up to this ASSULT on our FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.


----------



## mudwhistle

Queen said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that far right cons think he is a liberal, but that does not make it so.  However, I will leave that field to you guys.  Not worth arguing about tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's a Liberal in every sense.....he's just not so much an asshole about it. He's not a radical...which is part of the reason NPR wanted to fire him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think NPR is radical?
> 
> LOL!!!!
> 
> You've never listened, obviously.
Click to expand...


I've listened. They feature radical views interspersed with stories about how to save the planet, stories about human-rights abuses, and stories about blind Iranian poets that just want us all to get along.


----------



## mudwhistle

Queen said:


> kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> juan is a liberal.
> 
> His only mistake was not acting like a total asshole.
> 
> Npr is supported by folks that don't like fox news and because they dislike fox news to such an extent they don't like it when anyone associates with them in a decent manner. Juan said this today on the radio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> juan himself says he is a liberal. Not sure why folks want to deny that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> link please
Click to expand...


_"Rich people pay media people to convince Republican people to blame poor people"_ - *Queen's signature*

Rich people (*George Soros*) pay media people to fire media people who act like human-beings. 

Rich people (*George Soros*) pay rich politicians to run our economy into the ground so they can clean up on hedgefunds. 

Rich people (*George Soros*) pay media people to coddle our enemies (radical Muslims), polarize this country, and steal elections.


----------



## edthecynic

mudwhistle said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> juan himself says he is a liberal. Not sure why folks want to deny that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Rich people pay media people to convince Republican people to blame poor people"_ - *Queen's signature*
> 
> Rich people (*George Soros*) pay media people to fire media people who act like human-beings.
> 
> Rich people (*George Soros*) pay rich politicians to run our economy into the ground so they can clean up on hedgefunds.
> 
> Rich people (*George Soros*) pay media people to coddle our enemies (radical Muslims), polarize this country, and steal elections.
Click to expand...


*SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME *

You forgot foreign money


----------



## mudwhistle

edthecynic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> link please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Rich people pay media people to convince Republican people to blame poor people"_ - *Queen's signature*
> 
> Rich people (*George Soros*) pay media people to fire media people who act like human-beings.
> 
> Rich people (*George Soros*) pay rich politicians to run our economy into the ground so they can clean up on hedgefunds.
> 
> Rich people (*George Soros*) pay media people to coddle our enemies (radical Muslims), polarize this country, and steal elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME *
> 
> You forgot foreign money
Click to expand...


The truth really hurts, doesn't it numb-nuts?


----------



## Ravi

Stephanie said:


> So now the lefties want to make up the RULES of what a "reporter" can or can't say.
> 
> People better wake up to this ASSULT on our FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.


I didn't make up the rules...NPR did and Williams agreed to them.

IMO, reporters should strive to report the facts and keep their biases to themselves.

Sad for you that you'd rather be told what to think.


----------



## mudwhistle

Ravi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the lefties want to make up the RULES of what a "reporter" can or can't say.
> 
> People better wake up to this ASSULT on our FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make up the rules...NPR did and Williams agreed to them.
> 
> IMO, reporters should strive to report the facts and keep their biases to themselves.
> 
> Sad for you that you'd rather be told what to think.
Click to expand...


We could point out hundreds of instances of bias by NPR reporters. The difference is we aren't out to get them fired. 

This is an example of selective bias.


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the lefties want to make up the RULES of what a "reporter" can or can't say.
> 
> People better wake up to this ASSULT on our FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make up the rules...NPR did and Williams agreed to them.
> 
> IMO, reporters should strive to report the facts and keep their biases to themselves.
> 
> Sad for you that you'd rather be told what to think.
Click to expand...


Yes, reporters should strive to report facts. Juan, however, was not employed by NPR as a 'reporter', he was, in fact, employed as a news analyst. For someone who has such a passion for 'facts', you really should try to use them.


----------



## mudwhistle

edthecynic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> link please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Rich people pay media people to convince Republican people to blame poor people"_ - *Queen's signature*
> 
> Rich people (*George Soros*) pay media people to fire media people who act like human-beings.
> 
> Rich people (*George Soros*) pay rich politicians to run our economy into the ground so they can clean up on hedgefunds.
> 
> Rich people (*George Soros*) pay media people to coddle our enemies (radical Muslims), polarize this country, and steal elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME *
> 
> You forgot foreign money
Click to expand...


Famous George Soros Quotes:

_*"It's much better than the straitjacket sterling was in when I broke the Bank of England." George Soros

"I give away something up to $500 million a year throughout the world promoting Open Society. My foundations support people in the country who care about an open society. It's their work that I'm supporting. So it's not me doing it."
George Soros 


"I'm not doing my philanthropic work, out of any kind of guilt, or any need to create good public relations. I'm doing it because I can afford to do it, and I believe in it."
George Soros



"Markets are constantly in a state of uncertainty and flux and money is made by discounting the obvious and betting on the unexpected."
George Soros 




The objective is to provide the best possible management for the assets of my family and foundations that may also be attractive to other investors with similar objectives, and to put into place a structure that will last beyond my lifetime,

 George Soros *_

George Soros quotes
George Soros: 'We face the most serious recession of our lifetime' - Telegraph
George Soros Quotes


----------



## daveman

Trajan said:


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Capitalist again.


I tagged him.


----------



## saveliberty

Seriously Ravi?  The same tired argument two days in a row?  If every news analyst gave the same view, we would only need one.


----------



## daveman

JiggsCasey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when you guys use the same jokes we used on the Boy King 2+ years ago. Reminds me of Mike Barnicle when he stole George Carlin's material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's actually funny when we do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's kind of retarded...  And unoriginal.
Click to expand...


You'd have a point if you could prove that liberals invented the idea of political commentary through humorous imagery.

Are you prepared to do that?


----------



## California Girl

saveliberty said:


> Seriously Ravi?  The same tired argument two days in a row?  If every news analyst gave the same view, we would only need one.



Apparently, Ravi is not concerned enough with facts such as the difference between a 'reporter' and a 'news analyst'.


----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the lefties want to make up the RULES of what a "reporter" can or can't say.
> 
> People better wake up to this ASSULT on our FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make up the rules...NPR did and Williams agreed to them.
> 
> IMO, reporters should strive to report the facts and keep their biases to themselves.
> 
> Sad for you that you'd rather be told what to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could point out hundreds of instances of bias by NPR reporters. The difference is we aren't out to get them fired.
> 
> This is an example of selective bias.
Click to expand...


Then point out ten.


----------



## daveman

JiggsCasey said:


> This thread is a fine litmus test for all those who truly do look at a person in Muslim garb and feel threatened, like their new Foxy hero, JW.
> 
> Ah, Cons... re-affirming their tendency to racial profile at every turn.
> 
> "We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! We're NOT RACISTS!!!!!! <bacaw!!!!!!>"



Can you show me someone of the Muslim race?

Kthnxbai.


----------



## daveman

JiggsCasey said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If White Blue-haired Grandmas[/B] were blowing up thousands of innocent people for the last 10 years I'd be kind of worried about being on a plane full of them too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... that makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Just because it doesn't agree with your bigotry against conservatives doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to normal people.


----------



## NYcarbineer

daveman said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's actually funny when we do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's kind of retarded...  And unoriginal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have a point if you could prove that liberals invented the idea of political commentary through humorous imagery.
> 
> Are you prepared to do that?
Click to expand...


You don't have to prove that liberals invented that to know that skookerasbil is retarded.


----------



## saveliberty

NYcarbineer said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make up the rules...NPR did and Williams agreed to them.
> 
> IMO, reporters should strive to report the facts and keep their biases to themselves.
> 
> Sad for you that you'd rather be told what to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could point out hundreds of instances of bias by NPR reporters. The difference is we aren't out to get them fired.
> 
> This is an example of selective bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then point out ten.
Click to expand...


An almost exclusively liberal view oon all subjects makes for thousands of bias examples immediately.  Then you can look at the stories they choose to run, that is a huge bias.


----------



## daveman

Stephanie said:


> So now the lefties want to make up the RULES of what a "reporter" can or can't say.
> 
> People better wake up to this ASSULT on our FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.


Juan committed Thoughtcrime.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JakeStarkey said:


> Sorry, lefties who defend this: you are flat wrong.  Righties, many of you would act the same way if Billy O went off the reservation the other way.   Unsubscribe.



O'Reilly kept his job after paying millions to shut up a woman he sexually harassed, now he's back as the right's guru on societal morality.

And btw, I already said Williams shouldn't have been fired for this.  I'm only dealing with the right's inevitable lies and distortions and exaggerations and general idiocy over the event,

which is they can never avoid engaging in.


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make up the rules...NPR did and Williams agreed to them.
> 
> IMO, reporters should strive to report the facts and keep their biases to themselves.
> 
> Sad for you that you'd rather be told what to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could point out hundreds of instances of bias by NPR reporters. The difference is we aren't out to get them fired.
> 
> This is an example of selective bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then point out ten.
Click to expand...


What....just ten. Well here's a few for starters.

Guess you wanted your balls kicked in first thing in the morning:



> Last week, NPR's own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR's talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross"-a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature and also politics-airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain.
> 
> NPR admits a liberal bias | Human Events | Find Articles at BNET
> 
> 
> Journalists by themselves accounted for 7 percent of all *NPR* sources. For a public radio service intended to provide an independent alternative to corporate-owned and commercially driven mainstream media, *NPR is surprisingly reliant on mainstream journalists. At least 83 percent of journalists appearing on NPR in June 2003 were employed by commercial U.S. media outlets, many at outlets famous for influencing newsroom agendas throughout the country* (16 from the New York Times alone, and another seven from the Washington Post). Only five sources came from independent news outlets like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the National Catholic Reporter.
> 
> How Public Is Public Radio?
> 
> Garrels and Inskeep raised several points irrelevant to the issue--stressing that journalists face serious danger reporting inside Iraq (which almost no one would challenge), and claiming that critics of this particular report would just rather not deal with the violent reality of that country.
> 
> Of course, no one has asked NPR to not report on the existence of torture in Iraq. *Instead, FAIR asked that NPR not treat the coerced statements of obvious torture victims as credible sources of information.*
> 
> NPR Defends Torture-Based Reporting



I know this is alot to ask but try reading the stories at the links provided. You'll get enough evidence of bias to fill your ten examples and then some.


----------



## NYcarbineer

daveman said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the lefties want to make up the RULES of what a "reporter" can or can't say.
> 
> People better wake up to this ASSULT on our FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
> 
> 
> 
> Juan committed Thoughtcrime.
Click to expand...


Free speech rights are not an issue here.  That is a perfect example of what I just mentioned, i.e., the right having to take every episode and turn it into idiocy.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem?  Why can't NPR fire someone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can....and pay the price for it as well. I hope that million they got from Obama's main supporter, *George Soros*, was worth it to them.
> 
> We need to get rid of this* foreign money* in politics. All they're doing is screwing us over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*  isn't enough, the insane DittoTards have to pile on with "FOREIGN MONEY."
> When did the Chamber of Commerce start donating to NPR???
Click to expand...




mudwhistle said:


> The truth really hurts, doesn't it numb-nuts?


Wouldn't you have to tell some truth FIRST?


----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could point out hundreds of instances of bias by NPR reporters. The difference is we aren't out to get them fired.
> 
> This is an example of selective bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then point out ten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What....just ten. Well here's a few for starters.
> 
> Guess you wanted your balls kicked in first thing in the morning:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week, NPR's own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR's talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross"-a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature and also politics-airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain.
> 
> NPR admits a liberal bias | Human Events | Find Articles at BNET
> 
> 
> Journalists by themselves accounted for 7 percent of all *NPR* sources. For a public radio service intended to provide an independent alternative to corporate-owned and commercially driven mainstream media, *NPR is surprisingly reliant on mainstream journalists. At least 83 percent of journalists appearing on NPR in June 2003 were employed by commercial U.S. media outlets, many at outlets famous for influencing newsroom agendas throughout the country* (16 from the New York Times alone, and another seven from the Washington Post). Only five sources came from independent news outlets like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the National Catholic Reporter.
> 
> How Public Is Public Radio?
> 
> Garrels and Inskeep raised several points irrelevant to the issue--stressing that journalists face serious danger reporting inside Iraq (which almost no one would challenge), and claiming that critics of this particular report would just rather not deal with the violent reality of that country.
> 
> Of course, no one has asked NPR to not report on the existence of torture in Iraq. *Instead, FAIR asked that NPR not treat the coerced statements of obvious torture victims as credible sources of information.*
> 
> NPR Defends Torture-Based Reporting
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I only needed to read one sentence.  'Fresh Air' is not a news program;  Terry Gross is not a reporter.

Here's today's front page on NPR.  Show us the biased reporting:

NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's kind of retarded...  And unoriginal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have a point if you could prove that liberals invented the idea of political commentary through humorous imagery.
> 
> Are you prepared to do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to prove that liberals invented that to know that skookerasbil is retarded.
Click to expand...

Jiggs and I are speaking of the whole, not individuals.  

If you want to discuss individuals, how about this guy?






You think that's funny?


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> O'Reilly kept his job after paying millions to shut up a woman he sexually harassed, now he's back as the right's guru on societal morality.



Speaking of lies and distortions and exaggerations and general idiocy.  Who said Bill O was a guru on societal morality?  Errr, besides you, that is.


----------



## NYcarbineer

daveman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have a point if you could prove that liberals invented the idea of political commentary through humorous imagery.
> 
> Are you prepared to do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to prove that liberals invented that to know that skookerasbil is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jiggs and I are speaking of the whole, not individuals.
> 
> If you want to discuss individuals, how about this guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that's funny?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the lefties want to make up the RULES of what a "reporter" can or can't say.
> 
> People better wake up to this ASSULT on our FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
> 
> 
> 
> Juan committed Thoughtcrime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free speech rights are not an issue here.  That is a perfect example of what I just mentioned, i.e., the right having to take every episode and turn it into idiocy.
Click to expand...

And Juan was fired for speaking unapproved opinions.  Do keep up.


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to prove that liberals invented that to know that skookerasbil is retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggs and I are speaking of the whole, not individuals.
> 
> If you want to discuss individuals, how about this guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that's funny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


There's hope for you yet.


----------



## California Girl

NYcarbineer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, lefties who defend this: you are flat wrong.  Righties, many of you would act the same way if Billy O went off the reservation the other way.   Unsubscribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly kept his job after paying millions to shut up a woman he sexually harassed, now he's back as the right's guru on societal morality.
> 
> And btw, I already said Williams shouldn't have been fired for this.  I'm only dealing with the right's inevitable lies and distortions and exaggerations and general idiocy over the event,
> 
> which is they can never avoid engaging in.
Click to expand...


You mean Andrea Mackris? The woman who made the allegation AFTER O'Reilly sued her for extortion, alleging that she had threatened him with a sexual harassment suit?


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the lefties want to make up the RULES of what a "reporter" can or can't say.
> 
> People better wake up to this ASSULT on our FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
> 
> 
> 
> Juan committed Thoughtcrime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Free speech rights are not an issue here.*  That is a perfect example of what I just mentioned, i.e., the right having to take every episode and turn it into idiocy.
Click to expand...


That's what the left says when someone says something they dislike.


----------



## Ravi

California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the lefties want to make up the RULES of what a "reporter" can or can't say.
> 
> People better wake up to this ASSULT on our FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make up the rules...NPR did and Williams agreed to them.
> 
> IMO, reporters should strive to report the facts and keep their biases to themselves.
> 
> Sad for you that you'd rather be told what to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, reporters should strive to report facts. Juan, however, was not employed by NPR as a 'reporter', he was, in fact, employed as a news analyst. For someone who has such a passion for 'facts', you really should try to use them.
Click to expand...

 Okay, then. Substitute journalist.


----------



## mudwhistle

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can....and pay the price for it as well. I hope that million they got from Obama's main supporter, *George Soros*, was worth it to them.
> 
> We need to get rid of this* foreign money* in politics. All they're doing is screwing us over.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*  isn't enough, the insane DittoTards have to pile on with "FOREIGN MONEY."
> When did the Chamber of Commerce start donating to NPR???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth really hurts, doesn't it numb-nuts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wouldn't you have to tell some truth FIRST?
Click to expand...


Clever. (not really)


----------



## chanel

Would you say Juan has been "Sherodded" "Breitbarted" or "NPRd"? Lol


----------



## JamesMorrison

I must apologize. I did not know I could not post URLs here and since I don't post that often it might be a while before I reach the limit. However those interested can merely use  your favorite searce engine for Dr Zero's and the Title of Reynolds 2002 essay "Patriotism and Preferences". Since I must edit out the URLs I apologize if the text looks a bit rough. About the Juan Williams firing by the left leaning NPR, I found an interesting thought here: *Juan Williams and The Preference Cascade* (Dr. Zero blog). Some snippets: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/10/22/juan-williams-and-the-preference-cascade/


> &#8221; I think one of the reasons the hardcore liberals who run NPR terminated Williams is their desire to abort a preference cascade. . . . As described by Glenn Reynolds in a classic 2002 essay,  a preference cascade occurs when people trapped inside a manufactured consensus suddenly realize that many other people share their doubts. Preference falsification works by making doubters feel isolated and alone. . .
> 
> Since a free society makes it very easy for individuals to change their opinions, they must be prevented from even considering such a change. Manufactured consensus is very fragile in a competitive arena of ideas, when there is no fearsome penalty for a "Fresh Air" listener who decides to switch over to Rush Limbaugh.
> The manufactured liberal consensus about Islamic terrorism rolled off the assembly line a long time ago. . . .
> 
> A credentialed, taxpayer-supported NPR liberal cannot be allowed to question this consensus. It will shatter too easily if the clients of liberalism begin connecting dots between underwear bombers and pistol-packing Army psychiatrists. They cannot be left to nod quietly in agreement with the earnest musings of Juan Williams . . . then look around the room and see all the other faithful liberals nodding at the same time. . . .
> 
> Juan Williams came too close to understanding ideas he was supposed to hate. The Left is deathly afraid of what happens when its constituents begin to understand the Right. They didn't like the idea of millions watching an NPR contributor break the biohazard seal on strictly quarantined ideas.&#8221;



Too close indeed. But surely one can see such a preference cascade following the release of the Climategate e-mails and perhaps even in Obama supporter Thelma Hart's being "... exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for.&#8221; Yes, of course, the 'mantle' of change. But is Obama really to blame for her exhaustion? Perhaps she would have been better prepared for the results of an Obama administration had she insisted on Obama's clarity on not only what was going to change but, specifically, how he would bring about those changes.

But as has been pointed out, NPR&#8217;s Nina Totenberg&#8217;s comments and personal opinions* over the years have not brought her into conflict with NPR&#8217;s stated &#8216;principles&#8217; and management&#8217;s interpretation of same whether she is considered a &#8216;pundint&#8217; or &#8216;analyst&#8217;. But wait! She is neither according to her NPR Bio! She is a correspondent, a position Mr. Williams held at at NPR until he became so annoyingly opininated (to NPR  anyway) that they changed his classification. One might think a NPR &#8216;Correspondent&#8217; might be viewed more stringently regarding their opinions then say, an analyst or pundint. But then that is NPR&#8217;s private business, or is it? NPR gets some small amount of indirect funding from U.S. taxpayors, Non? Come January, if Congress is looking for someplace to cut federal spending perhaps the CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) might be an excellent place to start.

*the classic, but by no means the only, Totenberg example is her lament regarding Senator Jesse Helms: "I think he ought to be worried about the--about what's going on in the good Lord's mind, because if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

JM


----------



## mudwhistle

JamesMorrison said:


> I must apologize. I did not know I could not post URLs here and since I don't post that often it might be a while before I reach the limit. However those interested can merely use  your favorite searce engine for Dr Zero's and the Title of Reynolds 2002 essay "Patriotism and Preferences". Since I must edit out the URLs I apologize if the text looks a bit rough.
> 
> About the Juan Williams firing by the left leaning NPR, I found an interesting thought here: *Juan Williams and The Preference Cascade* (Dr. Zero blog). Some snippets:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  I think one of the reasons the hardcore liberals who run NPR terminated Williams is their desire to abort a preference cascade. . . . As described by Glenn Reynolds in a classic 2002 essay,  a preference cascade occurs when people trapped inside a manufactured consensus suddenly realize that many other people share their doubts. Preference falsification works by making doubters feel isolated and alone. . .
> 
> Since a free society makes it very easy for individuals to change their opinions, they must be prevented from even considering such a change. Manufactured consensus is very fragile in a competitive arena of ideas, when there is no fearsome penalty for a "Fresh Air" listener who decides to switch over to Rush Limbaugh.
> The manufactured liberal consensus about Islamic terrorism rolled off the assembly line a long time ago. . . .
> 
> A credentialed, taxpayer-supported NPR liberal cannot be allowed to question this consensus. It will shatter too easily if the clients of liberalism begin connecting dots between underwear bombers and pistol-packing Army psychiatrists. They cannot be left to nod quietly in agreement with the earnest musings of Juan Williams . . . then look around the room and see all the other faithful liberals nodding at the same time. . . .
> 
> Juan Williams came too close to understanding ideas he was supposed to hate. The Left is deathly afraid of what happens when its constituents begin to understand the Right. They didn't like the idea of millions watching an NPR contributor break the biohazard seal on strictly quarantined ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too close indeed. But surely one can see such a preference cascade following the release of the Climategate e-mails and perhaps even in Obama supporter Thelma Hart's being "... exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for. Yes, of course, the 'mantle' of change. But is Obama really to blame for her exhaustion? Perhaps she would have been better prepared for the results of an Obama administration had she insisted on Obama's clarity on not only what was going to change but, specifically, how he would bring about those changes.
> 
> But as has been pointed out, NPRs Nina Totenbergs comments and personal opinions* over the years have not brought her into conflict with NPRs stated principles and managements interpretation of same whether she is considered a pundint or analyst. But wait! She is neither according to her NPR Bio! She is a correspondent, a position Mr. Williams held at at NPR until he became so annoyingly opininated (to NPR  anyway) that they changed his classification. One might think a NPR Correspondent might be viewed more stringently regarding their opinions then say, an analyst or pundint. But then that is NPRs private business, or is it? NPR gets some small amount of indirect funding from U.S. taxpayors, Non? Come January, if Congress is looking for someplace to cut federal spending perhaps the CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) might be an excellent place to start.
> 
> *the classic, but by no means the only, Totenberg example is her lament regarding Senator Jesse Helms: "I think he ought to be worried about the--about what's going on in the good Lord's mind, because if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
> 
> JM
Click to expand...


I think the biggest fear now is that Juan is showing the way to other Liberals. The greatest asset to the looney-left is the constant state of confusion we're in. Once that state is removed and all the lies are laid bare and out in the open they know that they cannot sustain their false doctrine without being open to justifiable ridicule.

This is a bag of worms I'm sure they wished they hadn't opened.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

chanel said:


> Would you say Juan has been "Sherodded" "Breitbarted" or "NPRd"? Lol



He got a bad case of Sorosis


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make up the rules...NPR did and Williams agreed to them.
> 
> IMO, reporters should strive to report the facts and keep their biases to themselves.
> 
> Sad for you that you'd rather be told what to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, reporters should strive to report facts. Juan, however, was not employed by NPR as a 'reporter', he was, in fact, employed as a news analyst. For someone who has such a passion for 'facts', you really should try to use them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, then. Substitute journalist.
Click to expand...


Nobody is disputing his job title of analyst, but you.


----------



## Progressive Lib

Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.  
Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.


----------



## Progressive Lib

It was time for Juan Williams to go.  He was/is a mediocre journalist at best.  Notice that Fox isn't giving him the multi-millions that O'Reilly/Hannity/Beck receive.  He is their token.


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make up the rules...NPR did and Williams agreed to them.
> 
> IMO, reporters should strive to report the facts and keep their biases to themselves.
> 
> Sad for you that you'd rather be told what to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, reporters should strive to report facts. Juan, however, was not employed by NPR as a 'reporter', he was, in fact, employed as a news analyst. For someone who has such a passion for 'facts', you really should try to use them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, then. Substitute journalist.
Click to expand...


His function at NPR was that of a 'news analyst' or, in other words, a 'commentator'. His job was to comment, not provide fact. Honestly, Ravi, how the hell can you criticize someone when you don't even know what the hell he was employed to do.


----------



## California Girl

Progressive Lib said:


> It was time for Juan Williams to go.  He was/is a mediocre journalist at best.  Notice that Fox isn't giving him the multi-millions that O'Reilly/Hannity/Beck receive.  He is their token.



He was NOT a journalist. Again, I have to ask, how is anyone to take someone seriously when they don't even understand what the man was contracted to do? 

I wish I had a higher tolerance for ignorance.


----------



## WillowTree

Progressive Lib said:


> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.



Another bullshitter hits the fan.


----------



## NYcarbineer

daveman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan committed Thoughtcrime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech rights are not an issue here.  That is a perfect example of what I just mentioned, i.e., the right having to take every episode and turn it into idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Juan was fired for speaking unapproved opinions.  Do keep up.
Click to expand...


Which even if true, is not a free speech issue.  He might have indeed been wrongfully terminated in violation of his contract, but that is still not a free speech issue.


----------



## WillowTree

Progressive Lib said:


> It was time for Juan Williams to go.  He was/is a mediocre journalist at best.  Notice that Fox isn't giving him the multi-millions that O'Reilly/Hannity/Beck receive.  He is their token.



Every time some asshole calls a black man "a token" I call them a racist pig. You are our newest racist pig. We feed racist pigs shit.


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, lefties who defend this: you are flat wrong.  Righties, many of you would act the same way if Billy O went off the reservation the other way.   Unsubscribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly kept his job after paying millions to shut up a woman he sexually harassed, now he's back as the right's guru on societal morality.
> 
> And btw, I already said Williams shouldn't have been fired for this.  I'm only dealing with the right's inevitable lies and distortions and exaggerations and general idiocy over the event,
> 
> which is they can never avoid engaging in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Andrea Mackris? The woman who made the allegation AFTER O'Reilly sued her for extortion, alleging that she had threatened him with a sexual harassment suit?
Click to expand...


I wasn't aware that O'reilly won an extortion lawsuit against Mackris, please post that.


----------



## California Girl

WillowTree said:


> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was time for Juan Williams to go.  He was/is a mediocre journalist at best.  Notice that Fox isn't giving him the multi-millions that O'Reilly/Hannity/Beck receive.  He is their token.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time some asshole calls a black man "a token" I call them a racist pig. You are our newest racist pig. We feed racist pigs shit.
Click to expand...


Yep, and a stupid racist at that. (S)He doesn't even know the difference between a journalist and a news analyst.


----------



## saveliberty

Progressive Lib said:


> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.



Your wrong, but at least you said it in a nice way.  Progressive liberalism is the equivalent of a terminal cancer on our Republic.


----------



## JamesMorrison

Mudwhistle,

This preference casade with the Williams thing seems as one with the Tea Party phenominom which definitely originated with Obama's massaive stimulus and was reinvigorated with Obamacare (and to a lesser extent with the Frank-Dodd finance 'reform' bill). Citizens initially (after the stimulus) felt our government was, generally, oversteping its bonds. This feeling was, somehow, subliminal. However, then the left started calling them nasty names the tea partiers felt the need to justify their feelings about their government. It was at this point they began reading our founding documents and the original supporting arguments for those codifications from Jay, Hamilton, and Madison, in the form of The Federalist, in order to sharpen their argument for smaller, less instrusive government. Some have even visited those of the Scottish enlightenment period and even Ayn Rand's essays on Objectivism.

Can of worms, indeed! Perhaps this awakening of the American people will go down in history as President Obama's crowning acheivement in turning America back onto its original path of self responsibility, individual liberty, and exceptiionalism. This, of course is not _His_ vision but then it's not really up to _Him_...is it? Nov 3rd will give us a better view towards this trend.


----------



## mudwhistle

WillowTree said:


> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was time for Juan Williams to go.  He was/is a mediocre journalist at best.  Notice that Fox isn't giving him the multi-millions that O'Reilly/Hannity/Beck receive.  He is their token.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time some asshole calls a black man "a token" I call them a racist pig. You are our newest racist pig. We feed racist pigs shit.
Click to expand...


Juan was and still is a Fox News contributor that gives the Liberal slant to viewers. He race was never an issue.


----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan committed Thoughtcrime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Free speech rights are not an issue here.*  That is a perfect example of what I just mentioned, i.e., the right having to take every episode and turn it into idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the left says when someone says something they dislike.
Click to expand...


No, it's what I say when people like you are wrong.


----------



## WillowTree

NYcarbineer said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly kept his job after paying millions to shut up a woman he sexually harassed, now he's back as the right's guru on societal morality.
> 
> And btw, I already said Williams shouldn't have been fired for this.  I'm only dealing with the right's inevitable lies and distortions and exaggerations and general idiocy over the event,
> 
> which is they can never avoid engaging in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Andrea Mackris? The woman who made the allegation AFTER O'Reilly sued her for extortion, alleging that she had threatened him with a sexual harassment suit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that O'reilly won an extortion lawsuit against Mackris, please post that.
Click to expand...


idiot, no where did she say "he won" she said clearly he sued. The outcome wasn't specified. No wonder you are so damn dumb.


----------



## California Girl

NYcarbineer said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly kept his job after paying millions to shut up a woman he sexually harassed, now he's back as the right's guru on societal morality.
> 
> And btw, I already said Williams shouldn't have been fired for this.  I'm only dealing with the right's inevitable lies and distortions and exaggerations and general idiocy over the event,
> 
> which is they can never avoid engaging in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Andrea Mackris? The woman who made the allegation AFTER O'Reilly sued her for extortion, alleging that she had threatened him with a sexual harassment suit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that O'reilly won an extortion lawsuit against Mackris, please post that.
Click to expand...




1. That's not the topic, but nice attempt at deflection. 

2. I made no claim about who won, only that O'Reilly sued her for extortion BEFORE she made allegations against him. 

3. I have absolutely no interest in O'Reilly's private life.


----------



## Sallow

saveliberty said:


> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wrong, but at least you said it in a nice way.  Progressive liberalism is the equivalent of a terminal cancer on our Republic.
Click to expand...


That would be correct if you used the term "Regressive Conservatism". Nothing is more injurious to a Free Democratic Republic then wanting to "go back" to authoritarism..no matter if that be a king, or obsencely wealthy corporatists. Power in the hands of a very few usually has terrible outcomes.


----------



## Progressive Lib

WillowTree said:


> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another bullshitter hits the fan.
Click to expand...

Obviously you are someone with little critical thinking ability.


----------



## NYcarbineer

So, Juan Williams just happens to make some remarks offensive to Muslims, on Fox, gets himself fired from NPR, and then just happens to have a fat contract with Foxnews fall out of the sky into his lap,  almost within hours.

There's a certain more-than-meets-the-eye to this whole drama.


----------



## WillowTree

Progressive Lib said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another bullshitter hits the fan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are someone with little critical thinking ability.
Click to expand...


Lesseeee here now  where have I heard THAT insult before?  You guys keep a list of approved insults doyanow? like "token" eat some shit and die mon.


----------



## California Girl

Progressive Lib said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another bullshitter hits the fan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are someone with little critical thinking ability.
Click to expand...


----------



## mudwhistle

JamesMorrison said:


> Mudwhistle,
> 
> This preference casade with the Williams thing seems as one with the Tea Party phenominom which definitely originated with Obama's massaive stimulus and was reinvigorated with Obamacare (and to a lesser extent with the Frank-Dodd finance 'reform' bill). Citizens initially (after the stimulus) felt our government was, generally, oversteping its bonds. This feeling was, somehow, subliminal. However, then the left started calling them nasty names the tea partiers felt the need to justify their feelings about their government. It was at this point they began reading our founding documents and the original supporting arguments for those codifications from Jay, Hamilton, and Madison, in the form of The Federalist, in order to sharpen their argument for smaller, less instrusive government. Some have even visited those of the Scottish enlightenment period and even Ayn Rand's essays on Objectivism.
> 
> Can of worms, indeed! Perhaps this awakening of the American people will go down in history as President Obama's crowning acheivement in turning America back onto its original path of self responsibility, individual liberty, and exceptiionalism. This, of course is not _His_ vision but then it's not really up to _Him_...is it? Nov 3rd will give us a better view towards this trend.



I still get the feeling that so voters many refuse to pay attention....and yet more votes will be stolen or ignored because of a corrupt election process.


----------



## California Girl

NYcarbineer said:


> So, Juan Williams just happens to make some remarks offensive to Muslims, on Fox, gets himself fired from NPR, and then just happens to have a fat contract with Foxnews fall out of the sky into his lap,  almost within hours.
> 
> There's a certain more-than-meets-the-eye to this whole drama.



Interestingly, it appears that not all Muslims got the 'be offended' instruction. I had an email from a Muslim friend who agreed with Juan. Go figure. I guess them pesky Muslims are individuals too! Damn them!


----------



## Stephanie

WillowTree said:


> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another bullshitter hits the fan.
> 
> 
> 
> *Obviously you are someone with little critical thinking ability*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lesseeee here now  where have I heard THAT insult before?  You guys keep a list of approved insults doyanow? like "token" eat some shit and die mon.
Click to expand...


yep, they think that is THE BIG PUTDOWN.
all I do is laugh my ass off at it.


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> So, Juan Williams just happens to make some remarks offensive to Muslims, on Fox, gets himself fired from NPR, and then just happens to have a fat contract with Foxnews fall out of the sky into his lap,  almost within hours.
> 
> There's a certain more-than-meets-the-eye to this whole drama.



Are saying that a Black man could just possibly be a bigot?

Jeeze...I've been saying this for years. You're just now getting around to it even though in this case you're totally wrong. 

But it seems that Juan was never a bigot till he pissed off the left. Then the label stuck.


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Andrea Mackris? The woman who made the allegation AFTER O'Reilly sued her for extortion, alleging that she had threatened him with a sexual harassment suit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that O'reilly won an extortion lawsuit against Mackris, please post that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That's not the topic, but nice attempt at deflection.
> 
> 2. I made no claim about who won, only that O'Reilly sued her for extortion BEFORE she made allegations against him.
> 
> 3. I have absolutely no interest in O'Reilly's private life.
Click to expand...


You made it the topic you fool.  AGAIN, did O'Reilly win an extortion lawsuit against Mackris?

And if you have no interest in O'Reilly's private life, why did you attempt to defend him with an unsupported allegation of wrongdonig against the woman he harassed?

And why, btw, wouldn't you have any interest in who in public arena, getting paid to pontificate on society's rights and wrongs, was or wasn't themselves guilty of sexual harassment?


----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Juan Williams just happens to make some remarks offensive to Muslims, on Fox, gets himself fired from NPR, and then just happens to have a fat contract with Foxnews fall out of the sky into his lap,  almost within hours.
> 
> There's a certain more-than-meets-the-eye to this whole drama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are saying that a Black man could just possibly be a bigot?
> 
> Jeeze...I've been saying this for years. You're just now getting around to it even though in this case you're totally wrong.
> 
> But it seems that Juan was never a bigot till he pissed off the left. Then the label stuck.
Click to expand...


Wow, you were among all the people I called 'bigots' for being Islamophobic in opposing the NYC mosque...

...it took you this long to admit it?

lol


----------



## Progressive Lib

Sallow said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wrong, but at least you said it in a nice way.  Progressive liberalism is the equivalent of a terminal cancer on our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be correct if you used the term "Regressive Conservatism". Nothing is more injurious to a Free Democratic Republic then wanting to "go back" to authoritarism..no matter if that be a king, or obsencely wealthy corporatists. Power in the hands of a very few usually has terrible outcomes.
Click to expand...

I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset.  Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century.  Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.


----------



## Progressive Lib

WillowTree said:


> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another bullshitter hits the fan.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are someone with little critical thinking ability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lesseeee here now  where have I heard THAT insult before?  You guys keep a list of approved insults doyanow? like "token" eat some shit and die mon.
Click to expand...

Typical uneducated right-wing reply.  Took no critical thinking at all...just spew vile hateful words and that does it.  Sad.


----------



## Titanic Sailor

The liberals have no cards left, and it's showing. NPR's days of public financing will come to a close.

Even government knows it's downsizing, liberals must have missed the notification. 

NYcrapinbeer? Clueless. He's still cheering for dinosaurs.


----------



## Titanic Sailor

They should disclose all of the liberal millionaires on NPR's payroll. 

Over 420 million a year taxpayer funded, plus private donations. 

THIEVES, and arrogant ones too! It's who Democrats are.


----------



## Stephanie

Progressive Lib said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your wrong, but at least you said it in a nice way.  Progressive liberalism is the equivalent of a terminal cancer on our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be correct if you used the term "Regressive Conservatism". Nothing is more injurious to a Free Democratic Republic then wanting to "go back" to authoritarism..no matter if that be a king, or obsencely wealthy corporatists. Power in the hands of a very few usually has terrible outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset. * Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century. * Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.
Click to expand...


oh brother. another condescending Progressive, yipeee
pass the barf bag.


----------



## Stephanie

Progressive Lib said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are someone with little critical thinking ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesseeee here now  where have I heard THAT insult before?  You guys keep a list of approved insults doyanow? like "token" eat some shit and die mon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical uneducated right-wing reply.  Took no critical thinking at all...just spew vile hateful words and that does it.  Sad.
Click to expand...


someone kick this BROKEN record already..


----------



## Progressive Lib

WillowTree said:


> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was time for Juan Williams to go.  He was/is a mediocre journalist at best.  Notice that Fox isn't giving him the multi-millions that O'Reilly/Hannity/Beck receive.  He is their token.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time some asshole calls a black man "a token" I call them a racist pig. You are our newest racist pig. We feed racist pigs shit.
Click to expand...

People such as yourself are the reason for birth control and abortion.  Waste of sperm.


----------



## WillowTree

Progressive Lib said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was time for Juan Williams to go.  He was/is a mediocre journalist at best.  Notice that Fox isn't giving him the multi-millions that O'Reilly/Hannity/Beck receive.  He is their token.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time some asshole calls a black man "a token" I call them a racist pig. You are our newest racist pig. We feed racist pigs shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People such as yourself are the reason for birth control and abortion.  Waste of sperm.
Click to expand...


poor little poopy pantywaist.


----------



## saveliberty

Sallow said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wrong, but at least you said it in a nice way.  Progressive liberalism is the equivalent of a terminal cancer on our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be correct if you used the term "Regressive Conservatism". Nothing is more injurious to a Free Democratic Republic then wanting to "go back" to authoritarism..no matter if that be a king, or obsencely wealthy corporatists. Power in the hands of a very few usually has terrible outcomes.
Click to expand...


We are going to have to agree to disagree on Progressive Liberalism Sallow.  I am not aware of a Regressive Conservatism movement.


----------



## California Girl

Progressive Lib said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your wrong, but at least you said it in a nice way.  Progressive liberalism is the equivalent of a terminal cancer on our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be correct if you used the term "Regressive Conservatism". Nothing is more injurious to a Free Democratic Republic then wanting to "go back" to authoritarism..no matter if that be a king, or obsencely wealthy corporatists. Power in the hands of a very few usually has terrible outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset.  Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century.  Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.
Click to expand...


Republicans, on the other hand, are never bewildered by the hard-core leftie mindset. They understand the borg groupthink... and actively choose to engage in individual, critical thinking. 

I am, however, fascinated that the left scream like fucking banshees about 'hate speech' from everyone else.... while completely ignoring the fact that they are engaging in 'hate speech' themselves. Double standards - I don't do those.


----------



## boedicca

Progressive Lib said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was time for Juan Williams to go.  He was/is a mediocre journalist at best.  Notice that Fox isn't giving him the multi-millions that O'Reilly/Hannity/Beck receive.  He is their token.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time some asshole calls a black man "a token" I call them a racist pig. You are our newest racist pig. We feed racist pigs shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People such as yourself are the reason for birth control and abortion.  Waste of sperm.
Click to expand...



What a self-parody.

This thread is about the Left's intolerance for any opinions outside of their narrow orthodoxy, and here you are spewing the noxious filth that someone who says something you don't like shouldn't exist.


----------



## Progressive Lib

Stephanie said:


> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be correct if you used the term "Regressive Conservatism". Nothing is more injurious to a Free Democratic Republic then wanting to "go back" to authoritarism..no matter if that be a king, or obsencely wealthy corporatists. Power in the hands of a very few usually has terrible outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset. * Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century. * Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh brother. another condescending Progressive, yipeee
> pass the barf bag.
Click to expand...

I thought their might be adults posting on this site.  I was wrong.  Obviously, from your lack of the ability to carry on a civil conversation, you aren't even old enough to vote.  Either that or you are missing some vital brain cells.  Either way, I'm out.   Dog help us if people like Christine O'Donnell are ever in political power.  America is filled with uneducated, fear-based ignorant people such as yourselves.  Maybe there are interesting people who have communication skils....none to be found here.


----------



## Sallow

saveliberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your wrong, but at least you said it in a nice way.  Progressive liberalism is the equivalent of a terminal cancer on our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be correct if you used the term "Regressive Conservatism". Nothing is more injurious to a Free Democratic Republic then wanting to "go back" to authoritarism..no matter if that be a king, or obsencely wealthy corporatists. Power in the hands of a very few usually has terrible outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are going to have to agree to disagree on Progressive Liberalism Sallow.  I am not aware of a Regressive Conservatism movement.
Click to expand...


Well to be quite honest, I am not much a "Progressive" Liberal..as just plain liberal. I think change should be gradual..and frequently audited.

But agreeing to disagree. I am cool with that.


----------



## Annie

Progressive Lib said:


> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.



Well your first post on Juan Williams thread is about Booosssshhhh. The rest that follow are just put downs of other posters. Great start here.


----------



## WillowTree

Progressive Lib said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset. * Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century. * Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother. another condescending Progressive, yipeee
> pass the barf bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought their might be adults posting on this site.  I was wrong.  Obviously, from your lack of the ability to carry on a civil conversation, you aren't even old enough to vote.  Either that or you are missing some vital brain cells.  Either way, I'm out.   Dog help us if people like Christine O'Donnell are ever in political power.  America is filled with uneducated, fear-based ignorant people such as yourselves.  Maybe there are interesting people who have communication skils....none to be found here.
Click to expand...


Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya. ta ta.. and try not to call black men tokens. it doesn't speak well of your character. Advice is for free.


----------



## Progressive Lib

California Girl said:


> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be correct if you used the term "Regressive Conservatism". Nothing is more injurious to a Free Democratic Republic then wanting to "go back" to authoritarism..no matter if that be a king, or obsencely wealthy corporatists. Power in the hands of a very few usually has terrible outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset.  Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century.  Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans, on the other hand, are never bewildered by the hard-core leftie mindset. They understand the borg groupthink... and actively choose to engage in individual, critical thinking.
> 
> I am, however, fascinated that the left scream like fucking banshees about 'hate speech' from everyone else.... while completely ignoring the fact that they are engaging in 'hate speech' themselves. Double standards - I don't do those.
Click to expand...

Bitch is too nice of a word to use on you.  The "C" word is more appropriate.  What a sad and miserable person you present yourself to be.  You deserve what you get...and no doubt that is "not much."  No doubt in my mind that you are trailer trash.


----------



## Stephanie

Progressive Lib said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset. * Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century. * Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother. another condescending Progressive, yipeee
> pass the barf bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought their might be adults posting on this site.  I was wrong.  Obviously, from your lack of the ability to carry on a civil conversation, you aren't even old enough to vote.  Either that or you are missing some vital brain cells.  Either way, I'm out.   Dog help us if people like Christine O'Donnell are ever in political power.  America is filled with uneducated, fear-based ignorant people such as yourselves.  Maybe there are interesting people who have communication skils....none to be found here.
Click to expand...






don't let the door hit where the good lord SPLIT YA.


----------



## WillowTree

Progressive Lib said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset.  Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century.  Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans, on the other hand, are never bewildered by the hard-core leftie mindset. They understand the borg groupthink... and actively choose to engage in individual, critical thinking.
> 
> I am, however, fascinated that the left scream like fucking banshees about 'hate speech' from everyone else.... while completely ignoring the fact that they are engaging in 'hate speech' themselves. Double standards - I don't do those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitch is too nice of a word to use on you.  The "C" word is more appropriate.  What a sad and miserable person you present yourself to be.  You deserve what you get...and no doubt that is "not much."  No doubt in my mind that you are trailer trash.
Click to expand...


Wow, your civillity certainly went down the pooper rigfht along wit yer brain  didn't it bitch?


----------



## WillowTree

Trailer trash. I got news for you progressive pooper. We've heard that one before too. Next.


----------



## Annie

Progressive Lib said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset.  Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century.  Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans, on the other hand, are never bewildered by the hard-core leftie mindset. They understand the borg groupthink... and actively choose to engage in individual, critical thinking.
> 
> I am, however, fascinated that the left scream like fucking banshees about 'hate speech' from everyone else.... while completely ignoring the fact that they are engaging in 'hate speech' themselves. Double standards - I don't do those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitch is too nice of a word to use on you.  The "C" word is more appropriate.  What a sad and miserable person you present yourself to be.  You deserve what you get...and no doubt that is "not much."  No doubt in my mind that you are trailer trash.
Click to expand...


Wow, you just earned the fastest neg I've ever given for more than 1 post. C word? That's demonstrating your superiority to all the trailer trash! Good job.


----------



## saveliberty

Progressive Lib said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset. * Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century. * Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother. another condescending Progressive, yipeee
> pass the barf bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought their might be adults posting on this site.  I was wrong.  Obviously, from your lack of the ability to carry on a civil conversation, you aren't even old enough to vote.  Either that or you are missing some vital brain cells.  Either way, I'm out.   Dog help us if people like Christine O'Donnell are ever in political power.  America is filled with uneducated, fear-based ignorant people such as yourselves.  Maybe there are interesting people who have communication skils....none to be found here.
Click to expand...


Over Eighteen - check
Have current voter registration - check
Degree from major university - check

What the Hell does Dog Chapman have to do with Christine O'Donnell?  Maybe you meant God and just have a communication problem?  Six posts and out, your pathetic.


----------



## Ravi

California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, reporters should strive to report facts. Juan, however, was not employed by NPR as a 'reporter', he was, in fact, employed as a news analyst. For someone who has such a passion for 'facts', you really should try to use them.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then. Substitute journalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His function at NPR was that of a 'news analyst' or, in other words, a 'commentator'. His job was to comment, not provide fact. Honestly, Ravi, how the hell can you criticize someone when you don't even know what the hell he was employed to do.
Click to expand...


Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
*Definition and Nature of the Work*

 Broadcast news analystsoften referred to as anchors or  newscastershost and synchronize news programs on radio or television.  Their duties include reading news stories, providing lead-ins for  reports by others, interviewing guests, and conducting panel  discussions. Some may work once or twice a day on a major news program,  while others broadcast five-minute news segments each hour.


----------



## Ravi

A *journalist* collects and disseminates information  about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is  acknowledged as journalism.

Yes, he most certainly was a journalist. Now he is solely a pundit.


----------



## boedicca

Progressive Lib said:


> I thought their might be adults posting on this site.  I was wrong.  Obviously, from your lack of the ability to carry on a civil conversation, you aren't even old enough to vote.  Either that or you are missing some vital brain cells.  Either way, I'm out.   Dog help us if people like Christine O'Donnell are ever in political power.  America is filled with uneducated, fear-based ignorant people such as yourselves.  Maybe there are interesting people who have communication skils....none to be found here.





This is really rich from someone who claims another deserved to be aborted for having a differing opinion.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then. Substitute journalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His function at NPR was that of a 'news analyst' or, in other words, a 'commentator'. His job was to comment, not provide fact. Honestly, Ravi, how the hell can you criticize someone when you don't even know what the hell he was employed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
> *Definition and Nature of the Work*
> 
> Broadcast news analystsoften referred to as anchors or  newscastershost and synchronize news programs on radio or television.  Their duties include reading news stories, providing lead-ins for  reports by others, interviewing guests, and conducting panel  discussions. Some may work once or twice a day on a major news program,  while others broadcast five-minute news segments each hour.
Click to expand...


I'm glad to see you working hard at proving your point. I admire that in a person. But, I think that most of the world knows now that George Soros gave Media Matters one million dollars, he gave NPR 1.8 million dollars. Media Matters has already called for Mara Liasson's head cause she works for Fox News. I think the whole world knows that Juan was fired because he works for Fox News and because CAIR pressured NPR. I think the whole world is also outraged. I think the repercussions are going to be distasteful to NPR. Have you read any of the comments over at the NPR site? It's not pretty.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> A *journalist* collects and disseminates information  about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is  acknowledged as journalism.
> 
> Yes, he most certainly was a journalist. Now he is solely a pundit.



"And, we're walkin"


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then. Substitute journalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His function at NPR was that of a 'news analyst' or, in other words, a 'commentator'. His job was to comment, not provide fact. Honestly, Ravi, how the hell can you criticize someone when you don't even know what the hell he was employed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
> *Definition and Nature of the Work*
> 
> Broadcast news analystsoften referred to as anchors or  newscastershost and synchronize news programs on radio or television.  Their duties include reading news stories, providing lead-ins for  reports by others, interviewing guests, and conducting panel  discussions. Some may work once or twice a day on a major news program,  while others broadcast five-minute news segments each hour.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I read crap.


Broadcast news analysts are best known as the familiar voices and faces that present the news. In addition to introducing in-depth videotaped films or live segments from on-the-scene reporters, they may summarize and comment on news items, interpret specific news stories, and discuss the impact of those stories on our lives. *They also *gather information using research, interviews, and polls, and then *analyze and interpret it for their audience*.

Read more: Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job

No kidding? They intrepret and analyze information?  Suppose that is where the analyst part comes from?


----------



## boedicca

Ravi said:


> A *journalist* collects and disseminates information  about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is  acknowledged as journalism.
> 
> Yes, he most certainly was a journalist. Now he is solely a pundit.




Then classify Nina Totenberg.


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> A *journalist* collects and disseminates information  about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is  acknowledged as journalism.
> 
> Yes, he most certainly was a journalist. Now he is solely a pundit.



I'm very aware of what a journalist is. He was employed by NRP as a 'news analyst' (their term, not mine). A news analyst is not a journalist, or a reporter.


----------



## sitarro

Progressive Lib said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another bullshitter hits the fan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are someone with little critical thinking ability.
Click to expand...


You are the one that can't critically think his way out of a canvass recycled bag. You mention the people paying for negative ads, it's one of your own that is paying for  "reporters" at NPR (ones that will report the way he wants). It's the same guy that paid to buy the Presidency for his ass puppet Barrack and he is making billions on the recession he and his idiot leftist started and continue today. 
Do you honestly think that the clown in the White House cares about you and me? He and his fat assed wife eat caviar and Wagu steak at the tons of parties they throw for the most elite people in the world, have you seen any middle class people invited? He flies around the world with an entourage of gas guzzling aircraft to do campaign speeches for other elitist that have been living off of the taxpayer for years, there is nothing new or changed with the hypocritical fool that is President of this once great nation. He talks about creating jobs when it isn't government that creates jobs or anything for that matter, private business creates. Government stunts creation with regulation and these guys are champions at screwing the private sector.
Open your eyes ace and maybe you will see how stupid your screen name makes you look.


----------



## Ravi

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> His function at NPR was that of a 'news analyst' or, in other words, a 'commentator'. His job was to comment, not provide fact. Honestly, Ravi, how the hell can you criticize someone when you don't even know what the hell he was employed to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
> *Definition and Nature of the Work*
> 
> Broadcast news analystsoften referred to as anchors or  newscastershost and synchronize news programs on radio or television.  Their duties include reading news stories, providing lead-ins for  reports by others, interviewing guests, and conducting panel  discussions. Some may work once or twice a day on a major news program,  while others broadcast five-minute news segments each hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to see you working hard at proving your point. I admire that in a person. But, I think that most of the world knows now that George Soros gave Media Matters one million dollars, he gave NPR 1.8 million dollars. Media Matters has already called for Mara Liasson's head cause she works for Fox News. I think the whole world knows that Juan was fired because he works for Fox News and because CAIR pressured NPR. I think the whole world is also outraged. I think the repercussions are going to be distasteful to NPR. Have you read any of the comments over at the NPR site? It's not pretty.
Click to expand...

. Eots?


----------



## Ravi

saveliberty said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> His function at NPR was that of a 'news analyst' or, in other words, a 'commentator'. His job was to comment, not provide fact. Honestly, Ravi, how the hell can you criticize someone when you don't even know what the hell he was employed to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
> *Definition and Nature of the Work*
> 
> Broadcast news analystsoften referred to as anchors or  newscastershost and synchronize news programs on radio or television.  Their duties include reading news stories, providing lead-ins for  reports by others, interviewing guests, and conducting panel  discussions. Some may work once or twice a day on a major news program,  while others broadcast five-minute news segments each hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I read crap.
> 
> 
> Broadcast news analysts are best known as the familiar voices and faces that present the news. In addition to introducing in-depth videotaped films or live segments from on-the-scene reporters, they may summarize and comment on news items, interpret specific news stories, and discuss the impact of those stories on our lives. *They also *gather information using research, interviews, and polls, and then *analyze and interpret it for their audience*.
> 
> Read more: Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
> 
> No kidding? They intrepret and analyze information?  Suppose that is where the analyst part comes from?
Click to expand...

And again, the code of ethics says he was not welcome to make comments on other venues that he wouldn't make on NPR.


----------



## boedicca

Ravi said:


> And again, the code of ethics says he was not welcome to make comments on other venues that he wouldn't make on NPR.





That's not a code of ethics, it's a code of Conformity and Thought Control.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
> *Definition and Nature of the Work*
> 
> Broadcast news analystsoften referred to as anchors or  newscastershost and synchronize news programs on radio or television.  Their duties include reading news stories, providing lead-ins for  reports by others, interviewing guests, and conducting panel  discussions. Some may work once or twice a day on a major news program,  while others broadcast five-minute news segments each hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to see you working hard at proving your point. I admire that in a person. But, I think that most of the world knows now that George Soros gave Media Matters one million dollars, he gave NPR 1.8 million dollars. Media Matters has already called for Mara Liasson's head cause she works for Fox News. I think the whole world knows that Juan was fired because he works for Fox News and because CAIR pressured NPR. I think the whole world is also outraged. I think the repercussions are going to be distasteful to NPR. Have you read any of the comments over at the NPR site? It's not pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Eots?
Click to expand...


You need to ease on over to NPR and educate yourself. a little. just sayin is all.


----------



## Stephanie

boedicca said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, the code of ethics says he was not welcome to make comments on other venues that he wouldn't make on NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a code of ethics, it's a code of Conformity and Thought Control.
Click to expand...


yep. and the left SEES nothing wrong with this. 
very damn scary


----------



## Ravi

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to see you working hard at proving your point. I admire that in a person. But, I think that most of the world knows now that George Soros gave Media Matters one million dollars, he gave NPR 1.8 million dollars. Media Matters has already called for Mara Liasson's head cause she works for Fox News. I think the whole world knows that Juan was fired because he works for Fox News and because CAIR pressured NPR. I think the whole world is also outraged. I think the repercussions are going to be distasteful to NPR. Have you read any of the comments over at the NPR site? It's not pretty.
> 
> 
> 
> . Eots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to ease on over to NPR and educate yourself. a little. just sayin is all.
Click to expand...

I cannot help if people are incorrect on this issue. It happens.


----------



## Ravi

boedicca said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, the code of ethics says he was not welcome to make comments on other venues that he wouldn't make on NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a code of ethics, it's a code of Conformity and Thought Control.
Click to expand...

Whatever you wish to call it...he signed on for it.

He's a big boy and responsible for his own actions.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, the code of ethics says he was not welcome to make comments on other venues that he wouldn't make on NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a code of ethics, it's a code of Conformity and Thought Control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever you wish to call it...he signed on for it.
> 
> He's a big boy and responsible for his own actions.
Click to expand...


And likewise with NPR. I hope they can handle it.


----------



## boedicca

Ravi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, the code of ethics says he was not welcome to make comments on other venues that he wouldn't make on NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a code of ethics, it's a code of Conformity and Thought Control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever you wish to call it...he signed on for it.
> 
> He's a big boy and responsible for his own actions.
Click to expand...



Please quote the section of the code which says analysts cannot discuss their fears.


----------



## Samson

WillowTree said:


> George Soros gave Media Matters one million dollars, he gave NPR 1.8 million dollars.



Indeed, NPR can be mostly run by INDIVIDUAL gifts.

How many of my tax dollars go to NPR?




> *NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government*. Less than two percent of the budget is derived from competitive grants from federally funded organizations such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation, and National Endowment for the Arts.
> 
> Approximately half of NPR's funding comes from NPR member stations. In an average year, NPR funds about 45 percent of its operations with membership dues and program fees from member stations.
> 
> The balance of NPR's annual revenue is derived from private foundations, *individuals and corporations, in the form of grants, gifts*, investment proceeds, and corporate sponsorships. NPR receives some revenue from distribution fees and fees from tapes and transcripts. Financial statements, based on annual audits, are available in NPR's most recent Annual Report (5.7 MB - Requires Adobe Acrobat).



Actually, the link to NPR's financial statements is mysteriously dead right now....


----------



## WillowTree

Samson said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Soros gave Media Matters one million dollars, he gave NPR 1.8 million dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, NPR can be mostly run by INDIVIDUAL gifts.
> 
> How many of my tax dollars go to NPR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government*. Less than two percent of the budget is derived from competitive grants from federally funded organizations such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation, and National Endowment for the Arts.
> 
> Approximately half of NPR's funding comes from NPR member stations. In an average year, NPR funds about 45 percent of its operations with membership dues and program fees from member stations.
> 
> The balance of NPR's annual revenue is derived from private foundations, *individuals and corporations, in the form of grants, gifts*, investment proceeds, and corporate sponsorships. NPR receives some revenue from distribution fees and fees from tapes and transcripts. Financial statements, based on annual audits, are available in NPR's most recent Annual Report (5.7 MB - Requires Adobe Acrobat).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the link to NPR's financial statements are mysteriously dead right now....
Click to expand...


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
> *Definition and Nature of the Work*
> 
> Broadcast news analystsoften referred to as anchors or  newscastershost and synchronize news programs on radio or television.  Their duties include reading news stories, providing lead-ins for  reports by others, interviewing guests, and conducting panel  discussions. Some may work once or twice a day on a major news program,  while others broadcast five-minute news segments each hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I read crap.
> 
> 
> Broadcast news analysts are best known as the familiar voices and faces that present the news. In addition to introducing in-depth videotaped films or live segments from on-the-scene reporters, they may summarize and comment on news items, interpret specific news stories, and discuss the impact of those stories on our lives. *They also *gather information using research, interviews, and polls, and then *analyze and interpret it for their audience*.
> 
> Read more: Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
> 
> No kidding? They intrepret and analyze information?  Suppose that is where the analyst part comes from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, the code of ethics says he was not welcome to make comments on other venues that he wouldn't make on NPR.
Click to expand...


So you deflect from what an analyst actually is, and switch to a code of ethics which apparently does not allow analysts to analyze?  Juan stated he would have made the same comment on NPR.  Those are his exact words in fact.


----------



## DiveCon

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
> *Definition and Nature of the Work*
> 
> Broadcast news analystsoften referred to as anchors or  newscastershost and synchronize news programs on radio or television.  Their duties include reading news stories, providing lead-ins for  reports by others, interviewing guests, and conducting panel  discussions. Some may work once or twice a day on a major news program,  while others broadcast five-minute news segments each hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I read crap.
> 
> 
> Broadcast news analysts are best known as the familiar voices and faces that present the news. In addition to introducing in-depth videotaped films or live segments from on-the-scene reporters, they may summarize and comment on news items, interpret specific news stories, and discuss the impact of those stories on our lives. *They also *gather information using research, interviews, and polls, and then *analyze and interpret it for their audience*.
> 
> Read more: Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job Broadcast News Analyst Job Description, Career as a Broadcast News Analyst, Salary, Employment - Definition and Nature of the Work, Education and Training Requirements, Getting the Job
> 
> No kidding? They intrepret and analyze information?  Suppose that is where the analyst part comes from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, the code of ethics says he was not welcome to make comments on other venues that he wouldn't make on NPR.
Click to expand...

source?


----------



## DiveCon

Titanic Sailor said:


> Nice bum Ravi? Is that yours?


uh, only if ravi is a guy
LOL


now go wash your eyes out
LOL


----------



## Titanic Sailor

There's no source, they make shit up as it goes. Hypocrisy rules in their world. Remember when they screamed like pigs in heat when Bush did the same exact things Obama is doing now?

If Bush tried to sell us out to the pharmaceutical and insurance agencies like Obama did, they'd still be suffering aneurysms today.

There's no source, there's no sense, and soon, there will be no public funding of NPR.


----------



## WillowTree

DiveCon said:


> Titanic Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice bum Ravi? Is that yours?
> 
> 
> 
> uh, only if ravi is a guy
> LOL
> 
> 
> now go wash your eyes out
> LOL
Click to expand...


Hey! Guys can have nice asses too.


----------



## Titanic Sailor

That's a dude's ass? Get the f out of here.

Hahahaha!

sucky..............


hahahaha

bye now


----------



## DiveCon

Titanic Sailor said:


> That's a dude's ass? Get the f out of here.
> 
> Hahahaha!
> 
> sucky..............
> 
> 
> hahahaha
> 
> bye now


----------



## LibocalypseNow

It's amazing to me that so many still actually believe Socialists/Progressives support Free Speech. No Socialists anywhere on this Planet support Free Speech. So why would our Socialists here be any different? Don't confuse this current Democratic Party with the Democratic Party of the past. Real Liberals like Juan Williams have already been purged from the Party and replaced with radical Socialist/Progressive creeps. People just need to become more informed and see what the Democratic Party is really all about these days. 

Juan Williams was just another George Soros victim. Him and Media Matters were behind this firing. You can bet on that. Soros gives em $1.8 Million and a few days later a Fox News commentator is fired. And we're all supposed to be dummies and believe it's just coincidence? Yea well i don't believe in such coicidences. Just Defund NPR immediately and be done with it. They're a joke at this point.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Soros made his bones working with Nazis, what made anyone think he and his NPR affiliate would support free speech?


----------



## DiveCon

CrusaderFrank said:


> *Soros made his bones working with Nazis,* what made anyone think he and his NPR affiliate would support free speech?


source?


----------



## Samson

LibocalypseNow said:


> It's amazing to me that so many still actually believe Socialists/Progressives support Free Speech. No Socialists anywhere on this Planet support Free Speech. So why would our Socialists here be any different? Don't confuse this current Democratic Party with the Democratic Party of the past. Real Liberals like Juan Williams have already been purged from the Party and replaced with radical Socialist/Progressive creeps. People just need to become more informed and see what the Democratic Party is really all about these days.
> 
> Juan Williams was just another George Soros victim. Him and Media Matters were behind this firing. You can bet on that. Soros gives em $1.8 Million and a few days later a Fox News commentator is fired. And we're all supposed to be dummies and believe it's just coincidence? Yea well i don't believe in such coicidences. Just Defund NPR immediately and be done with it. They're a joke at this point.



"defund NPR?"

You seem to be under the mis-impression that I too was until recently: NPR doesn't receive much "public" funding (through taxation), and doesn't receive any funding in the Federal Budget.

NPR receives most funding through its "franchises" and through gifts like the one they received from Soros.

Essentially National Public Radio (NPR) is no more a "public" concern than the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC)......or FNC.


----------



## DiveCon

Samson said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing to me that so many still actually believe Socialists/Progressives support Free Speech. No Socialists anywhere on this Planet support Free Speech. So why would our Socialists here be any different? Don't confuse this current Democratic Party with the Democratic Party of the past. Real Liberals like Juan Williams have already been purged from the Party and replaced with radical Socialist/Progressive creeps. People just need to become more informed and see what the Democratic Party is really all about these days.
> 
> Juan Williams was just another George Soros victim. Him and Media Matters were behind this firing. You can bet on that. Soros gives em $1.8 Million and a few days later a Fox News commentator is fired. And we're all supposed to be dummies and believe it's just coincidence? Yea well i don't believe in such coicidences. Just Defund NPR immediately and be done with it. They're a joke at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "defund NPR?"
> 
> You seem to be under the mis-impression that I too was until recently: NPR doesn't receive much "public" funding (through taxation), and doesn't receive any funding in the Federal Budget.
> 
> NPR receives most funding through its "franchises" and through gifts like the one they received from Soros.
> 
> Essentially National Public Radio (NPR) is no more a "public" concern than the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC)......or FNC.
Click to expand...

if its so small, just end it
clearly they believe they dont NEED it


----------



## Moon

Progressive Lib said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always bewildered at the hard-core republican mindset.  Their world is crashing down around them yet they are blind-sided by the fear mongering going on that keeps them locked in their negative thinking regarding moving our country into the 21st century.  Republicans used to stand for "something", but today's republican is angry, negative, and fear-based...usually uber religious as well.  The current republican party is made up of ultra rich conservatives whose only welfare they are concerned with is their own.  Don't be fooled by the hate-filled rhetoric being thrown around by the republicans...they own you...and me.  I, for one, am doing all I am able to do on a personal level to make certain that my children and grandchildren are given the opportunity to become law-abiding, loving and caring individul who are concerned with all people of the world..not just a select few who believe themselves to be the elite of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans, on the other hand, are never bewildered by the hard-core leftie mindset. They understand the borg groupthink... and actively choose to engage in individual, critical thinking.
> 
> I am, however, fascinated that the left scream like fucking banshees about 'hate speech' from everyone else.... while completely ignoring the fact that they are engaging in 'hate speech' themselves. Double standards - I don't do those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitch is too nice of a word to use on you.  The "C" word is more appropriate.  What a sad and miserable person you present yourself to be.  You deserve what you get...and no doubt that is "not much."  No doubt in my mind that you are trailer trash.
Click to expand...


Classy.


----------



## Samson

DiveCon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing to me that so many still actually believe Socialists/Progressives support Free Speech. No Socialists anywhere on this Planet support Free Speech. So why would our Socialists here be any different? Don't confuse this current Democratic Party with the Democratic Party of the past. Real Liberals like Juan Williams have already been purged from the Party and replaced with radical Socialist/Progressive creeps. People just need to become more informed and see what the Democratic Party is really all about these days.
> 
> Juan Williams was just another George Soros victim. Him and Media Matters were behind this firing. You can bet on that. Soros gives em $1.8 Million and a few days later a Fox News commentator is fired. And we're all supposed to be dummies and believe it's just coincidence? Yea well i don't believe in such coicidences. Just Defund NPR immediately and be done with it. They're a joke at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "defund NPR?"
> 
> You seem to be under the mis-impression that I too was until recently: NPR doesn't receive much "public" funding (through taxation), and doesn't receive any funding in the Federal Budget.
> 
> NPR receives most funding through its "franchises" and through gifts like the one they received from Soros.
> 
> Essentially National Public Radio (NPR) is no more a "public" concern than the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC)......or FNC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if its so small, just end it
> clearly they believe they dont NEED it
Click to expand...


Yep...the dem-lite that's on FNC making like they will "punish" NPR with defunding are as always, full of shit.


----------



## DiveCon

Samson said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "defund NPR?"
> 
> You seem to be under the mis-impression that I too was until recently: NPR doesn't receive much "public" funding (through taxation), and doesn't receive any funding in the Federal Budget.
> 
> NPR receives most funding through its "franchises" and through gifts like the one they received from Soros.
> 
> Essentially National Public Radio (NPR) is no more a "public" concern than the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC)......or FNC.
> 
> 
> 
> if its so small, just end it
> clearly they believe they dont NEED it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep...the dem-lite that's on FNC making like they will "punish" NPR with defunding are as always, full of shit.
Click to expand...

i have been for defunding it for decades


----------



## Annie

Samson said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing to me that so many still actually believe Socialists/Progressives support Free Speech. No Socialists anywhere on this Planet support Free Speech. So why would our Socialists here be any different? Don't confuse this current Democratic Party with the Democratic Party of the past. Real Liberals like Juan Williams have already been purged from the Party and replaced with radical Socialist/Progressive creeps. People just need to become more informed and see what the Democratic Party is really all about these days.
> 
> Juan Williams was just another George Soros victim. Him and Media Matters were behind this firing. You can bet on that. Soros gives em $1.8 Million and a few days later a Fox News commentator is fired. And we're all supposed to be dummies and believe it's just coincidence? Yea well i don't believe in such coicidences. Just Defund NPR immediately and be done with it. They're a joke at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "defund NPR?"
> 
> You seem to be under the mis-impression that I too was until recently: NPR doesn't receive much "public" funding (through taxation), and doesn't receive any funding in the Federal Budget.
> 
> NPR receives most funding through its "franchises" and through gifts like the one they received from Soros.
> 
> Essentially National Public Radio (NPR) is no more a "public" concern than the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC)......or FNC.
Click to expand...


However those locals get money, that whole system needs to be eradicated, PBS too. I've no doubt PBS will survive, just as CSpan, History Channel, etc., do. Many will watch niche programming. NPR? Perhaps, they are strong in major markets, but radio is more cut throat even than television. They're marginal with all the funding.


----------



## Annie

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gicIFrumI_8
> 
> 
> 
> ok, she said it
> do you know for a fact she is wrong, misinformed, or outright lying?
> and if so, do you have proof to back it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are showing not only your utter stupidity in even giving the CON$ervative pathological liar the benefit of any doubt, but also the complete laziness of CON$ who want to be TOLD everything rather than research and think for themselves.
> Thank you.
> 
> Soros' father bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let 14 year old George live with him as his Christian godson.
> 
> Canadas Sun Media Apologizes to George Soros After Lawsuit Threat | Mediaite
> 
> Soros, who discussed his childhood in Nazi-occupied Hungary in a 1998 interview on CBS' 60 Minutes, was only a young teen during the Holocaust and was under the care of a Hungarian Agriculture Ministry employee, posing as his godson. On 60 Minutes, Soros said that he accompanied his "godfather" as he went to oversee the confiscation of property from Hungarian Jews.
> 
> As biographer Michael Kaufman wrote in Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire (page 37):
> 
> This is what actually happened. Shortly after George went to live with Baumbach, the man was assigned to take inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin. The Kornfeld family had the wealth, wisdom, and connections to be able to leave some of its belongings behind in exchange for permission to make their way to Lisbon. Baumbach was ordered to go to the Kornfeld estate and inventory the artworks, furnishings, and other property. Rather than leave his godson behind in Budapest for three days, he took the boy with him. As Baumbach itemized the material, George walked around the grounds and spent time with Kornfelds staff. It was his first visit to such a mansion, and the first time he rode a horse. He collaborated with no one and he paid attention to what he understood to be his primary responsibility: making sure that no one doubted that he was Sandor Kiss.
Click to expand...


Thank you for confirming my initial take, which is that he was too young to have collaborated with Nazis. 

Now, with what happened due to adults and his being saved, do you think it had some influence on causing his apparent antisemitism?


----------



## Samson

Annie said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing to me that so many still actually believe Socialists/Progressives support Free Speech. No Socialists anywhere on this Planet support Free Speech. So why would our Socialists here be any different? Don't confuse this current Democratic Party with the Democratic Party of the past. Real Liberals like Juan Williams have already been purged from the Party and replaced with radical Socialist/Progressive creeps. People just need to become more informed and see what the Democratic Party is really all about these days.
> 
> Juan Williams was just another George Soros victim. Him and Media Matters were behind this firing. You can bet on that. Soros gives em $1.8 Million and a few days later a Fox News commentator is fired. And we're all supposed to be dummies and believe it's just coincidence? Yea well i don't believe in such coicidences. Just Defund NPR immediately and be done with it. They're a joke at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "defund NPR?"
> 
> You seem to be under the mis-impression that I too was until recently: NPR doesn't receive much "public" funding (through taxation), and doesn't receive any funding in the Federal Budget.
> 
> NPR receives most funding through its "franchises" and through gifts like the one they received from Soros.
> 
> Essentially National Public Radio (NPR) is no more a "public" concern than the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC)......or FNC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However those locals get money, that whole system needs to be eradicated, PBS too. I've no doubt PBS will survive, just as CSpan, History Channel, etc., do. Many will watch niche programming. NPR? Perhaps, they are strong in major markets, but radio is more cut throat even than television. They're marginal with all the funding.
Click to expand...


The locals get money....from LOCAL donations, and sometimes from the STATE government, but _not from the Feds_ (at least, none that I've researched).

The point is that there's no advertising income, which makes PBS and NPR different from other programming.


----------



## Annie

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming my initial take, which is that he was too young to have collaborated with Nazis.
> 
> Now, with what happened due to adults and his being saved, do you think it had some influence on causing his apparent *antisemitism*?
> 
> 
> 
> An anti-semite Jew!!!  That's a good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you think they dont exist?
Click to expand...


They do. Soros is but one example.


----------



## mudwhistle

Queen said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that far right cons think he is a liberal, but that does not make it so.  However, I will leave that field to you guys.  Not worth arguing about tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's a Liberal in every sense.....he's just not so much an asshole about it. He's not a radical...which is part of the reason NPR wanted to fire him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think NPR is radical?
> 
> LOL!!!!
> 
> You've never listened, obviously.
Click to expand...


Obviously you don't know shit.

I listen alot.....especially the last couple of weeks.

First of all, numb-nuts...I didn't say NPR was radical. 

Second of all, NPR doesn't like anyone who is civil with the opposition.

Thirdly, NPR loves to feature stories on torture and human-rights violations. I know NPR's line-up. It comes right out of the Democrat talking-points.

So fuck right the hell off. No offense.


----------



## JamesMorrison

Progressive Lib said:


> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.



Well, yes the "republican agenda". Actions of those elected to government office after Reagan has not been much different then that of those in the Democratic party overall. But proto-Tea Partiers did rail against such expansion of our government during GW's administration also. They were ignored because most of the public has been conditioned to the small but incremental advance, year after year (from T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson onward) of the left in U.S. government. NCLB (no child left behind) and Medicare Part D are viewed just as badly as Obamacare by true conservatives.

However, placing the entire blame on a 'Bush era' Republican party is woefully inadequate finger pointing, at best. The financial downturn of recent years has its roots firmly entangled amongst many factors. Starting with the Carter era CRA (Community Reinvestment Act 1977) its use as an extortion tool by community groups such as ACORN during the Clinton administration through Alan Greenspan's Fed policy of cheap money and the resultant "irrational exuberance" as a contributing factor to the housing bubble through Barney Franks willingness to eschew the G.W. Bush administration's efforts to pare back Fannie and Freddie so he could "roll the dice" and have the U.S. taxpayer underwrite the future failure of those GSE's to a present day Rep. Frank who now admits he was in an 'ideological fog' of sorts when he set the stage for the housing debacle that continues to be one of the main causes of the present state of our financial affairs. The common thread that runs through all the above is central government meddling, is it not? Further, given past evidence, would it be too much to note that forgoing future government meddling (and eliminating much of that of the present) in the private economy might be just the ticket to pull us out of our present financial funk?

This brings us to your observation that "Change does not happen over night...". Indeed, given the subject, it does not. But given your hope for an Obama solution, and the fact President Obama has governed for the better part of two years at what point are we to consider the "night" to be over? When are we to notice the Obama magic taking effect?

Except for Cape and Trade ("...the rise of the oceans began to slow...") he has already established two out of three of his Main goals; health care and financial reform. Two out of three ain't bad" rightly says Meatloaf. Problem is none of this is what the majority of our citizens really want which is...jobs and an economy that actually looks like its coming back.



> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive


Not if you believe everything he stands for is wrong and, more importantly, everything he has done so far has been woefully unsuccessful in bringing this country back from the financial abyss. As for the "nasty division" you observed, get used to it. The country has reached a turning point. People have been self educating as to their rights and power as citizens. They have seen Greece and, now, France implode. They have witnessed Angela Merkel state that the PC multiculturalism in Europe is just not working. They have seen an apologetic Obama agenda that will soon give us the biggest sponsor of state terrorism, Iran, a nuclear bomb. They are not going to tolerate an Obama administration or its leftist enablers whose goal is increasing statism in America. The mindset is now to fight back. Compromise just means more of the same. Really, how good are ones principles if they are whittled away by compromise?

The question really is: At what point will you reach Thelma Hart's position where you, too, are "... exhausted. Exhausted of defending [Obama], defending [Obama's] administration...]? When will _your _dark "night" end?

JM


----------



## boedicca

Anyone who thinks the actions of the Reagan Administration weren't much different than Obama's is historically and economically illiterate.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Ravi

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gicIFrumI_8
> 
> 
> 
> ok, she said it
> do you know for a fact she is wrong, misinformed, or outright lying?
> and if so, do you have proof to back it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are showing not only your utter stupidity in even giving the CON$ervative pathological liar the benefit of any doubt, but also the complete laziness of CON$ who want to be TOLD everything rather than research and think for themselves.
> Thank you.
> 
> Soros' father bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let 14 year old George live with him as his "Christian" godson.
> 
> Canadas Sun Media Apologizes to George Soros After Lawsuit Threat | Mediaite
> 
> Soros, who discussed his childhood in Nazi-occupied Hungary in a 1998 interview on CBS' 60 Minutes, was only a young teen during the Holocaust and was under the care of a Hungarian Agriculture Ministry employee, posing as his godson. On 60 Minutes, Soros said that he accompanied his "godfather" as he went to oversee the confiscation of property from Hungarian Jews.
> 
> As biographer Michael Kaufman wrote in Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire (page 37):
> 
> This is what actually happened. Shortly after George went to live with Baumbach, the man was assigned to take inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin. The Kornfeld family had the wealth, wisdom, and connections to be able to leave some of its belongings behind in exchange for permission to make their way to Lisbon. Baumbach was ordered to go to the Kornfeld estate and inventory the artworks, furnishings, and other property. Rather than leave his godson behind in Budapest for three days, he took the boy with him. As Baumbach itemized the material, George walked around the grounds and spent time with Kornfelds staff. It was his first visit to such a mansion, and the first time he rode a horse. He collaborated with no one and he paid attention to what he understood to be his primary responsibility: making sure that no one doubted that he was Sandor Kiss.
Click to expand...

Prolly Coulter would have turned him in if she knew at the time.


----------



## edthecynic

Ravi said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, she said it
> do you know for a fact she is wrong, misinformed, or outright lying?
> and if so, do you have proof to back it up?
> 
> 
> 
> You are showing not only your utter stupidity in even giving the CON$ervative pathological liar the benefit of any doubt, but also the complete laziness of CON$ who want to be TOLD everything rather than research and think for themselves.
> Thank you.
> 
> Soros' father bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let 14 year old George live with him as his "Christian" godson.
> 
> Canadas Sun Media Apologizes to George Soros After Lawsuit Threat | Mediaite
> 
> Soros, who discussed his childhood in Nazi-occupied Hungary in a 1998 interview on CBS' 60 Minutes, was only a young teen during the Holocaust and was under the care of a Hungarian Agriculture Ministry employee, posing as his godson. On 60 Minutes, Soros said that he accompanied his "godfather" as he went to oversee the confiscation of property from Hungarian Jews.
> 
> As biographer Michael Kaufman wrote in Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire (page 37):
> 
> This is what actually happened. Shortly after George went to live with Baumbach, the man was assigned to take inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin. The Kornfeld family had the wealth, wisdom, and connections to be able to leave some of its belongings behind in exchange for permission to make their way to Lisbon. Baumbach was ordered to go to the Kornfeld estate and inventory the artworks, furnishings, and other property. Rather than leave his godson behind in Budapest for three days, he took the boy with him. As Baumbach itemized the material, George walked around the grounds and spent time with Kornfelds staff. It was his first visit to such a mansion, and the first time he rode a horse. He collaborated with no one and he paid attention to what he understood to be his primary responsibility: making sure that no one doubted that he was Sandor Kiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prolly Coulter would have turned him in if she knew at the time.
Click to expand...

For the Right price, of course.


----------



## saveliberty

NPR claims to reach 34 million listeners.  More than 10% of America?  I doubt that.

First interview with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing | Radio & TV Talk


----------



## Titanic Sailor

You stupid assholes. 

My understanding is they receive "420 MILLION" dollars FROM Uncle Obama. That means EWE pay for a government sponsored hate site.


----------



## taichiliberal

JamesMorrison said:


> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes the "republican agenda". Actions of those elected to government office after Reagan has not been much different then that of those in the Democratic party overall. But proto-Tea Partiers did rail against such expansion of our government during GW's administration also. They were ignored because most of the public has been conditioned to the small but incremental advance, year after year (from T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson onward) of the left in U.S. government. NCLB (no child left behind) and Medicare Part D are viewed just as badly as Obamacare by true conservatives.
> 
> However, placing the entire blame on a 'Bush era' Republican party is woefully inadequate finger pointing, at best. The financial downturn of recent years has its roots firmly entangled amongst many factors. Starting with the Carter era CRA (Community Reinvestment Act 1977) its use as an extortion tool by community groups such as ACORN during the Clinton administration through Alan Greenspan's Fed policy of cheap money and the resultant "irrational exuberance" as a contributing factor to the housing bubble through Barney Franks willingness to eschew the G.W. Bush administration's efforts to pare back Fannie and Freddie so he could "roll the dice" and have the U.S. taxpayer underwrite the future failure of those GSE's to a present day Rep. Frank who now admits he was in an 'ideological fog' of sorts when he set the stage for the housing debacle that continues to be one of the main causes of the present state of our financial affairs. The common thread that runs through all the above is central government meddling, is it not? Further, given past evidence, would it be too much to note that forgoing future government meddling (and eliminating much of that of the present) in the private economy might be just the ticket to pull us out of our present financial funk?
> 
> This brings us to your observation that "Change does not happen over night...". Indeed, given the subject, it does not. But given your hope for an Obama solution, and the fact President Obama has governed for the better part of two years at what point are we to consider the "night" to be over? When are we to notice the Obama magic taking effect?
> 
> Except for Cape and Trade ("...the rise of the oceans began to slow...") he has already established two out of three of his Main goals; health care and financial reform. Two out of three ain't bad" rightly says Meatloaf. Problem is none of this is what the majority of our citizens really want which is...jobs and an economy that actually looks like its coming back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe everything he stands for is wrong and, more importantly, everything he has done so far has been woefully unsuccessful in bringing this country back from the financial abyss. As for the "nasty division" you observed, get used to it. The country has reached a turning point. People have been self educating as to their rights and power as citizens. They have seen Greece and, now, France implode. They have witnessed Angela Merkel state that the PC multiculturalism in Europe is just not working. They have seen an apologetic Obama agenda that will soon give us the biggest sponsor of state terrorism, Iran, a nuclear bomb. They are not going to tolerate an Obama administration or its leftist enablers whose goal is increasing statism in America. The mindset is now to fight back. Compromise just means more of the same. Really, how good are ones principles if they are whittled away by compromise?
> 
> The question really is: At what point will you reach Thelma Hart's position where you, too, are "... exhausted. Exhausted of defending [Obama], defending [Obama's] administration...]? When will _your _dark "night" end?
> 
> JM
Click to expand...



Just to emphasize one of the major flaws in this analogy: Nowhere in the Community Reinvestment Act 1977 did it force banks to make bad loans...it "requested" that banks make the SAME type of loans available to minorities that it makes to the majority.  

I defy anyone to show me the language in the Act that stated otherwise.  Not someone's opinion, but the actual language.

It was the BANKS that made the bad loans, then bundle them with good loans and parlayed that on the open market, selling the "packages" to other banks.

Eventually this caused the problem we have today.


----------



## mudwhistle

saveliberty said:


> NPR claims to reach 34 million listeners.  More than 10% of America?  I doubt that.
> 
> First interview with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing | Radio & TV Talk



They must be talking about how many households still have radios in their homes.

Problem is most of them aren't tuned into that crap.


----------



## mudwhistle

taichiliberal said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes the "republican agenda". Actions of those elected to government office after Reagan has not been much different then that of those in the Democratic party overall. But proto-Tea Partiers did rail against such expansion of our government during GW's administration also. They were ignored because most of the public has been conditioned to the small but incremental advance, year after year (from T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson onward) of the left in U.S. government. NCLB (no child left behind) and Medicare Part D are viewed just as badly as Obamacare by true conservatives.
> 
> However, placing the entire blame on a 'Bush era' Republican party is woefully inadequate finger pointing, at best. The financial downturn of recent years has its roots firmly entangled amongst many factors. Starting with the Carter era CRA (Community Reinvestment Act 1977) its use as an extortion tool by community groups such as ACORN during the Clinton administration through Alan Greenspan's Fed policy of cheap money and the resultant "irrational exuberance" as a contributing factor to the housing bubble through Barney Franks willingness to eschew the G.W. Bush administration's efforts to pare back Fannie and Freddie so he could "roll the dice" and have the U.S. taxpayer underwrite the future failure of those GSE's to a present day Rep. Frank who now admits he was in an 'ideological fog' of sorts when he set the stage for the housing debacle that continues to be one of the main causes of the present state of our financial affairs. The common thread that runs through all the above is central government meddling, is it not? Further, given past evidence, would it be too much to note that forgoing future government meddling (and eliminating much of that of the present) in the private economy might be just the ticket to pull us out of our present financial funk?
> 
> This brings us to your observation that "Change does not happen over night...". Indeed, given the subject, it does not. But given your hope for an Obama solution, and the fact President Obama has governed for the better part of two years at what point are we to consider the "night" to be over? When are we to notice the Obama magic taking effect?
> 
> Except for Cape and Trade ("...the rise of the oceans began to slow...") he has already established two out of three of his Main goals; health care and financial reform. Two out of three ain't bad" rightly says Meatloaf. Problem is none of this is what the majority of our citizens really want which is...jobs and an economy that actually looks like its coming back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe everything he stands for is wrong and, more importantly, everything he has done so far has been woefully unsuccessful in bringing this country back from the financial abyss. As for the "nasty division" you observed, get used to it. The country has reached a turning point. People have been self educating as to their rights and power as citizens. They have seen Greece and, now, France implode. They have witnessed Angela Merkel state that the PC multiculturalism in Europe is just not working. They have seen an apologetic Obama agenda that will soon give us the biggest sponsor of state terrorism, Iran, a nuclear bomb. They are not going to tolerate an Obama administration or its leftist enablers whose goal is increasing statism in America. The mindset is now to fight back. Compromise just means more of the same. Really, how good are ones principles if they are whittled away by compromise?
> 
> The question really is: At what point will you reach Thelma Hart's position where you, too, are "... exhausted. Exhausted of defending [Obama], defending [Obama's] administration...]? When will _your _dark "night" end?
> 
> JM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just to emphasize one of the major flaws in this analogy: Nowhere in the Community Reinvestment Act 1977 did it force banks to make bad loans...it "requested" that banks make the SAME type of loans available to minorities that it makes to the majority.
> 
> I defy anyone to show me the language in the Act that stated otherwise.  Not someone's opinion, but the actual language.
> 
> It was the BANKS that made the bad loans, then bundle them with good loans and parlayed that on the open market, selling the "packages" to other banks.
> 
> Eventually this caused the problem we have today.
Click to expand...


The CRA was amended in subsequent years so it's not in it's original form. You're arguing about something that doesn't exist. If you want to know the new form of the law maybe you might want to look at it's current form.

The law encourages loans in poorer communities but would be huge risk for banks if not for government subsidies. 

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977: Definition from Answers.com

Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act o...: Information from Answers.com


----------



## chanel

One word:  Acorn.


----------



## NYcarbineer

saveliberty said:


> NPR claims to reach 34 million listeners.  More than 10% of America?  I doubt that.
> 
> First interview with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing | Radio & TV Talk




It was posting here I think, months ago.  The top 4 talk radio programs in America are:

1.  Rush Limbaugh
2.  "All Things Considered" (NPR)
3.  "Morning Edition" (NPR)
4.  Sean Hannity


----------



## Ame®icano

It started with Clinton regulations and forcing banks where lenders could lend, so they didn't have a choice but to lower lending standards or face gov't penalties. Clinton put well-intended Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 on steroids and with that he created market for subprime loans that he and Dems now decry as predatory and blaming Reps for it.

Only thing that Bush had to do with this is that he, McCain and few others tried to overhaul and regulate how Fannie and Freddie were run, but Dodd and Frank blocked the measure.

My wife used to work with Citi. The only way bank could decline the loan is based debt/income ratio or collateral. Anything else is against the law. To illustrate, you could be 99 years old and meet this criteria, you can get 30 year loan.

This could help understanding. "Bank Affirmative Action"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64[/ame]


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR claims to reach 34 million listeners.  More than 10% of America?  I doubt that.
> 
> First interview with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing | Radio & TV Talk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was posting here I think, months ago.  The top 4 talk radio programs in America are:
> 
> 1.  Rush Limbaugh
> 2.  "All Things Considered" (NPR)
> 3.  "Morning Edition" (NPR)
> 4.  Sean Hannity
Click to expand...


Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.


----------



## boedicca

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR claims to reach 34 million listeners.  More than 10% of America?  I doubt that.
> 
> First interview with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing | Radio & TV Talk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was posting here I think, months ago.  The top 4 talk radio programs in America are:
> 
> 1.  Rush Limbaugh
> 2.  "All Things Considered" (NPR)
> 3.  "Morning Edition" (NPR)
> 4.  Sean Hannity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.
Click to expand...




NPR must be counting listeners SAVED or Created.   Each time the same listener tunes in, they count him or her as a SAVED listener.


----------



## daveman

Progressive Lib said:


> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech rights are not an issue here.  That is a perfect example of what I just mentioned, i.e., the right having to take every episode and turn it into idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> And Juan was fired for speaking unapproved opinions.  Do keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which even if true, is not a free speech issue.  He might have indeed been wrongfully terminated in violation of his contract, but that is still not a free speech issue.
Click to expand...

I agree.  The issue is leftist intolerance for ideas that don't adhere to their narrow worldview.


----------



## daveman

Progressive Lib said:


> I thought their might be adults posting on this site.  I was wrong.  Obviously, from your lack of the ability to carry on a civil conversation, you aren't even old enough to vote.  Either that or you are missing some vital brain cells.  Either way, I'm out.   Dog help us if people like Christine O'Donnell are ever in political power.  America is filled with uneducated, fear-based ignorant people such as yourselves.  Maybe there are interesting people who have communication skils....none to be found here.


----------



## daveman

Progressive Lib said:


> Bitch is too nice of a word to use on you.  The "C" word is more appropriate.  What a sad and miserable person you present yourself to be.  You deserve what you get...and no doubt that is "not much."  No doubt in my mind that you are trailer trash.


Is that some of the "civil, adult conversation" you were looking for?

Moron.


----------



## NYcarbineer

daveman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Juan was fired for speaking unapproved opinions.  Do keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which even if true, is not a free speech issue.  He might have indeed been wrongfully terminated in violation of his contract, but that is still not a free speech issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.  The issue is leftist intolerance for ideas that don't adhere to their narrow worldview.
Click to expand...


NPR has conservative opinion on their news shows on a regular basis.


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which even if true, is not a free speech issue.  He might have indeed been wrongfully terminated in violation of his contract, but that is still not a free speech issue.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  The issue is leftist intolerance for ideas that don't adhere to their narrow worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NPR has conservative opinion on their news shows on a regular basis.
Click to expand...


Where they can control it.  They can't control what their folks say in other venues...except by firing them.


----------



## edthecynic

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR claims to reach 34 million listeners.  More than 10% of America?  I doubt that.
> 
> First interview with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing | Radio & TV Talk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was posting here I think, months ago.  The top 4 talk radio programs in America are:
> 
> 1.  Rush Limbaugh
> 2.  "All Things Considered" (NPR)
> 3.  "Morning Edition" (NPR)
> 4.  Sean Hannity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.
Click to expand...

Not only are you stupid enough to parrot Stuttering LimpTard's 25 million lie, but also you are stupid enough to think NPR is only one radio program when you list 2 NPR programs in your top 4.


----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR claims to reach 34 million listeners.  More than 10% of America?  I doubt that.
> 
> First interview with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing | Radio & TV Talk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was posting here I think, months ago.  The top 4 talk radio programs in America are:
> 
> 1.  Rush Limbaugh
> 2.  "All Things Considered" (NPR)
> 3.  "Morning Edition" (NPR)
> 4.  Sean Hannity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.
Click to expand...


Rush is on 3 hours a day.  NPR is on 24 hours a day.


----------



## Foxfyre

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR claims to reach 34 million listeners.  More than 10% of America?  I doubt that.
> 
> First interview with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing | Radio & TV Talk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was posting here I think, months ago.  The top 4 talk radio programs in America are:
> 
> 1.  Rush Limbaugh
> 2.  "All Things Considered" (NPR)
> 3.  "Morning Edition" (NPR)
> 4.  Sean Hannity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.
Click to expand...


According to Wiki, nothng on NPR makes the top list:

The Rush Limbaugh Show  15+ million 
The Sean Hannity Show  14+ million 
Glenn Beck Program  10+ million 
The Mark Levin Show  8.5+ million 
The Savage Nation  8.5+ million 
The Dave Ramsey Show  8+ million 
The Dr. Laura Program  8+ million 
The Neal Boortz Show  6+ million 
The Laura Ingraham Show  6+ million 

And among television news casts, the NEWS HOUR is the only PBS program that made the list up to 2004.  I'm still looking for something more recent:


----------



## Ame®icano




----------



## Angelhair

Oddball said:


> George Soros must be a racist!!!!
> 
> George Soros Millions Buying Political Reporters for NPR - Big Journalism



George Soros can be anything he wants - he is a MILLIONIARE - or is he a BILLIONIARE???


----------



## Foxfyre

Angelhair said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Soros must be a racist!!!!
> 
> George Soros Millions Buying Political Reporters for NPR - Big Journalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Soros can be anything he wants - he is a MILLIONIARE - or is he a BILLIONIARE???
Click to expand...


He's a multi billionaire who supports some of the sleaziest and most dishonest media attack groups in the country.  If I was NPR I would be embarrassed to admit that they have become another of his tools.  And it should raise everybody's antenna that a federally supported media source, however small the subsidy is, intended to represent all, will now have reporters in all states that have been bought and paid for by a politically active, highly partisan, ideologically radical citizen.

Yep.  Time to defund NPR and let them sink or swim on their own merits with the others now.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Foxfyre said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was posting here I think, months ago.  The top 4 talk radio programs in America are:
> 
> 1.  Rush Limbaugh
> 2.  "All Things Considered" (NPR)
> 3.  "Morning Edition" (NPR)
> 4.  Sean Hannity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Wiki, nothng on NPR makes the top list:
> 
> The Rush Limbaugh Show  15+ million
> The Sean Hannity Show  14+ million
> Glenn Beck Program  10+ million
> The Mark Levin Show  8.5+ million
> The Savage Nation  8.5+ million
> The Dave Ramsey Show  8+ million
> The Dr. Laura Program  8+ million
> The Neal Boortz Show  6+ million
> The Laura Ingraham Show  6+ million
> 
> And among television news casts, the NEWS HOUR is the only PBS program that made the list up to 2004.  I'm still looking for something more recent:
Click to expand...


That's a commercial radio list.

All Things Considered


----------



## Toro

NYcarbineer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Wiki, nothng on NPR makes the top list:
> 
> The Rush Limbaugh Show  15+ million
> The Sean Hannity Show  14+ million
> Glenn Beck Program  10+ million
> The Mark Levin Show  8.5+ million
> The Savage Nation  8.5+ million
> The Dave Ramsey Show  8+ million
> The Dr. Laura Program  8+ million
> The Neal Boortz Show  6+ million
> The Laura Ingraham Show  6+ million
> 
> And among television news casts, the NEWS HOUR is the only PBS program that made the list up to 2004.  I'm still looking for something more recent:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a commercial radio list.
> 
> All Things Considered
Click to expand...




> The audience for NPR's daily news programs, including "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered," reached a record last year, driven by widespread interest in the presidential election, and the general decline of radio news elsewhere. Washington-based NPR will release new figures to its stations today showing that the cumulative audience for its daily news programs hit 20.9 million a week, a 9 percent increase over the previous year. ...
> 
> While almost every news organization saw its audience spike during the political campaign last year, NPR's surge continues a trend that goes back to at least the fall of 2000, when the organization began aggregating audience data from hundreds of affiliated public stations across the country. NPR saw a big audience increase after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has added listeners since. Its audience has grown 47 percent since 2000, according to figures from Arbitron.



Good News for NPR: Its Most Listeners Ever - washingtonpost.com

NPR rocks.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.


----------



## DiveCon

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.


no one is crying, moron


----------



## boedicca

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.





No.  We're not calling for NPR not to exist.  We never cared that Williams appeared on both NPR and Fox.  It was you leftwing moonbats who couldn't handle the freedom he had to be on both.

Except for the fact that we have to pay for NPR's ability to attack us, we wouldn't even pay attention to their pathetic, low ratings organization.   

How about those of you who like it support it with your money and quit picking our pockets?


----------



## Immanuel

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.





DiveCon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> no one is crying, moron
Click to expand...


Nor do I recall anyone in the over 1,000 posts on this thread say that they wished NPR did not exist.  Comments I remember are that conservatives do not believe the American Taxpayer should be required to fund NPR which makes sense to me.  

Immie


----------



## DiveCon

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one is crying, moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor do I recall anyone in the over 1,000 posts on this thread say that they wished NPR did not exist.  Comments I remember are that conservatives do not believe the American Taxpayer should be required to fund NPR which makes sense to me.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

exactly


----------



## Charles_Main

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.



Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny. 

Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.

Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.

Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?


----------



## JamesMorrison

NYcarbineer said:


> So, Juan Williams just happens to make some remarks offensive to Muslims, on Fox, gets himself fired from NPR, and then just happens to have a fat contract with Foxnews fall out of the sky into his lap,  almost within hours.
> 
> There's a certain more-than-meets-the-eye to this whole drama.



Perhaps, but let's note some well known facts and apply Occam's razor. The trend in America in political thought has been ever leftward since the beginning of 20th century. Hell, even Teddy Roosevelt had a somewhat leftward domestic streak (his foreign policy was a different story). W. Wilson injected more of the Academics left leanings into the chief executive but it was the terms of FDR that really got the ball rolling for the left. Additionally the establishment of the Republican Party has increasingly adopted a 'Go along to Get along' mentality simply to stay relative and win some elections. This in spite of some of the best GOP victories were when they ran on their party's stated principles, but I digress. A good example of this establishment GOP strategy we just heard a few days ago when Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA) mentioned in a statement about governing and the 112th congress that the GOP would consider "compromises" in forming legislation (time is short so I won't even address how wrong headed this would be). I would submit that the American left is so ensconced in its beliefs it can no longer understand conservative values let alone tolerate them.

Accordingly, we see that the left has continually used the race card, class warfare, and now Political Correctness and name calling, in general, to cow any type of free speech (like Mr. Williams') that they disagree with. Looking at Juan's comments in question we see a painful awareness of this on his own part where he tries to shield himself: "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country." This, of course, was all to no avail. In this present day and age we can now all identify with this. They (NPR) were gunning for Juan and admit to that in their own statement re his shoddily handled dismissal.

Simply put: NPR feels Mr. Williams is not sufficiently to the left. The proof is Nina Totenberg's continued employment by NPR. Given Mr. Williams past opinions and Ms. Totenberg's and given NPR's treatment of both we now know who NPR agrees with and it is not Mr. Williams' moderate liberal/progressivism. Further proof is found when looking at NPR's acceptance of opinions from correspondent Totenberg and rejection of those from Analyst Williams. NPR accepts those opinions from an entity that is supposed to be unbiased (Just the Truth M'am) while rejecting the work product of another that's very purpose is to come to conclusions and then so voice his opinion.

You must agree that _fair and balanced _FOX would be foolish not to double down on Juan.

Conclusion: NPR feels Juan is a liability, FOX found an excellent opportunity to burnish its "Fair and Balanced" credentials, after all, Mr. Williams was already working for FOX. 

Sadly NPR CEO Vivian Schiller exhibited some symptoms of 'foot in mouth' disease when she added that Juan Williams should have kept his feelings, if not to himself, then between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist". So the left had no problem calling him crazy, now he knows how those in the Tea Party feel. Perhaps, he might be a bit angry also?

JM


----------



## Charles_Main

NYcarbineer said:


> So, Juan Williams just happens to make some remarks offensive to Muslims, on Fox, gets himself fired from NPR, and then just happens to have a fat contract with Foxnews fall out of the sky into his lap,  almost within hours.
> 
> There's a certain more-than-meets-the-eye to this whole drama.


Roflmao I was wondering how long the left would wait to start the Conspiracy theories on this one


----------



## JamesMorrison

taichiliberal said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Lib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things?  The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now.  Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive.  The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now.  Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard.   He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November.  The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me.  Time for all to wake up and take back our power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes the "republican agenda". Actions of those elected to government office after Reagan has not been much different then that of those in the Democratic party overall. But proto-Tea Partiers did rail against such expansion of our government during GW's administration also. They were ignored because most of the public has been conditioned to the small but incremental advance, year after year (from T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson onward) of the left in U.S. government. NCLB (no child left behind) and Medicare Part D are viewed just as badly as Obamacare by true conservatives.
> 
> However, placing the entire blame on a 'Bush era' Republican party is woefully inadequate finger pointing, at best. The financial downturn of recent years has its roots firmly entangled amongst many factors. Starting with the Carter era CRA (Community Reinvestment Act 1977) its use as an extortion tool by community groups such as ACORN during the Clinton administration through Alan Greenspan's Fed policy of cheap money and the resultant "irrational exuberance" as a contributing factor to the housing bubble through Barney Franks willingness to eschew the G.W. Bush administration's efforts to pare back Fannie and Freddie so he could "roll the dice" and have the U.S. taxpayer underwrite the future failure of those GSE's to a present day Rep. Frank who now admits he was in an 'ideological fog' of sorts when he set the stage for the housing debacle that continues to be one of the main causes of the present state of our financial affairs. The common thread that runs through all the above is central government meddling, is it not? Further, given past evidence, would it be too much to note that forgoing future government meddling (and eliminating much of that of the present) in the private economy might be just the ticket to pull us out of our present financial funk?
> 
> This brings us to your observation that "Change does not happen over night...". Indeed, given the subject, it does not. But given your hope for an Obama solution, and the fact President Obama has governed for the better part of two years at what point are we to consider the "night" to be over? When are we to notice the Obama magic taking effect?
> 
> Except for Cape and Trade ("...the rise of the oceans began to slow...") he has already established two out of three of his Main goals; health care and financial reform. Two out of three ain't bad" rightly says Meatloaf. Problem is none of this is what the majority of our citizens really want which is...jobs and an economy that actually looks like its coming back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe everything he stands for is wrong and, more importantly, everything he has done so far has been woefully unsuccessful in bringing this country back from the financial abyss. As for the "nasty division" you observed, get used to it. The country has reached a turning point. People have been self educating as to their rights and power as citizens. They have seen Greece and, now, France implode. They have witnessed Angela Merkel state that the PC multiculturalism in Europe is just not working. They have seen an apologetic Obama agenda that will soon give us the biggest sponsor of state terrorism, Iran, a nuclear bomb. They are not going to tolerate an Obama administration or its leftist enablers whose goal is increasing statism in America. The mindset is now to fight back. Compromise just means more of the same. Really, how good are ones principles if they are whittled away by compromise?
> 
> The question really is: At what point will you reach Thelma Hart's position where you, too, are "... exhausted. Exhausted of defending [Obama], defending [Obama's] administration...]? When will _your _dark "night" end?
> 
> JM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just to emphasize one of the major flaws in this analogy: Nowhere in the Community Reinvestment Act 1977 did it force banks to make bad loans...it "requested" that banks make the SAME type of loans available to minorities that it makes to the majority.
> 
> I defy anyone to show me the language in the Act that stated otherwise.  Not someone's opinion, but the actual language.
> 
> It was the BANKS that made the bad loans, then bundle them with good loans and parlayed that on the open market, selling the "packages" to other banks.
> 
> Eventually this caused the problem we have today.
Click to expand...


Not to nit pick, but it was not analogy it was a general statement of facts. Also your attribution in your first paragraph is incorrect. I did not say the CRA forced banks to make "bad loans". In fact, after the mention of the CRA, I qualified how its 
"use as an extortion tool by community groups such as ACORN during the Clinton administration" was one of many in a string of government actions. ACORN, and community groups like it were able to use this well intentioned Act as a club to force banks to loan to minorities that were of dubious creditworthiness. If the banks balked these groups would threaten DOJ action and also picket various branches of the bank. Banks are very conservative businesses and abhor such PR. Admittedly this is a simplistic version of the process, but it only describes part of it.

So we need to address another of your post:





> It was the BANKS that made the bad loans, then bundle them with good loans and parlayed that on the open market, selling the "packages" to other banks.
> 
> Eventually this caused the problem we have today



This reminds me of the logical simplicity of South Park's Underwear Gnomes' business model:

1. Obtain underwear
2. Dum Di Dummmm....
3. Profit!

First, do you have a link I may visit to convince me that the banks mixed the 'good' loans in with the 'bad' loans? I recall one of the other problems was those few rating agencies the government, essentially, allowed to have monopolistic control (there's really only four) over rating these financial instruments (your "packages") fumbled the ball and over rated the packages especially the packages known as sub-prime mortgages. More government meddling.

You bring up an extremely important point, which is that banks then sold off the MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) to other companies. You seem to agree that the banks made bad loans. But why would they do so? How did they make money? As you imply they made their money by collecting a fee for originating the loan and then passing on the bad debt by selling the problem to another company. You are correct, of course. Mozila's firm Countrywide did exactly this and made tons of money...before (later in this scenario) they were forced to sell out to BOA.

But who would be so foolish as to buy Alt-A or 'liar loans' labeled as sub-prime? Would anyone buy Sub-Prime beef for their beloved family? The answer is Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in the ultimate form of the GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But where did Barney and Chris get all this money? Well, us, the U.S. taxpayer. Barney decided to "roll the dice" on our dime. GW said no Barney said yes, and Bush went 'moderate' on us and we all payed the price. Whatever would we do without our wise government?

JM


----------



## edthecynic

TheT said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which proves the axiom? If you place a flaming bag of bullsqueeze at a Statists' doorstep? They go way out of their way to step in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was Mike Huckabee who has called for de-funding NPR. Now when the Republicans get the House and the Senate and are faced with budget cuts.. it may come time to put NPR on the shelf or let the libtards fund it on their own dime. then,, *as Air America went so goes NPR.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No question. It needs to go. *The taxpayers should not be forced to fund PC crap funded by their dollar that is intolerant of opposing views.
Click to expand...




Charles_Main said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny. *
> 
> *Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. *All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.
> 
> Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.
> 
> Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?
Click to expand...

That's Right, Only Right-Wingers are allowed to misstate Left-Winger's intentions. 

And make no mistake about it, EVERY CON$ervative wants NPR "to go."


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> TheT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Mike Huckabee who has called for de-funding NPR. Now when the Republicans get the House and the Senate and are faced with budget cuts.. *it may come time to put NPR on the shelf or let the libtards fund it on their own dime. then*,, *as Air America went so goes NPR.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No question. It needs to go.The taxpayers should not be forced to fund PC crap funded by their dollar that is intolerant of opposing views.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny. *
> 
> *Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. *All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.
> 
> Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.
> 
> Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's Right, Only Right-Wingers are allowed to misstate Left-Winger's intentions.
> 
> And make no mistake about it, EVERY CON$ervative wants NPR "to go."
Click to expand...

thats talking about the FUNDING, you fucking moron


----------



## WillowTree

edthecynic said:


> TheT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Mike Huckabee who has called for de-funding NPR. Now when the Republicans get the House and the Senate and are faced with budget cuts.. it may come time to put NPR on the shelf or let the libtards fund it on their own dime. then,, *as Air America went so goes NPR.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No question. It needs to go. *The taxpayers should not be forced to fund PC crap funded by their dollar that is intolerant of opposing views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny. *
> 
> *Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. *All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.
> 
> Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.
> 
> Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's Right, Only Right-Wingers are allowed to misstate Left-Winger's intentions.
> 
> And make no mistake about it, EVERY CON$ervative wants NPR "to go."
Click to expand...


We just want them de nutted.


----------



## FlyingReganite

The tolerable Left at it's finest once again.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Charles_Main said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny.
> 
> Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.
> 
> Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.
> 
> Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?
Click to expand...


NPR is National PUBLIC Radio.  It is National PUBLIC Radio because it receives PUBLIC funding.  You want to take away the PUBLIC funding, therefore it would no longer be National PUBLIC Radio, therefore National PUBLIC Radio would no longer exist.  

thus, you wish it did not exist.

BTW, why do you want to punish the entire organization for what at the very worst is the fault of ONE person, i.e., the person who fired Juan Williams?   Well, I guess people who want to punish all Muslims for the wrongdoing of a few just think that way generally.

I'm guessing though, that there wouldn't be much call for punishing all of Foxnews if one individual did something you thought was wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer

FlyingReganite said:


> The tolerable Left at it's finest once again.



Why are you broadbrushing 'the left'?  Are you mentally retarded?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JamesMorrison said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Juan Williams just happens to make some remarks offensive to Muslims, on Fox, gets himself fired from NPR, and then just happens to have a fat contract with Foxnews fall out of the sky into his lap,  almost within hours.
> 
> There's a certain more-than-meets-the-eye to this whole drama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but let's note some well known facts and apply Occam's razor. The trend in America in political thought has been ever leftward since the beginning of 20th century. Hell, even Teddy Roosevelt had a somewhat leftward domestic streak (his foreign policy was a different story). W. Wilson injected more of the Academics left leanings into the chief executive but it was the terms of FDR that really got the ball rolling for the left. Additionally the establishment of the Republican Party has increasingly adopted a 'Go along to Get along' mentality simply to stay relative and win some elections. This in spite of some of the best GOP victories were when they ran on their party's stated principles, but I digress. A good example of this establishment GOP strategy we just heard a few days ago when Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA) mentioned in a statement about governing and the 112th congress that the GOP would consider "compromises" in forming legislation (time is short so I won't even address how wrong headed this would be). I would submit that the American left is so ensconced in its beliefs it can no longer understand conservative values let alone tolerate them.
> 
> Accordingly, we see that the left has continually used the race card, class warfare, and now Political Correctness and name calling, in general, to cow any type of free speech (like Mr. Williams') that they disagree with. Looking at Juan's comments in question we see a painful awareness of this on his own part where he tries to shield himself: "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country." This, of course, was all to no avail. In this present day and age we can now all identify with this. They (NPR) were gunning for Juan and admit to that in their own statement re his shoddily handled dismissal.
> 
> Simply put: NPR feels Mr. Williams is not sufficiently to the left. The proof is Nina Totenberg's continued employment by NPR. Given Mr. Williams past opinions and Ms. Totenberg's and given NPR's treatment of both we now know who NPR agrees with and it is not Mr. Williams' moderate liberal/progressivism. Further proof is found when looking at NPR's acceptance of opinions from correspondent Totenberg and rejection of those from Analyst Williams. NPR accepts those opinions from an entity that is supposed to be unbiased (Just the Truth M'am) while rejecting the work product of another that's very purpose is to come to conclusions and then so voice his opinion.
> 
> You must agree that _fair and balanced _FOX would be foolish not to double down on Juan.
> 
> Conclusion: NPR feels Juan is a liability, FOX found an excellent opportunity to burnish its "Fair and Balanced" credentials, after all, Mr. Williams was already working for FOX.
> 
> Sadly NPR CEO Vivian Schiller exhibited some symptoms of 'foot in mouth' disease when she added that Juan Williams should have kept his feelings, if not to himself, then between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist". So the left had no problem calling him crazy, now he knows how those in the Tea Party feel. Perhaps, he might be a bit angry also?
> 
> JM
Click to expand...


NPR has conservative commentary on all the time so your premise is false.


----------



## California Girl

NYcarbineer said:


> FlyingReganite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tolerable Left at it's finest once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you broadbrushing 'the left'?  Are you mentally retarded?
Click to expand...


Pot.

Kettle.

Black. 

Much?


----------



## NYcarbineer

DiveCon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> no one is crying, moron
Click to expand...


Do you want to deny that there has long been a desire on the right to defund public broadcasting, long before this stupid incident?

Comon, deny that.  I dare you.


----------



## Samson

NYcarbineer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> no one is crying, moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want to deny that there has long been a desire on the right to defund public broadcasting, long before this stupid incident?
> 
> Comon, deny that.  I dare you.
Click to expand...


The desire to defund public broadcasting is a pretty easy ploy for "the right" to pursue: There really is no funding for NPR outside of frachising fees and individual gifts.


----------



## DiveCon

NYcarbineer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> no one is crying, moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want to deny that there has long been a desire on the right to defund public broadcasting, long before this stupid incident?
> 
> Comon, deny that.  I dare you.
Click to expand...

and that equals "crying" to you?
you really are fucking pathetic


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FlyingReganite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tolerable Left at it's finest once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you broadbrushing 'the left'?  Are you mentally retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot.
> 
> Kettle.
> 
> Black.
> 
> Much?
Click to expand...


Do you see 'the left' uniformly supporting the firing of Juan Williams?  No.  Do you see widespread support for Williams on the left?  Yes.

Therefore, any claim that this incident involves any intolerance that is representative of sufficient consensus on the left for one to be able to reasonably assign that intolerance broadly TO the left, is,

in the vernacular,

retarded.


----------



## Ravi

Toro said:


> NPR rocks.


Jeesh...what a commie!


----------



## NYcarbineer

DiveCon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is crying, moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to deny that there has long been a desire on the right to defund public broadcasting, long before this stupid incident?
> 
> Comon, deny that.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that equals "crying" to you?
> you really are fucking pathetic
Click to expand...


Comon, deny it.  Or admit I'm right.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Samson said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is crying, moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to deny that there has long been a desire on the right to defund public broadcasting, long before this stupid incident?
> 
> Comon, deny that.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The desire to defund public broadcasting is a pretty easy ploy for "the right" to pursue: There really is no funding for NPR outside of frachising fees and individual gifts.
Click to expand...


This has been a pet issue for conservatives for decades.  Truth is, the American people broadly support public broadcasting, as I said yesterday, even the reddest of the red states fund public broadcasting, and,

to many on the right, that's just one more losing issue in their big bag of losing issues that galls them to no end.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No question. It needs to go.The taxpayers should not be forced to fund PC crap funded by their dollar that is intolerant of opposing views.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny. *
> 
> *Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. *All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.
> 
> Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.
> 
> Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's Right, Only Right-Wingers are allowed to misstate Left-Winger's intentions.
> 
> And make no mistake about it, EVERY CON$ervative wants NPR "to go."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *thats talking about the FUNDING,* you fucking moron
Click to expand...

That's talking about the FUNDING as the MEANS to get NPR to* GO*, SUCKER!!!


----------



## Intense

NYcarbineer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> no one is crying, moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want to deny that there has long been a desire on the right to defund public broadcasting, long before this stupid incident?
> 
> Comon, deny that.  I dare you.
Click to expand...


Jesus, Talk about painting with a broad brush, Dip Shit!!!

I ain't crying over NPR one way or the other. Juan got Freight Trained by NPR, now it is coming around and biting them in the ass, Moron. What They did was wrong, that is why buttons were pushed, Asshole. If they did it to you, I would react the same way. Now get your head out of your ass.


----------



## NYcarbineer

boedicca said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,
> 
> crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.
> 
> The irony, once you think about it, is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  We're not calling for NPR not to exist.  We never cared that Williams appeared on both NPR and Fox.  It was you leftwing moonbats who couldn't handle the freedom he had to be on both.
> 
> Except for the fact that we have to pay for NPR's ability to attack us, we wouldn't even pay attention to their pathetic, low ratings organization.
> 
> How about those of you who like it support it with your money and quit picking our pockets?
Click to expand...


You do realize that government funding of public broadcasting occurs via the democratic process, right?

You must hate the democratic process if you don't believe that if most people in your state, or at the federal level, want to fund public broadcasting,

that it should be funded.

How would YOU solve that problem?  More rightwing magic?  Maybe a legislative process where whichever side gets the fewer votes, that's the side that passes??

  More crybabying from the outnumbered.


----------



## Samson

NYcarbineer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to deny that there has long been a desire on the right to defund public broadcasting, long before this stupid incident?
> 
> Comon, deny that.  I dare you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The desire to defund public broadcasting is a pretty easy ploy for "the right" to pursue: There really is no funding for NPR outside of frachising fees and individual gifts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has been a pet issue for conservatives for decades.  Truth is, the American people broadly support public broadcasting, as I said yesterday, even the reddest of the red states fund public broadcasting, and,
> 
> to many on the right, that's just one more losing issue in their big bag of losing issues that galls them to no end.
Click to expand...


Well, I wouldn't know how to extrapolate this to a "big bag of losing issues."

However, "Defunding" NPR is certainly a non-issue that Dem-lites are leaping upon to make themselves look effectually conservative, when in fact only but the most moronic cannot see it as a ridiculously transparent ploy to pander to the Tea Party.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Intense said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is crying, moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to deny that there has long been a desire on the right to defund public broadcasting, long before this stupid incident?
> 
> Comon, deny that.  I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus, Talk about painting with a broad brush, Dip Shit!!!
> 
> I ain't crying over NPR one way or the other. Juan got Freight Trained by NPR, now it is coming around and biting them in the ass, Moron. What They did was wrong, that is why buttons were pushed, Asshole. If they did it to you, I would react the same way. Now get your head out of your ass.
Click to expand...


So YOU are denying that the right has long desired to defund PBS/NPR etc.?  Are we rewriting history here or what?

oh, and just so you're up to date, I've already said more than once that I didn't think he should have been fired.  That is based on the information I have, which, as is almost everyone else's information here, LACKING the knowledge of what sort of contract he had.


----------



## DiveCon

NYcarbineer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to deny that there has long been a desire on the right to defund public broadcasting, long before this stupid incident?
> 
> Comon, deny that.  I dare you.
> 
> 
> 
> and that equals "crying" to you?
> you really are fucking pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comon, deny it.  Or admit I'm right.
Click to expand...

diposhiot, you are wrong because you are claiming there is "crying"
your too fucking stupid or dishonest might be the better word, to actually admit it


----------



## NYcarbineer

Samson said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The desire to defund public broadcasting is a pretty easy ploy for "the right" to pursue: There really is no funding for NPR outside of frachising fees and individual gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been a pet issue for conservatives for decades.  Truth is, the American people broadly support public broadcasting, as I said yesterday, even the reddest of the red states fund public broadcasting, and,
> 
> to many on the right, that's just one more losing issue in their big bag of losing issues that galls them to no end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I wouldn't know how to extrapolate this to a "big bag of losing issues."
> 
> However, "Defunding" NPR is certainly a non-issue that Dem-lites are leaping upon to make themselves look effectually conservative, when in fact only but the most moronic cannot see it as a ridiculously transparent ploy to pander to the Tea Party.
Click to expand...


I see the whole episode as one more shining example of how the rightwing propaganda machine is prone to take an issue like this and blow it spectacularly out of proportion.

Maybe they just do that to make it more fun for people like me.  I agree that he shouldn't have gotten fired, and I still get to pummel righties for going mental over it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

DiveCon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that equals "crying" to you?
> you really are fucking pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comon, deny it.  Or admit I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> diposhiot, you are wrong because you are claiming there is "crying"
> your too fucking stupid or dishonest might be the better word, to actually admit it
Click to expand...


I just used 'going mental'.  Is that preferable?  How about 'pissing and moaning'? 'throwing a fit'?  going apoplectic?  freaking out?


----------



## DiveCon

NYcarbineer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comon, deny it.  Or admit I'm right.
> 
> 
> 
> diposhiot, you are wrong because you are claiming there is "crying"
> your too fucking stupid or dishonest might be the better word, to actually admit it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just used 'going mental'.  Is that preferable?  How about 'pissing and moaning'? 'throwing a fit'?  going apoplectic?  freaking out?
Click to expand...

none of that is going on either
you remain pathetic


----------



## WillowTree

I cannot wait until Juan and Vivian testify before the Congress. Going to be farking cool.


----------



## Intense

NYcarbineer said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to deny that there has long been a desire on the right to defund public broadcasting, long before this stupid incident?
> 
> Comon, deny that.  I dare you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, Talk about painting with a broad brush, Dip Shit!!!
> 
> I ain't crying over NPR one way or the other. Juan got Freight Trained by NPR, now it is coming around and biting them in the ass, Moron. What They did was wrong, that is why buttons were pushed, Asshole. If they did it to you, I would react the same way. Now get your head out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So YOU are denying that the right has long desired to defund PBS/NPR etc.?  Are we rewriting history here or what?
> 
> oh, and just so you're up to date, I've already said more than once that I didn't think he should have been fired.  That is based on the information I have, which, as is almost everyone else's information here, LACKING the knowledge of what sort of contract he had.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what the Contract said, that's just an excuse. Same goes for Mara. Why should the Government fund any TV or Radio Network today????? They all sell Advertising. How is NPR different than ABC, NBC, or CBS even????? Time to take off the training wheels, don't you think????? Long past the Kiddie Pool, water wing day's, wouldn't you say. You know that burden that you like to place on other adults, that pay your way thing, that comes out of our compensation every fucking day of our lives????? Why should NPR not just suck it up, and pay their fair share????? Ho0w much Tax are they exempt from that their competitors pay??? Property Taxes??? City??? State??? Federal???


----------



## saveliberty

It is clear to see from the NPR incident, throwing your fellow liberals under the bus is SOP.  I suspect Vivian botes it early next week and NPR defunding led by Democrats will be next.


----------



## WillowTree

saveliberty said:


> It is clear to see from the NPR incident, throwing your fellow liberals under the bus is SOP.  I suspect Vivian botes it early next week and NPR defunding led by Democrats will be next.



Yep, her sorry ass can crawl between the sheets and do service to soros. Happy trials to her.


----------



## Foxfyre

Maybe somebody else remembers this, but somewhere in my memory banks I seem to recall that the NAACP once strongly criticized NPR and PBS for their lily white program staff.   And THAT was when NPR contracted with Juan Williams who must have been convinced he wasn't their 'token black' or I don't think he would have accepted the job.

Now that same NAACP is ominously silent when Juan is sacked for political incorrectness?

Or am I dreaming about the NAACP criticism?


----------



## Kat

Meister said:


> Let's get this thread back on topic, or it's going to get moved to the Romper Room





It would be nice if ONE thread didn't end up in the name calling contest. I was enjoying this thread. Was.


----------



## Kat

Foxfyre said:


> Maybe somebody else remembers this, but somewhere in my memory banks I seem to recall that the NAACP once strongly criticized NPR and PBS for their lily white program staff.   And THAT was when NPR contracted with Juan Williams who must have been convinced he wasn't their 'token black' or I don't think he would have accepted the job.
> 
> Now that same NAACP is ominously silent when Juan is sacked for political incorrectness?
> 
> Or am I dreaming about the NAACP criticism?





I can't remember that. Did you do a search on it?


----------



## Kat

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> some of it should be split off as it is already
> LOL
> you can start with ed's first post
> 
> 
> 
> I live rent free inside your empty head, CRYBABY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, cause "LOL" means i'm crying
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Kat said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe somebody else remembers this, but somewhere in my memory banks I seem to recall that the NAACP once strongly criticized NPR and PBS for their lily white program staff.   And THAT was when NPR contracted with Juan Williams who must have been convinced he wasn't their 'token black' or I don't think he would have accepted the job.
> 
> Now that same NAACP is ominously silent when Juan is sacked for political incorrectness?
> 
> Or am I dreaming about the NAACP criticism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember that. Did you do a search on it?
Click to expand...


Yes, but that would have been 10 years ago and liberal vs liberal so there probably wouldn't be a lot of media attention given to it and what there would be is buried deep inside search engines.  If it happened at all.  I could be remembering something else.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe somebody else remembers this, but somewhere in my memory banks I seem to recall that the NAACP once strongly criticized NPR and PBS for their lily white program staff.   And THAT was when NPR contracted with Juan Williams who must have been convinced he wasn't their 'token black' or I don't think he would have accepted the job.
> 
> Now that same NAACP is ominously silent when Juan is sacked for political incorrectness?
> 
> Or am I dreaming about the NAACP criticism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember that. Did you do a search on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but that would have been 10 years ago and liberal vs liberal so there probably wouldn't be a lot of media attention given to it and what there would be is buried deep inside search engines.  If it happened at all.  I could be remembering something else.
Click to expand...


I lose a surprising amount of Octoerotic Art the same way.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Maybe somebody else remembers this, but somewhere in my memory banks I seem to recall that the NAACP once strongly criticized NPR and PBS for their lily white program staff.   And THAT was when NPR contracted with Juan Williams who must have been convinced he wasn't their 'token black' or I don't think he would have accepted the job.
> 
> Now that same NAACP is ominously silent when Juan is sacked for political incorrectness?
> 
> Or am I dreaming about the NAACP criticism?


No way! NPR only hires people to pander to the minorities in the country.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe somebody else remembers this, but somewhere in my memory banks I seem to recall that the NAACP once strongly criticized NPR and PBS for their lily white program staff.   And THAT was when NPR contracted with Juan Williams who must have been convinced he wasn't their 'token black' or I don't think he would have accepted the job.
> 
> Now that same NAACP is ominously silent when Juan is sacked for political incorrectness?
> 
> Or am I dreaming about the NAACP criticism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember that. Did you do a search on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but that would have been 10 years ago and liberal vs liberal so there probably wouldn't be a lot of media attention given to it and what there would be is buried deep inside search engines.  If it happened at all.  I could be remembering something else.
Click to expand...

No doubt George Soros paid to have it buried.


----------



## Meister

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe somebody else remembers this, but somewhere in my memory banks I seem to recall that the NAACP once strongly criticized NPR and PBS for their lily white program staff.   And THAT was when NPR contracted with Juan Williams who must have been convinced he wasn't their 'token black' or I don't think he would have accepted the job.
> 
> Now that same NAACP is ominously silent when Juan is sacked for political incorrectness?
> 
> Or am I dreaming about the NAACP criticism?
> 
> 
> 
> No way! NPR only hires people to pander to the minorities in the country.
Click to expand...


Finally...you do understand.


----------



## saveliberty

Did Ravi just type that for ALL to see?  I think that is NPR editorializing, sorry Ravi, your fired.


----------



## Intense

saveliberty said:


> Did Ravi just type that for ALL to see?  I think that is NPR editorializing, sorry Ravi, your fired.



Sorry SaveLiberty.... The Collective does not support your position, and furthermore finds it offensive..... You are Fired!!!!! 

I think up is up and down is down, there I said it.... I know it is only a matter of time now before someone gets offended and reports me. 
     

I better get to work on my Resume. ; 

I'm watching Stossel right now. I really hope he is only kidding about boiling a frog to prove a point.


----------



## JamesMorrison

Remember 18 years ago when Jesse Jackson said "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery &#8230; then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved"?

Was Juan channeling The Rev. Jackson while on Bill O'reilly's show?

JM


----------



## Intense

JamesMorrison said:


> Remember 18 years ago when Jesse Jackson said "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery  then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved"?
> 
> Was Juan channeling The Rev. Jackson while on Bill O'reilly's show?
> 
> JM



Urban people are not all idiots. I know people, who, regardless of what Race they call themselves, will avoid certain streets or area's at certain times out of prudence. The Bullshit is in putting PC over common sense or safety. I can't believe I was stupid enough once to actually vote for Jesse. Now is as good a time as any to apologize to the Universe for my ignorance. I apologize Universe.


----------



## JamesMorrison

Intense said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember 18 years ago when Jesse Jackson said "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery  then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved"?
> 
> Was Juan channeling The Rev. Jackson while on Bill O'reilly's show?
> 
> JM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urban people are not all idiots. I know people, who, regardless of what Race they call themselves, will avoid certain streets or area's at certain times out of prudence. The Bullshit is in putting PC over common sense or safety. I can't believe I was stupid enough once to actually vote for Jesse. Now is as good a time as any to apologize to the Universe for my ignorance. I apologize Universe.
Click to expand...


Obviously, the vey fact that you have been paying attention and using past experience and present facts to come to the above conclusion argues against the possibility of stupidity on your part. The Democratic party has lost the battle with the left and is now being consumed by them. There are only two types of people or groups that feel the donkys are correct. Those that need it to exert power over others and those subjects that believe what the first group tells them. The NAACP (a member of the first group) now feels it necessary to attack Tea Partiers with the race card, still, ignoring those downtrodden blacks and their children (members of the second group) and their travails regarding unemployment and depolorable intercity schools. Of course, if the NAACP chose to actually do something about black kids education they would bump into the fiefdom of another arm of the Social Democratic Party, the teachers' unions. Maybe blacks can hope for the formation of a NAACP,R (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,...Really) but I'm not holding my breath.

JM


----------



## JamesMorrison

Oh, let me ask you guys: Intense has mentioned the PC thing, do you think it possible the the Left's Muslim PC and Black PC things might possibly collide somewhere down the line?

Could there come a time where muslims play their religion card and threaten groups like the NAACP's victimhood turf?
Also, has anybody seen any studies or polls that would tell us the political demographics of the U.S.'s Muslim population? Any GOP fans in the Muslim community? Or would such a poll have to wait for a more PC friendly environment? Just asking, don't want to stir up any trouble here. 

JM


----------



## Sunni Man

Before and after the first Gulf War most Muslims voted Republican.

It wasn't until Bush Jr.'s second election bid that most Muslims voted Democrat.


----------



## Intense

Sunni Man said:


> Before and after the first Gulf War most Muslims voted Republican.
> 
> It wasn't until Bush Jr.'s second election bid that most Muslims voted Democrat.



It's a pendulum thing. Reform will change much in the way the world looks at Islam too. Learning to better cope with criticism is a good starting point. Muslims around the world could learn from American Muslims, rather than trying to coerce you to shoot people and blow things up.  You have the platform, use it to serve justice and righteousness, make a difference. Make a difference.


----------



## Intense

JamesMorrison said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember 18 years ago when Jesse Jackson said "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery  then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved"?
> 
> Was Juan channeling The Rev. Jackson while on Bill O'reilly's show?
> 
> JM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urban people are not all idiots. I know people, who, regardless of what Race they call themselves, will avoid certain streets or area's at certain times out of prudence. The Bullshit is in putting PC over common sense or safety. I can't believe I was stupid enough once to actually vote for Jesse. Now is as good a time as any to apologize to the Universe for my ignorance. I apologize Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, the vey fact that you have been paying attention and using past experience and present facts to come to the above conclusion argues against the possibility of stupidity on your part. The Democratic party has lost the battle with the left and is now being consumed by them. There are only two types of people or groups that feel the donkys are correct. Those that need it to exert power over others and those subjects that believe what the first group tells them. The NAACP (a member of the first group) now feels it necessary to attack Tea Partiers with the race card, still, ignoring those downtrodden blacks and their children (members of the second group) and their travails regarding unemployment and depolorable intercity schools. Of course, if the NAACP chose to actually do something about black kids education they would bump into the fiefdom of another arm of the Social Democratic Party, the teachers' unions. Maybe blacks can hope for the formation of a NAACP,R (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,...Really) but I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> JM
Click to expand...


You would do well by reading up on the Teachers Strikes during the Lindsey years. They are worse than Organized Crime. Wait,...... they are Organized Crime.


----------



## Ravi

I don't see muslims as victims. I see Juan Williams as a bigot. Trying to weasel around that fact makes you a weasel.


----------



## boedicca

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe somebody else remembers this, but somewhere in my memory banks I seem to recall that the NAACP once strongly criticized NPR and PBS for their lily white program staff.   And THAT was when NPR contracted with Juan Williams who must have been convinced he wasn't their 'token black' or I don't think he would have accepted the job.
> 
> Now that same NAACP is ominously silent when Juan is sacked for political incorrectness?
> 
> Or am I dreaming about the NAACP criticism?
> 
> 
> 
> No way! NPR only hires people to pander to the minorities in the country.
Click to expand...




That depends upon how you identify Minorities.

If by minority, you mean an Far Left ideology in which only a minority of Americans believes, then you are correct.


----------



## Intense

Ravi said:


> I don't see muslims as victims. I see Juan Williams as a bigot. Trying to weasel around that fact makes you a weasel.



I've not once seen or heard him not defend Muslim Rights. 

I remember once my son was in a Basketball League, they played once a week in a School gym right next to a Housing Project in Jamaica Queens. Thursday nights, I think. There were nights I was the only White person in the stands, and they were packed, emotional,  and noisy.

How did I feel?????

A) Uncomfortable.

B) Empathetic to any Black Person alone in a crowd of White People.

C) Like a Human Being, part of a Large Family.

D) All of the above.

Ravi, It's poor discipline to turn on your own just because the rest of the pack is acting like mindless jerks. I'm sure Juan shares more of your views, than mine. Throwing people under the bus, for marching out of step, is unkind. If it happened to you, it would be just as wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Juan Williams: NeoCon, racist, possible Tea Party member...(Um, what else is George Soros saying about him?)


----------



## Sunni Man

JamesMorrison said:


> Muslims around the world could learn from American Muslims, rather than trying to coerce you to shoot people and blow things up.  You have the platform, use it to serve justice and righteousness, make a difference. Make a difference.


Most Muslims live in countries that are run by a dictatorship.

(usually supported and funded by the US and the West)

They have no access to the media.

Violence is the only avenue they have in order to be heard.


----------



## Intense

Sunni Man said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims around the world could learn from American Muslims, rather than trying to coerce you to shoot people and blow things up.  You have the platform, use it to serve justice and righteousness, make a difference. Make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Muslims live in countries that are run by a dictatorship.
> 
> (usually supported and funded by the US and the West)
> 
> They have no access to the media.
> 
> Violence is the only avenue they have in order to be heard.
Click to expand...


Not true at all. That's not the example I was referring to Suni. Stop making excuses.There is no excuse. Think Gandhi. Think Reform. That's the difference between friends and enemies. There's no getting around it.


----------



## Samson

Sunni Man said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims around the world could learn from American Muslims, rather than trying to coerce you to shoot people and blow things up.  You have the platform, use it to serve justice and righteousness, make a difference. Make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Muslims live in countries that are run by a dictatorship.
> 
> (usually supported and funded by the US and the West)
> 
> They have no access to the media.
> 
> Violence is the only avenue they have in order to be heard.
Click to expand...


You mean, like Iran?


----------



## Flaylo

Sunni Man said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims around the world could learn from American Muslims, rather than trying to coerce you to shoot people and blow things up.  You have the platform, use it to serve justice and righteousness, make a difference. Make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Muslims live in countries that are run by a dictatorship.
> 
> (usually supported and funded by the US and the West)
> 
> They have no access to the media.
> 
> Violence is the only avenue they have in order to be heard.
Click to expand...


Those eveil Muslims need to be dealt with so don't give me that damn excuse that violence is the only means because when you live by the sword you die by the sword and I would have no problem doing my job to stop dipshit Muslims that act out that way.


----------



## Sunni Man

From the American Revolution to the people of Vietnam in their war against the United States.

People want to be in charge of their own destiny in their own country.

It's just human nature.

Muslim people are no different in that respect.


----------



## Intense

Sunni Man said:


> From the American Revolution to the people of Vietnam in their war against the United States.
> 
> People want to be in charge of their own destiny in their own country.
> 
> It's just human nature.
> 
> Muslim people are no different in that respect.



We recognize Unalienable Rights of All People Suni, Believer and Nonbeliever, Male and Female, alike. Think about that. we differ on method, Suni, among other points, like the meaning of Liberty, and the responsibility that goes with choice. Think Locke, Thoreau, MLK, Gandhi. Reason, force of argument, not force of arms.


----------



## Sunni Man

Intense said:


> We recognize Unalienable Rights of All People Suni, Believer and Nonbeliever, Male and Female, alike. Think about that. we differ on method, Suni, among other points, like the meaning of Liberty, and the responsibility that goes with choice. Think Locke, Thoreau, MLK, Gandhi. Reason, force of argument, not force of arms.


Yes, they are wonderful ideals to contemplate up in the Ivory Tower.

But down where the rubber meets the road.

It sometimes takes physical action to achieve your goals. 

Think Washington, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams,.......


----------



## Samson

Sunni Man said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> We recognize Unalienable Rights of All People Suni, Believer and Nonbeliever, Male and Female, alike. Think about that. we differ on method, Suni, among other points, like the meaning of Liberty, and the responsibility that goes with choice. Think Locke, Thoreau, MLK, Gandhi. Reason, force of argument, not force of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are wonderful ideals to contemplate up in the Ivory Tower.
> 
> But down where the rubber meets the road.
> 
> It sometimes takes physical action to achieve your goals.
> 
> Think Washington, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams,.......
Click to expand...


Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Napoleon.


----------



## edthecynic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Juan Williams: NeoCon, racist, possible Tea Party member...(Um, what else is George Soros saying about him?)


*SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*


----------



## WillowTree

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams: NeoCon, racist, possible Tea Party member...(Um, what else is George Soros saying about him?)
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
Click to expand...


Something tells me you are very uncomfortable with the spotlight on Soros. Wonder why!


----------



## Kat

WillowTree said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams: NeoCon, racist, possible Tea Party member...(Um, what else is George Soros saying about him?)
> 
> 
> 
> *SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something tells me you are very uncomfortable with the spotlight on Soros. Wonder why!
Click to expand...


Some try and desperately try and deflect off the real issue ya know...


----------



## JamesMorrison

Sunni Man said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims around the world could learn from American Muslims, rather than trying to coerce you to shoot people and blow things up.  You have the platform, use it to serve justice and righteousness, make a difference. Make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Muslims live in countries that are run by a dictatorship.
> 
> (usually supported and funded by the US and the West)
> 
> They have no access to the media.
> 
> Violence is the only avenue they have in order to be heard.
Click to expand...


Perhaps there is something wrong with USMB's quotation system? I never posted this. If one clicks on the little arrow to the right of my name that attributes this quote to me you can readily see the quote has been mis-attributed to me.

I believe it is from Intense's post just below mine. This error has scince been repeated numerous times. Although not the end of the world for me, it is not a good thing in the overall scheme of things.

JM


----------



## Intense

Sunni Man said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> We recognize Unalienable Rights of All People Suni, Believer and Nonbeliever, Male and Female, alike. Think about that. we differ on method, Suni, among other points, like the meaning of Liberty, and the responsibility that goes with choice. Think Locke, Thoreau, MLK, Gandhi. Reason, force of argument, not force of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are wonderful ideals to contemplate up in the Ivory Tower.
> 
> But down where the rubber meets the road.
> 
> It sometimes takes physical action to achieve your goals.
> 
> Think Washington, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams,.......
Click to expand...


Not the same war. The Ivory Towers is where Tyrants try to put themselves, not free people. We battle against oppression, not for the right to impose it on others against their will. You undermine your own cause Sunni, either that or you mislead as to the true nature of your cause. Which is it????? We are at war with Radical Islam, you are defending Radical Islam. How am I supposed to value that????? How am I supposed to value you. I like you Sunni. How does one serve Justice and what is right by doing what is wrong????? One would think that a different means is in order, considering the lack of success of the current. We all reap what we sow, yes??? 

Speaking of Washington, I'm eating a couple of Washington Apples right now. New York Apples suck in comparison.      Get your shit together New York! Can't even lay asphalt right!


----------



## Sunni Man

Intense said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> We recognize Unalienable Rights of All People Suni, Believer and Nonbeliever, Male and Female, alike. Think about that. we differ on method, Suni, among other points, like the meaning of Liberty, and the responsibility that goes with choice. Think Locke, Thoreau, MLK, Gandhi. Reason, force of argument, not force of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are wonderful ideals to contemplate up in the Ivory Tower.
> 
> But down where the rubber meets the road.
> 
> It sometimes takes physical action to achieve your goals.
> 
> Think Washington, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams,.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same war. The Ivory Towers is where Tyrants try to put themselves, not free people. We battle against oppression, not for the right to impose it on others against their will. You undermine your own cause Sunni, either that or you mislead as to the true nature of your cause. Which is it????? We are at war with Radical Islam, you are defending Radical Islam. How am I supposed to value that????? How am I supposed to value you. I like you Sunni. How does one serve Justice and what is right by doing what is wrong????? One would think that a different means is in order, considering the lack of success of the current. We all reap what we sow, yes???
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what is your definition of radical Isalm?


----------



## taichiliberal

Wow, this thread is proving out my hunch......the bonehead move by NPR in the way they canned Williams has opened the can of jackass supposition and conjecture by the neocon parrot flock squawking about everything from the NAACP to George Soros.  The GOP noisemakers, eager for political points in an election season,  are now calling for "defunding" of NPR, even though NPR gets less than what, 3% of it's funding from the Fed.

Somehow, I think that the radio station that carries A Prairie Home Companion and Car Talk is the bastion of liberal/socialist/communist/anti-American propaganda, as our right wing friends would have us believe.

Williams had been on the fence with NPR with regards to his commentary on Fox News for sometime now....NPR could have handled this MUCH better.  Now they have to suffer the consequences of their actions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Soros Public Radio screwed the pooch on this; they look bad and every knows they're just a Progressive Radio Free America


----------



## taichiliberal

CrusaderFrank said:


> Soros Public Radio screwed the pooch on this; they look bad and every knows they're just a Progressive Radio Free America



I'm STILL waiting for someone to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that Soros owns NPR and controls it's programming.  Mind you, I'm not interested in some neocon numbskulls rants, opinions, supposition or conjecture.....I want FACTS...valid, documented FACTS.  I'll wait.


----------



## Intense

taichiliberal said:


> Wow, this thread is proving out my hunch......the bonehead move by NPR in the way they canned Williams has opened the can of jackass supposition and conjecture by the neocon parrot flock squawking about everything from the NAACP to George Soros.  The GOP noisemakers, eager for political points in an election season,  are now calling for "defunding" of NPR, even though NPR gets less than what, 3% of it's funding from the Fed.
> 
> Somehow, I think that the radio station that carries A Prairie Home Companion and Car Talk is the bastion of liberal/socialist/communist/anti-American propaganda, as our right wing friends would have us believe.
> 
> Williams had been on the fence with NPR with regards to his commentary on Fox News for sometime now....NPR could have handled this MUCH better.  Now they have to suffer the consequences of their actions.



I'm Right wing and I don't believe anything you just said after "Wow". That about covers it.


----------



## Intense

taichiliberal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soros Public Radio screwed the pooch on this; they look bad and every knows they're just a Progressive Radio Free America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for someone to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that Soros owns NPR and controls it's programming.  Mind you, I'm not interested in some neocon numbskulls rants, opinions, supposition or conjecture.....I want FACTS...valid, documented FACTS.  I'll wait.
Click to expand...


The sign reads "Out of Service-Use Stairs", suit yourself.


----------



## newpolitics

I think it's a pretty immature thing to say on public TV, when we don't need anymore anti-muslim sentiment in this country, and considering the amount of people that watch Fox and sadly believe everyword they shit out. I'm glad he got sacked. He's an idiot for saying that. Have some responsibilty. There is a time and a place for honesty, and it isn't on a nationally syndicated talk show, when there isn't a muslim present to defend him/herself, especially when it's a show designed to spark this kind of sentiment, and aired on a network known to align with anti-muslim, xenophobic ideals.


----------



## Intense

newpolitics said:


> I think it's a pretty immature thing to say on public TV, when we don't need anymore anti-muslim sentiment in this country, and considering the amount of people that watch Fox and sadly believe everyword they shit out. I'm glad he got sacked. He's an idiot for saying that. Have some responsibilty. There is a time and a place for honesty, and it isn't on a nationally syndicated talk show, when there isn't a muslim present to defend him/herself, especially when it's a show designed to spark this kind of sentiment, and aired on a network known to align with anti-muslim, xenophobic ideals.



These boards are seen by allot of people, does that rule apply to you as well? Does it apply to trashing the Tea Party? I found the comment honestly refreshing myself. I might agree with you that there is little honesty coming from the Networks, but that is nothing to celebrate. Maybe it would be a good advertising Slogan, Liberal Media being a "Honesty Free Zone" and all, as you put it. NBC, PBS could easily adapt the concept. I could see the poster now  with a picture of Katie Couric with a piece of duct tape over her mouth. The caption would read "For You Protection". Hey.... those Muslims that you are so concerned about would totally support it, so would China, and North Korea, and Venezuela. Yup, Sparky, that's about the only part of your post that you got right, Liberals, generally can't handle the truth on TV,  or Radio, or the Press. If Someone should step out of lock step, Scorch and Burn, got it. Thanks for being honest.


----------



## chanel

P.C. bullshit is making the country less safe.  See Ft Hood.


----------



## newpolitics

Intense said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a pretty immature thing to say on public TV, when we don't need anymore anti-muslim sentiment in this country, and considering the amount of people that watch Fox and sadly believe everyword they shit out. I'm glad he got sacked. He's an idiot for saying that. Have some responsibilty. There is a time and a place for honesty, and it isn't on a nationally syndicated talk show, when there isn't a muslim present to defend him/herself, especially when it's a show designed to spark this kind of sentiment, and aired on a network known to align with anti-muslim, xenophobic ideals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These boards are seen by allot of people, does that rule apply to you as well? Does it apply to trashing the Tea Party? I found the comment honestly refreshing myself. I might agree with you that there is little honesty coming from the Networks, but that is nothing to celebrate. Maybe it would be a good advertising Slogan, Liberal Media being a "Honesty Free Zone" and all, as you put it. NBC, PBS could easily adapt the concept. I could see the poster now  with a picture of Katie Couric with a piece of duct tape over her mouth. The caption would read "For You Protection". Hey.... those Muslims that you are so concerned about would totally support it, so would China, and North Korea, and Venezuela. Yup, Sparky, that's about the only part of your post that you got right, Liberals, generally can't handle the truth on TV,  or Radio, or the Press. If Someone should step out of lock step, Scorch and Burn, got it. Thanks for being honest.
Click to expand...


No problem. I respect his honesty, and I agree that it is refreshing, as honesty always is. Yet, in this context, on this scale of viewership, words have more meaning any other context, and I don't see the purpose of his being honest about this. Everything said at this scale of viewership is said for a purpose. If you think he was naive enough to expect no repercussions for such an ignorant statement, no matter how sincere, then you are being naive. I don't think it was right for NPR to fire him. That is unfair, but I don't think it was responsible for him to add to a brewing sentiment of hate that seems like it is boiling over into violence and having real effects on innocent muslims. It's just not responsible, and I think he had selfish reasons for doing it, probably to get some adornment from fox news, which he got. Perhaps he was unhappy at NPR, and wanted this to happen, and knew that fox would back him like this. He's not a dumb man. I don't believe he said this truth in a vacuum. He knew the atmosphere in which it was being said. Don't think he is so innocent.


----------



## Intense

newpolitics said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a pretty immature thing to say on public TV, when we don't need anymore anti-muslim sentiment in this country, and considering the amount of people that watch Fox and sadly believe everyword they shit out. I'm glad he got sacked. He's an idiot for saying that. Have some responsibilty. There is a time and a place for honesty, and it isn't on a nationally syndicated talk show, when there isn't a muslim present to defend him/herself, especially when it's a show designed to spark this kind of sentiment, and aired on a network known to align with anti-muslim, xenophobic ideals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These boards are seen by allot of people, does that rule apply to you as well? Does it apply to trashing the Tea Party? I found the comment honestly refreshing myself. I might agree with you that there is little honesty coming from the Networks, but that is nothing to celebrate. Maybe it would be a good advertising Slogan, Liberal Media being a "Honesty Free Zone" and all, as you put it. NBC, PBS could easily adapt the concept. I could see the poster now  with a picture of Katie Couric with a piece of duct tape over her mouth. The caption would read "For You Protection". Hey.... those Muslims that you are so concerned about would totally support it, so would China, and North Korea, and Venezuela. Yup, Sparky, that's about the only part of your post that you got right, Liberals, generally can't handle the truth on TV,  or Radio, or the Press. If Someone should step out of lock step, Scorch and Burn, got it. Thanks for being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem. I respect his honesty, and I agree that it is refreshing, as honesty always is. Yet, in this context, on this scale of viewership, words have more meaning any other context, and I don't see the purpose of his being honest about this. Everything said at this scale of viewership is said for a purpose. If you think he was naive enough to expect no repercussions for such an ignorant statement, no matter how sincere, then you are being naive. I don't think it was right for NPR to fire him. That is unfair, but I don't think it was responsible for him to add to a brewing sentiment of hate that seems like it is boiling over into violence and having real effects on innocent muslims. It's just not responsible, and I think he had selfish reasons for doing it, probably to get some adornment from fox news, which he got. Perhaps he was unhappy at NPR, and wanted this to happen, and knew that fox would back him like this. He's not a dumb man. I don't believe he said this truth in a vacuum. He knew the atmosphere in which it was being said. Don't think he is so innocent.
Click to expand...


I watched the original Broadcast and know that there was nothing hateful in the comment, as did most rational people. Juan has been and still is an advocate for Muslim Rights and Tolerance. Juan did not know that FOX would back him at all, at the time. Furthermore he was originally hurt by the initial action of NPR. He got Freight Trained, he didn't know what hit him. We saw that, and know Injustice when we see it, that is why Juan got the Bi-Partisan support he did. Injecting supposition into the mix doesn't change that.


----------



## California Girl

Intense said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> These boards are seen by allot of people, does that rule apply to you as well? Does it apply to trashing the Tea Party? I found the comment honestly refreshing myself. I might agree with you that there is little honesty coming from the Networks, but that is nothing to celebrate. Maybe it would be a good advertising Slogan, Liberal Media being a "Honesty Free Zone" and all, as you put it. NBC, PBS could easily adapt the concept. I could see the poster now  with a picture of Katie Couric with a piece of duct tape over her mouth. The caption would read "For You Protection". Hey.... those Muslims that you are so concerned about would totally support it, so would China, and North Korea, and Venezuela. Yup, Sparky, that's about the only part of your post that you got right, Liberals, generally can't handle the truth on TV,  or Radio, or the Press. If Someone should step out of lock step, Scorch and Burn, got it. Thanks for being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. I respect his honesty, and I agree that it is refreshing, as honesty always is. Yet, in this context, on this scale of viewership, words have more meaning any other context, and I don't see the purpose of his being honest about this. Everything said at this scale of viewership is said for a purpose. If you think he was naive enough to expect no repercussions for such an ignorant statement, no matter how sincere, then you are being naive. I don't think it was right for NPR to fire him. That is unfair, but I don't think it was responsible for him to add to a brewing sentiment of hate that seems like it is boiling over into violence and having real effects on innocent muslims. It's just not responsible, and I think he had selfish reasons for doing it, probably to get some adornment from fox news, which he got. Perhaps he was unhappy at NPR, and wanted this to happen, and knew that fox would back him like this. He's not a dumb man. I don't believe he said this truth in a vacuum. He knew the atmosphere in which it was being said. Don't think he is so innocent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the original Broadcast and know that there was nothing hateful in the comment, as did most rational people. Juan has been and still is an advocate for Muslim Rights and Tolerance. Juan did not know that FOX would back him at all, at the time. Furthermore he was originally hurt by the initial action of NPR. He got Freight Trained, he didn't know what hit him. We saw that, and know Injustice when we see it, that is why Juan got the Bi-Partisan support he did. Injecting supposition into the mix doesn't change that.
Click to expand...


Yep. Not for the first time, people are getting hysterical about an out of context quote. I fail to understand why it is so hard for people to look at the damned context before they decide what someone did or did not say.


----------



## Foxfyre

California Girl said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. I respect his honesty, and I agree that it is refreshing, as honesty always is. Yet, in this context, on this scale of viewership, words have more meaning any other context, and I don't see the purpose of his being honest about this. Everything said at this scale of viewership is said for a purpose. If you think he was naive enough to expect no repercussions for such an ignorant statement, no matter how sincere, then you are being naive. I don't think it was right for NPR to fire him. That is unfair, but I don't think it was responsible for him to add to a brewing sentiment of hate that seems like it is boiling over into violence and having real effects on innocent muslims. It's just not responsible, and I think he had selfish reasons for doing it, probably to get some adornment from fox news, which he got. Perhaps he was unhappy at NPR, and wanted this to happen, and knew that fox would back him like this. He's not a dumb man. I don't believe he said this truth in a vacuum. He knew the atmosphere in which it was being said. Don't think he is so innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the original Broadcast and know that there was nothing hateful in the comment, as did most rational people. Juan has been and still is an advocate for Muslim Rights and Tolerance. Juan did not know that FOX would back him at all, at the time. Furthermore he was originally hurt by the initial action of NPR. He got Freight Trained, he didn't know what hit him. We saw that, and know Injustice when we see it, that is why Juan got the Bi-Partisan support he did. Injecting supposition into the mix doesn't change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Not for the first time, people are getting hysterical about an out of context quote. I fail to understand why it is so hard for people to look at the damned context before they decide what someone did or did not say.
Click to expand...


But when sound bites can be provocative taken out of context, the trolls, idiots, and exercises in futility will use them as well as sociopolitical opportunist or even a few otherwise decent folks who get a bit lazy and don't bother to check the context.

It is a huge reason for much unnecessary incivility and hurtful actions against people these days.  And one of the reasons I am one who is actively protesting and trying to expose the evils of political correctness as much as possible.


----------



## Immanuel

newpolitics said:


> I think it's a pretty immature thing to say on public TV, when we don't need anymore anti-muslim sentiment in this country, and considering the amount of people that watch Fox and sadly believe everyword they shit out. I'm glad he got sacked. He's an idiot for saying that. Have some responsibilty. *There is a time and a place for honesty*, and it isn't on a nationally syndicated talk show, when there isn't a muslim present to defend him/herself, especially when it's a show designed to spark this kind of sentiment, and aired on a network known to align with anti-muslim, xenophobic ideals.



I take it then that you also believe the rest of the time is the time and place for dishonesty.  Think about what you are saying.  It seems to me that you are saying that one should be dishonest when it is prudent to do so.

If that is what you believe, how do we know when to believe something you say and when not to believe you?

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

JamesMorrison said:


> Oh, let me ask you guys: Intense has mentioned the PC thing, do you think it possible the the Left's Muslim PC and Black PC things might possibly collide somewhere down the line?
> 
> Could there come a time where muslims play their religion card and threaten groups like the NAACP's victimhood turf?
> Also, has anybody seen any studies or polls that would tell us the political demographics of the U.S.'s Muslim population? Any GOP fans in the Muslim community? Or would such a poll have to wait for a more PC friendly environment? Just asking, don't want to stir up any trouble here.
> 
> JM



This has been discussed on other threads and has produced a predictably wide variety of responses depending on what territory of the political spectrum the members occupy.  The overwhelming evidence in Europe is that increasing numbers of activist Muslims is causing more and more pressure for governments and organizations to accommodate Islam and its edicts and customs.  And more and more those governments and organizations are finding that to be a problem.  

I think it generally comes down to:

1.  Whether one is allowed to be honest without malice--obviously Juan Williams has been pronounced guilty of PC violations by the PC police, and. . . .

and

2.  What group or groups will be required to step aside its preferences and convictions in order to accommodate the preferences and convictions of another group.

And I haven't found a whole lot of people willing to discuss those two things objectively.  Generally both subjects generate food fights.


----------



## Annie

How's this different?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_QBC63UFk[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon

annie said:


> how's this different?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_qbc63ufk


lol


----------



## Annie

DiveCon said:


> annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> how's this different?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_qbc63ufk
> 
> 
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


The only difference I can tell is the silence from the left and media?


----------



## DiveCon

Annie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> how's this different?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_qbc63ufk
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only difference I can tell is the silence from the left and media?
Click to expand...

well, it wasnt said on TDFNC


----------



## edthecynic

Annie said:


> How's this different?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_QBC63UFk


It's worse, and he should be fired as a news analyst for NPR immediately, if not sooner!


----------



## daveman

Annie said:


> How's this different?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_QBC63UFk



Because it's impossible for leftists to be racist.

Or some bullshit like that.


----------



## DiveCon

daveman said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's this different?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_QBC63UFk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's impossible for leftists to be racist.
> 
> Or some bullshit like that.
Click to expand...

if Maher had said it on TDFNC they sour would be calling for someone to fire him


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's this different?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_QBC63UFk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's impossible for leftists to be racist.
> 
> Or some bullshit like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if Maher had said it on TDFNC they sour would be calling for someone to fire him
Click to expand...


Or Maher isn't a black man and therefore has less obligation to 'stay on the reservation like a good black man should'.  Or at least that seems to be the way some look at it.  I still say the Left is far harder on a black man or a smart woman (of any race) who dares be un-PC than they are on others.  Maybe it is more threatening to them.  I don't know.


----------



## daveman

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's this different?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_QBC63UFk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's impossible for leftists to be racist.
> 
> Or some bullshit like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if Maher had said it on TDFNC they sour would be calling for someone to fire him
Click to expand...

I think Foxfyre's correct:  White liberals have more latitude.


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's impossible for leftists to be racist.
> 
> Or some bullshit like that.
> 
> 
> 
> if Maher had said it on TDFNC they sour would be calling for someone to fire him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or Maher isn't a black man and therefore has less obligation to 'stay on the reservation like a good black man should'.  Or at least that seems to be the way some look at it.  I still say the Left is far harder on a black man or a smart woman (of any race) who dares be un-PC than they are on others.  Maybe it is more threatening to them.  I don't know.
Click to expand...

ok, possibly


----------



## taichiliberal

Intense said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this thread is proving out my hunch......the bonehead move by NPR in the way they canned Williams has opened the can of jackass supposition and conjecture by the neocon parrot flock squawking about everything from the NAACP to George Soros.  The GOP noisemakers, eager for political points in an election season,  are now calling for "defunding" of NPR, even though NPR gets less than what, 3% of it's funding from the Fed.
> 
> Somehow, I think that the radio station that carries A Prairie Home Companion and Car Talk is the bastion of liberal/socialist/communist/anti-American propaganda, as our right wing friends would have us believe.
> 
> Williams had been on the fence with NPR with regards to his commentary on Fox News for sometime now....NPR could have handled this MUCH better.  Now they have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Right wing and I don't believe anything you just said after "Wow". That about covers it.
Click to expand...



And THIS guy is a moderator/administrator?


----------



## taichiliberal

Intense said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soros Public Radio screwed the pooch on this; they look bad and every knows they're just a Progressive Radio Free America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for someone to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that Soros owns NPR and controls it's programming.  Mind you, I'm not interested in some neocon numbskulls rants, opinions, supposition or conjecture.....I want FACTS...valid, documented FACTS.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sign reads "Out of Service-Use Stairs", suit yourself.
Click to expand...


And THIS guy is a moderator/administrator?


----------



## taichiliberal

Here's the thing:  conservatives consistently complain about the "liberal bias" of the Main Stream Media...yet they are ardently AGAINST the re-establishing of the Fairness Doctrine, which would guarantee at least one hour of contrary programming.

Go figure.

Oh well, NPR has egg on it's face...the neocon driven GOP is trying to score voting points by advocating defunding of NPR....and Juan Williams just a got a shitload of a raise to be the new token liberal whipping boy for Fox News.

God bless us....every one.


----------



## DiveCon

taichiliberal said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this thread is proving out my hunch......the bonehead move by NPR in the way they canned Williams has opened the can of jackass supposition and conjecture by the neocon parrot flock squawking about everything from the NAACP to George Soros.  The GOP noisemakers, eager for political points in an election season,  are now calling for "defunding" of NPR, even though NPR gets less than what, 3% of it's funding from the Fed.
> 
> Somehow, I think that the radio station that carries A Prairie Home Companion and Car Talk is the bastion of liberal/socialist/communist/anti-American propaganda, as our right wing friends would have us believe.
> 
> Williams had been on the fence with NPR with regards to his commentary on Fox News for sometime now....NPR could have handled this MUCH better.  Now they have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Right wing and I don't believe anything you just said after "Wow". That about covers it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And THIS guy is a moderator/administrator?
Click to expand...

nothing in what he said had anything to do with his job as a mod


----------



## newpolitics

Annie said:


> How's this different?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_QBC63UFk



It's different because Bill has HIS OWN SHOW on HBO, and you have to pay to see HBO as a service, so it's even more your choice if you watch. This isn't a federally funded channel. This is a private company, so they can say whatever the fuck they want. HBO doesn't fear backlash from a comment like these, because they aren't trying to appease public opinion as much because they have a ton of other reasons people pay for HBO (Boardwalk Empire, Movies, HBO OnDemand etc....) So, if he pisses off a few people, who cares. They still have a ton of subscribers. NPR has to worry a LOT more about image because it's funding is coming from taxpayers, as they should.

Second, Bill is a comedian. He says what he says, to a mature audience, who doesn't expect rigorous political analysis, only entertaining and strong opinions and back and forth dialogue on todays political hot topics... by your logic, they should have pulled South Park off the air after the first episode.


----------



## DiveCon

newpolitics said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's this different?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_QBC63UFk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's different because Bill has HIS OWN SHOW on HBO, and you have to pay to see HBO as a service, so it's even more your choice if you watch. This isn't a federally funded channel. This is a private company, so they can say whatever the fuck they want. HBO doesn't fear backlash from a comment like these, because they aren't trying to appease public opinion as much because they have a ton of other reasons people pay for HBO (Boardwalk Empire, Movies, HBO OnDemand etc....) So, if he pisses off a few people, who cares. They still have a ton of subscribers. NPR has to worry a LOT more about image because it's funding is coming from taxpayers, as they should.
> 
> Second, Bill is a comedian... by your logic, they should have pulled South Park off the air after the first episode.
Click to expand...

WOW, way to miss the point


----------



## edthecynic

taichiliberal said:


> Here's the thing:  conservatives consistently complain about the "liberal bias" of the Main Stream Media...yet they are ardently AGAINST the re-establishing of the Fairness Doctrine, which would guarantee at least one hour of contrary programming.
> 
> Go figure.


Not much to figure, in spite of everything they say to the contrary they know Corporate Media is dominated by CON$. That's why they try to pass off as a Lib anyone who isn't on the farthest extreme of the Right. Traditional CON$ like David Brooks are called Liberals and more moderate CON$ like aLamb Colmes are passed off as Left wing extremists. 

Obviously if CON$ were actually discriminated against in the media they would be demanding the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated because it would require that CON$ get more media exposure. CON$ don't want the Fairness Doctrine because they know they would lose their absolute control of the media.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing:  conservatives consistently complain about the "liberal bias" of the Main Stream Media...yet they are ardently AGAINST the re-establishing of the Fairness Doctrine, which would guarantee at least one hour of contrary programming.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much to figure, in spite of everything they say to the contrary they know Corporate Media is dominated by CON$. That's why they try to pass off as a Lib anyone who isn't on the farthest extreme of the Right. Traditional CON$ like David Brooks are called Liberals and more moderate CON$ like aLamb Colmes are passed off as Left wing extremists.
> 
> Obviously if CON$ were actually discriminated against in the media they would be demanding the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated because it would require that CON$ get more media exposure. CON$ don't want the Fairness Doctrine because they know they would lose their absolute control of the media.
Click to expand...

wow, you are a fucking idiot
who has ever called Alan Colmes a left wing extremist?


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing:  conservatives consistently complain about the "liberal bias" of the Main Stream Media...yet they are ardently AGAINST the re-establishing of the Fairness Doctrine, which would guarantee at least one hour of contrary programming.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much to figure, in spite of everything they say to the contrary they know Corporate Media is dominated by CON$. That's why they try to pass off as a Lib anyone who isn't on the farthest extreme of the Right. Traditional CON$ like David Brooks are called Liberals and more moderate CON$ like aLamb Colmes are passed off as Left wing extremists.
> 
> Obviously if CON$ were actually discriminated against in the media they would be demanding the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated because it would require that CON$ get more media exposure. CON$ don't want the Fairness Doctrine because they know they would lose their absolute control of the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow, you are a fucking idiot
> who has ever called Alan Colmes a left wing extremist?
Click to expand...

Alan Colmes: There&#8217;s no such thing as radical Islam [video] | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

What a buffoon Comes is!  Hes just like Holder and everyone else in the Obama Administration, a Radical Socialist-Democrat. 
http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/14/a...h-thing-as-radical-islam-video/#ixzz13vlsaCiO​



http://www.breitbart.tv/alan-colmes-theres-no-such-thing-as-radical-islam/

Colmes should have a hot poker stuck in his.... Ummmm, Ummmm, ummm, mmm, mmm, mmm, Brarack Husain Obama, sorry, he should have that hot poker stuck somewhere for being a radical, liberaral, progressive, Marxist, who can't admit the truth to protect a lie.


Colmes is as disgusting as the dangerous, radical Muslim usurper occupying the WH


Why would anyone be surprised at this coming from colmes - he is beneath scum of the earth. O'Rielly and Fox news are stupid for having him on - I turn them off everytime he shows up - although it is difficult to recognize if it is him or a horses butt!!!! Can't tell the difference. Another partner in the Chicago thugs.


Hannity dropped this blathering idiot, not because he's a Nazi Socialist, not because he loves Mao, Lenin and Stalin and covertly hates blacks, ala Margaret Sanger, but because he's just too stupid to know how stupid he is.


Colmes is just another misguided, naive, liberal, pie-in-the-sky progressive who thinks everyone will sing Kumbaya around the campfire if we appease them enough.



Breitbart.tv  Alan Colmes Wants to Stop Commemorating 9/11

Personally I like Alan but he is a first class ,kool-aid spewing,party-toting,not with main stream America,Obama loving,liberal MOONBAT.


You know...Allan...I give you every right to say all the garbage you spew out on behalf of your savior and messiah...the puppet of the Bilderberg...Obama the Bush...but I just wish you would take it to MSNBC where you would be appreciated.


Always felt Alan was out of touch, now this just confirms it. I'm sure Alan feels right at home at an apartment in Red Square or in Beijing.


Being Fair and Balanced is an understatement with Colmes on board Fox News. The pendulum swings wide everytime he opens his mouth. I always hit the mute button because he makes my brain hurt trying to comprehend his arguments. Say what?


colmes is such a libRETARD! It's a shame he is back on FOX. His opinions are as DUMB as ever, and I can't stand watching FOX when he is on. The only good thing about him being on FOX is when Oreilly sets him straight and makes him look like the libRETARD that he is. I can't believe this CLOWN is related to Monica Crowley. Just goes to show you, there's always on in the family! Please FOX, get rid of him. He deserves a spot on msLSD or cnn, not FOX!


Typical Leftist Fool. MARXIST=DEMOCRATS=TERRORIST All the same. More proof. 


Another American traitor I wonder, if a terrorist plane crashed through his home and killed his entire family would he stop for a remembrance each year... The pathetic moron. 
Why is it that each and every person, man or woman, that looks like this stupid moron, turn out to be a lunatic left wing communist dolt?


Alan has drank SO MUCH of the kool-aid that his brain is rotting.


Alan Colmes is an America hating loonbat who thinks Nazi Piglosi is main stream.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not much to figure, in spite of everything they say to the contrary they know Corporate Media is dominated by CON$. That's why they try to pass off as a Lib anyone who isn't on the farthest extreme of the Right. Traditional CON$ like David Brooks are called Liberals and more moderate CON$ like aLamb Colmes are passed off as Left wing extremists.
> 
> Obviously if CON$ were actually discriminated against in the media they would be demanding the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated because it would require that CON$ get more media exposure. CON$ don't want the Fairness Doctrine because they know they would lose their absolute control of the media.
> 
> 
> 
> wow, you are a fucking idiot
> who has ever called Alan Colmes a left wing extremist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alan Colmes: There&#8217;s no such thing as radical Islam [video] | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
> 
> What a buffoon Comes is!  He&#8217;s just like Holder and everyone else in the Obama Administration, a Radical Socialist-Democrat.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.breitbart.tv/alan-colmes-theres-no-such-thing-as-radical-islam/
> 
> Colmes should have a hot poker stuck in his.... Ummmm, Ummmm, ummm, mmm, mmm, mmm, Brarack Husain Obama, sorry, he should have that hot poker stuck somewhere for being a radical, liberaral, progressive, Marxist, who can't admit the truth to protect a lie.
> 
> 
> Colmes is as disgusting as the dangerous, radical Muslim usurper occupying the WH
> 
> 
> Why would anyone be surprised at this coming from colmes - he is beneath scum of the earth. O'Rielly and Fox news are stupid for having him on - I turn them off everytime he shows up - although it is difficult to recognize if it is him or a horses butt!!!! Can't tell the difference. Another partner in the Chicago thugs.
> 
> 
> Hannity dropped this blathering idiot, not because he's a Nazi Socialist, not because he loves Mao, Lenin and Stalin and covertly hates blacks, ala Margaret Sanger, but because he's just too stupid to know how stupid he is.
> 
> 
> Colmes is just another misguided, naive, liberal, pie-in-the-sky progressive who thinks everyone will sing Kumbaya around the campfire if we appease them enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Breitbart.tv  Alan Colmes Wants to Stop Commemorating 9/11
> 
> Personally I like Alan but he is a first class ,kool-aid spewing,party-toting,not with main stream America,Obama loving,liberal MOONBAT.
> 
> 
> You know...Allan...I give you every right to say all the garbage you spew out on behalf of your savior and messiah...the puppet of the Bilderberg...Obama the Bush...but I just wish you would take it to MSNBC where you would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> Always felt Alan was out of touch, now this just confirms it. I'm sure Alan feels right at home at an apartment in Red Square or in Beijing.
> 
> 
> Being Fair and Balanced is an understatement with Colmes on board Fox News. The pendulum swings wide everytime he opens his mouth. I always hit the mute button because he makes my brain hurt trying to comprehend his arguments. Say what?
> 
> 
> colmes is such a libRETARD! It's a shame he is back on FOX. His opinions are as DUMB as ever, and I can't stand watching FOX when he is on. The only good thing about him being on FOX is when Oreilly sets him straight and makes him look like the libRETARD that he is. I can't believe this CLOWN is related to Monica Crowley. Just goes to show you, there's always on in the family! Please FOX, get rid of him. He deserves a spot on msLSD or cnn, not FOX!
> 
> 
> Typical Leftist Fool. MARXIST=DEMOCRATS=TERRORIST All the same. More proof.
> 
> 
> Another American traitor&#8230; I wonder, if a terrorist plane crashed through his home and killed his entire family would he stop for a remembrance each year... The pathetic moron.
> Why is it that each and every person, man or woman, that looks like this stupid moron, turn out to be a lunatic left wing communist dolt?
> 
> 
> Alan has drank SO MUCH of the kool-aid that his brain is rotting.
> 
> 
> Alan Colmes is an America hating loonbat who thinks Nazi Piglosi is main stream.
Click to expand...

ah, so people posting comments on a blog now qualify as rational people
LOL

there is your mistake, you lump everyone you perceive as conservative into one big group(like that moron rdean) and then assume you can say that of everyone that is a conservative


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, you are a fucking idiot
> who has ever called Alan Colmes a left wing extremist?
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Colmes: Theres no such thing as radical Islam [video] | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
> 
> What a buffoon Comes is!  Hes just like Holder and everyone else in the Obama Administration, a Radical Socialist-Democrat.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Breitbart.tv  Alan Colmes: &#8216;There&#8217;s No Such Thing as Radical Islam&#8217;
> 
> Colmes should have a hot poker stuck in his.... Ummmm, Ummmm, ummm, mmm, mmm, mmm, Brarack Husain Obama, sorry, he should have that hot poker stuck somewhere for being a radical, liberaral, progressive, Marxist, who can't admit the truth to protect a lie.
> 
> 
> Colmes is as disgusting as the dangerous, radical Muslim usurper occupying the WH
> 
> 
> Why would anyone be surprised at this coming from colmes - he is beneath scum of the earth. O'Rielly and Fox news are stupid for having him on - I turn them off everytime he shows up - although it is difficult to recognize if it is him or a horses butt!!!! Can't tell the difference. Another partner in the Chicago thugs.
> 
> 
> Hannity dropped this blathering idiot, not because he's a Nazi Socialist, not because he loves Mao, Lenin and Stalin and covertly hates blacks, ala Margaret Sanger, but because he's just too stupid to know how stupid he is.
> 
> 
> Colmes is just another misguided, naive, liberal, pie-in-the-sky progressive who thinks everyone will sing Kumbaya around the campfire if we appease them enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Breitbart.tv  Alan Colmes Wants to Stop Commemorating 9/11
> 
> Personally I like Alan but he is a first class ,kool-aid spewing,party-toting,not with main stream America,Obama loving,liberal MOONBAT.
> 
> 
> You know...Allan...I give you every right to say all the garbage you spew out on behalf of your savior and messiah...the puppet of the Bilderberg...Obama the Bush...but I just wish you would take it to MSNBC where you would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> Always felt Alan was out of touch, now this just confirms it. I'm sure Alan feels right at home at an apartment in Red Square or in Beijing.
> 
> 
> Being Fair and Balanced is an understatement with Colmes on board Fox News. The pendulum swings wide everytime he opens his mouth. I always hit the mute button because he makes my brain hurt trying to comprehend his arguments. Say what?
> 
> 
> colmes is such a libRETARD! It's a shame he is back on FOX. His opinions are as DUMB as ever, and I can't stand watching FOX when he is on. The only good thing about him being on FOX is when Oreilly sets him straight and makes him look like the libRETARD that he is. I can't believe this CLOWN is related to Monica Crowley. Just goes to show you, there's always on in the family! Please FOX, get rid of him. He deserves a spot on msLSD or cnn, not FOX!
> 
> 
> Typical Leftist Fool. MARXIST=DEMOCRATS=TERRORIST All the same. More proof.
> 
> 
> Another American traitor I wonder, if a terrorist plane crashed through his home and killed his entire family would he stop for a remembrance each year... The pathetic moron.
> Why is it that each and every person, man or woman, that looks like this stupid moron, turn out to be a lunatic left wing communist dolt?
> 
> 
> Alan has drank SO MUCH of the kool-aid that his brain is rotting.
> 
> 
> Alan Colmes is an America hating loonbat who thinks Nazi Piglosi is main stream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, so people posting comments on a blog now qualify as rational people
> LOL
> 
> there is your mistake, you lump everyone you perceive as conservative into one big group(like that moron rdean) and then assume you can say that of everyone that is a conservative
Click to expand...

They are your typical GRASS ROOTS CON$ervatives. You asked WHO, you didn't put any qualification on what WHO is.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> *ah, so people posting comments on a blog now qualify as rational people
> LOL
> 
> there is your mistake* , you lump everyone you perceive as conservative into one big group(like that moron rdean) and then assume you can say that of everyone that is a conservative


Well, you might have a point, after all, YOU post comments too. 

But aren't you lumping posters into one big group? See the first quote in my sig.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ah, so people posting comments on a blog now qualify as rational people
> LOL
> 
> there is your mistake* , you lump everyone you perceive as conservative into one big group(like that moron rdean) and then assume you can say that of everyone that is a conservative
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you might have a point, after all, YOU post comments too.
> 
> But aren't you lumping posters into one big group? See the first quote in my sig.
Click to expand...

you mean the one that is clearly OUT OF CONTEXT???

have you yet learned what "context" actually means yet?


----------



## California Girl

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ah, so people posting comments on a blog now qualify as rational people
> LOL
> 
> there is your mistake* , you lump everyone you perceive as conservative into one big group(like that moron rdean) and then assume you can say that of everyone that is a conservative
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you might have a point, after all, YOU post comments too.
> 
> But aren't you lumping posters into one big group? See the first quote in my sig.
Click to expand...


Excellent use of the "Mommy, he did it too" card. Congrats. You 'nailed' Dive with that one. 












Except you didn't. 

Idiot.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ah, so people posting comments on a blog now qualify as rational people
> LOL
> 
> there is your mistake* , you lump everyone you perceive as conservative into one big group(like that moron rdean) and then assume you can say that of everyone that is a conservative
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you might have a point, after all, YOU post comments too.
> 
> But aren't you lumping posters into one big group? See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean the one that is clearly OUT OF CONTEXT???
> 
> have you yet learned what "context" actually means yet?
Click to expand...

The context of the first quote is obvious and you have never been able to give a different context for the quote.

Your MessiahRushie, who habitually accuses Libs of doing what he does, accused Libs of doing it in the first quote. The next two quotes are an example of Stuttering LimpTard doing it. In the second quote he is accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude and he gives a telltale sign of a messianic attitude to look for. In the third quote he satisfies his own telltale sign. 

Those three quotes completely demolish your MessiahRushie in all his hypocrisy, driving you so crazy that I live rent free in your head and all you can think about is spiteful retalliation like a little child. 

Now you tell me what you think the context is.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Juan Williams is a house Negro for Foxnews, this isn't the first time he's decided to join Foxnews and Bill O'Reilly at the hip in their stupidity and his only job will be to bash every and anything not conservative, thats part of the conditions of working for Foxnews. He's a hypocrite, he whines about getting fired and ignores the fact that he went on a campaign to get Boyce Watkins fired.


----------



## California Girl

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Juan Williams is a house Negro for Foxnews, this isn't the first time he's decided to join Foxnews and Bill O'Reilly at the hip in their stupidity and his only job will be to bash every and anything not conservative, thats part of the conditions of working for Foxnews. He's a hypocrite, he whines about getting fired and ignores the fact that he went on a campaign to get Boyce Watkins fired.



Why the hell you have to dismiss every black man who doesn't fit your mold as 'house Negro' or 'token blacks' is beyond me, Charlie. He's an articulate, intelligent, independent, left leaning, man. What the hell difference does his skin color make. No doubt you believe that Fox use him because he's black. I think they use him because he has an excellent skill set for the role that they employ him for.


----------



## chanel

"House Negro"?  Wow.  That's as bad as the n-word.  Charlie exposes his racism once again.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

California Girl said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams is a house Negro for Foxnews, this isn't the first time he's decided to join Foxnews and Bill O'Reilly at the hip in their stupidity and his only job will be to bash every and anything not conservative, thats part of the conditions of working for Foxnews. He's a hypocrite, he whines about getting fired and ignores the fact that he went on a campaign to get Boyce Watkins fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell you have to dismiss every black man who doesn't fit your mold as 'house Negro' or 'token blacks' is beyond me, Charlie. He's an articulate, intelligent, independent, left leaning, man. What the hell difference does his skin color make. No doubt you believe that Fox use him because he's black. I think they use him because he has an excellent skill set for the role that they employ him for.
Click to expand...


He is a token Negro and not because he doesn't fit what I like, he's grandstanding as one without saying it, if race doesn't matter to him why is he saying he's the only black? Unlike you, I've saw a lot of what Juan Williams says, he is not a left leaning independent, Foxnews hired him for a reason, not because he's fair and objective.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

chanel said:


> "House Negro"?  Wow.  That's as bad as the n-word.  Charlie exposes his racism once again.



It is isn't racism to call another black a house Negro, its a black thing, you wouldn't understand.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Bass v 2.0 said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "House Negro"?  Wow.  That's as bad as the n-word.  Charlie exposes his racism once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is isn't racism to call another black a house Negro, its a black thing, you wouldn't understand.
Click to expand...

There ya' go Bass, push the races apart some more.


----------



## Intense

Bass v 2.0 said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "House Negro"?  Wow.  That's as bad as the n-word.  Charlie exposes his racism once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is isn't racism to call another black a house Negro, its a black thing, you wouldn't understand.
Click to expand...


You are right, I don't understand. Why are you so bent on punishing or hurting someone else for having an original thought or position different than yours? Why can't you just learn to accept people for who they are without conditions? It's really not that hard.


----------



## chanel

Juan Williams educated me on that word.   He has also been called an "Uncle Tom" which he claims is as offensive as the N-word.  You are a racist Charlie.  Own it.


----------



## Intense

chanel said:


> Juan Williams educated me on that word.   He has also been called an "Uncle Tom" which he claims is as offensive as the N-word.  You are a racist Charlie.  Own it.



One really does not have to search too hard in search of the answer to why 90% of the Black vote is straight Democrat. We are tripping over the answer right here.


----------



## DiveCon

Bass v 2.0 said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "House Negro"?  Wow.  That's as bad as the n-word.  Charlie exposes his racism once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is isn't racism to call another black a house Negro,* its a black thing, you wouldn't understand.*
Click to expand...

THAT is racist itself


but its an intellect thing, clearly something YOU wouldn't understand


----------



## The T

DiveCon said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "House Negro"? Wow. That's as bad as the n-word. Charlie exposes his racism once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is isn't racism to call another black a house Negro,* its a black thing, you wouldn't understand.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT is racist itself
> 
> 
> but its an intellect thing, clearly something YOU wouldn't understand
Click to expand...

 
Careful Dive. Bass wil throw the dreaded R word your way for telling him he's wrong.


----------



## JamesMorrison

Annie said:


> How's this different?



Well, Juan was only voicing his own personal feelings about a situation, where he felt himself in close proximity to a danger. He determined this not by an irrational fear but by past history: A small but determined segment of Muslims has expressed and amply demonstrated that their foremost desire is to kill Americans. Second, Juan was aware that Muslim affiliated terrorists, in the past, have dressed up as and actually been women who hid things under their Muslim garb so as to better approach and destroy their intended targets. Third, Juan is an American.

But, as the left most panelist (camera position here) said; what Maher said was worse than what Juan said. He did not get the chance to elaborate but I wouldnt be surprised if he would have pointed out that Juans sin was directed only at one individual who was determined to be a threat whereas Mahers was a condemnation of all people named Mohammed. The guy to his right, with the brown skin and shaved head, essentially made his argument for him by example when he (shaved head) said that he has an uncle so named Mohammed and hes a nice guy. This, perhaps, would have indicated that Maher was a racist.

But that race card fell flat. Like someone has said the race card may now be overdrawn.
It fell flat because half the panel and a good part of the audience knew that Maher was not pointing out his racism but a concern now shared publicly by Angel Merkel in her refreshingly Teutonic application of Obamas science and argument RE the utter failure of multi-culturism and the German Muslims inability to assimilate into a culture they voluntarily joined. Further the hot blond pointed out that Britain now has, essentially, two legal systems the original which has been developed over a thousand years and Sharia.

The danger here is that Britain, by allowing Sharia law (or any system other than the original) has given up its sovereignty over some of its citizens who will now be treated differently than others. This is not a good thing for a nation. In the U.S. two things, in addition to political correctness, may very well lead to the same thing here. The first is bilingualism, the second is the governments refusal, no make that hostility to enforcing current immigration law.

So Juans fear was different than Mahers. Although Juans concerns were quite personal, Mahers fear admits to a much greater national threat.

JM


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Intense said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "House Negro"?  Wow.  That's as bad as the n-word.  Charlie exposes his racism once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is isn't racism to call another black a house Negro, its a black thing, you wouldn't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right, I don't understand. Why are you so bent on punishing or hurting someone else for having an original thought or position different than yours? Why can't you just learn to accept people for who they are without conditions? It's really not that hard.
Click to expand...


His thought isn't original or any different from past house Negroes who race bait and criticize blacks negatively.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Juan Williams is a house Negro for Foxnews, this isn't the first time he's decided to join Foxnews and Bill O'Reilly at the hip in their stupidity and his only job will be to bash every and anything not conservative, thats part of the conditions of working for Foxnews. He's a hypocrite, he whines about getting fired and ignores the fact that he went on a campaign to get Boyce Watkins fired.



Yup he's a 'house Negro'.  He strayed off the reservation.  He violated the PC code.  He expressed an opinion that wasn't on the approved list of talking points, key words, and phrases.  Thus he must be demoralized, critized, diminished, marginalized, characterized as a bad person, and, if possible, destroyed.  And then if he isn't destroyed but goes on with his life, attack that.

And then whine and rant and march and petition and demand reparations because racism remains alive and well.

ARRRGH!!!!   It's enough to make a body crazy.


----------



## JamesMorrison

taichiliberal said:


> Here's the thing:  conservatives consistently complain about the "liberal bias" of the Main Stream Media...yet they are ardently AGAINST the re-establishing of the Fairness Doctrine, which would guarantee at least one hour of contrary programming.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Oh well, NPR has egg on it's face...the neocon driven GOP is trying to score voting points by advocating defunding of NPR....and Juan Williams just a got a shitload of a raise to be the new token liberal whipping boy for Fox News.
> 
> God bless us....every one.



Yes, I agree the 'Defund NPR' effort is a wasteful red herring promoted by those who lean right. However, I do believe a 112th Congress looking for a good faith effort to cut spending, which is why they are being elected, can demonstrate their comity with the electorate by abolishing the CPB (Corp. for Public Broadcasting). A good way to establish your desired 'Fairness' is to rid ourselves of government sponsored media. After all, government sponsoring of just about anything, other than those constitutional responsibilities, is undesirable for the simple reason government is not run by "angels" it is run by humans like you and I. The less influence they are able to exert upon us the better. 

Don't be too concerned about Juan's new contract. Thats FOXs problem not that of us taxpayers. Surely you can see the beauty of ridding ourselves of CPB, for if the CPB is no longer we taxpayers wont be footing the bill for an outdated media outlet. The argument that has initiated and perpetuated CPB (the public needs their alternate programming) has been amply invalidated with the advent of cable/satellite TV and, especially, the internet.

Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you: How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to regulate it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'. 

JM


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you might have a point, after all, YOU post comments too.
> 
> But aren't you lumping posters into one big group? See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the one that is clearly OUT OF CONTEXT???
> 
> have you yet learned what "context" actually means yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The context of the first quote is obvious and you have never been able to give a different context for the quote.
Click to expand...

the context has been given to you MANY times, moron
the fact is you refuse to see it


----------



## Foxfyre

JamesMorrison said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing:  conservatives consistently complain about the "liberal bias" of the Main Stream Media...yet they are ardently AGAINST the re-establishing of the Fairness Doctrine, which would guarantee at least one hour of contrary programming.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Oh well, NPR has egg on it's face...the neocon driven GOP is trying to score voting points by advocating defunding of NPR....and Juan Williams just a got a shitload of a raise to be the new token liberal whipping boy for Fox News.
> 
> God bless us....every one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree the 'Defund NPR' effort is a wasteful red herring promoted by those who lean right. However, I do believe a 112th Congress looking for a good faith effort to cut spending, which is why they are being elected, can demonstrate their comity with the electorate by abolishing the CPB (Corp. for Public Broadcasting). A good way to establish your desired 'Fairness' is to rid ourselves of government sponsored media. After all, government sponsoring of just about anything, other than those constitutional responsibilities, is undesirable for the simple reason government is not run by "angels" it is run by humans like you and I. The less influence they are able to exert upon us the better.
> 
> Don't be too concerned about Juan's new contract. Thats FOXs problem not that of us taxpayers. Surely you can see the beauty of ridding ourselves of CPB, for if the CPB is no longer we taxpayers wont be footing the bill for an outdated media outlet. The argument that has initiated and perpetuated CPB (the public needs their alternate programming) has been amply invalidated with the advent of cable/satellite TV and, especially, the internet.
> 
> Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you: How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to regulate it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'.
> 
> JM
Click to expand...


I'm for the government phasing out all funding--go slowly as necessary to avoid unnecessary pain to those the government has made dependent on the funding--that doesn't fit into its Constitutionally mandated obvious duties.  Certainly the government should have no control or influence over the media other than its Constitutionally mandated oversight to ensure a free press.   Certainly government funding of any part of the media invites temptation to coerce or put pressure on that same media.

As for a free internet, that's probably going to be the next sticky wicket.  Let's get the election on Tuesday out of the way, and then maybe you or I can initiate a thread on that important subject?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Foxfyre said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams is a house Negro for Foxnews, this isn't the first time he's decided to join Foxnews and Bill O'Reilly at the hip in their stupidity and his only job will be to bash every and anything not conservative, thats part of the conditions of working for Foxnews. He's a hypocrite, he whines about getting fired and ignores the fact that he went on a campaign to get Boyce Watkins fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup he's a 'house Negro'.  He strayed off the reservation.  He violated the PC code.  He expressed an opinion that wasn't on the approved list of talking points, key words, and phrases.  Thus he must be demoralized, critized, diminished, marginalized, characterized as a bad person, and, if possible, destroyed.  And then if he isn't destroyed but goes on with his life, attack that.
> 
> And then whine and rant and march and petition and demand reparations because racism remains alive and well.
> 
> ARRRGH!!!!   It's enough to make a body crazy.
Click to expand...


Juan Williams is a frustrated slave that ran to the Foxnews plantation after losing his job, had he stood on his own and forged his own path I would have respected him, but running to Bill O'Reilly and Fauxnews? Better to be an angry field slave than be a submissive, apologetic house slave.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams is a house Negro for Foxnews, this isn't the first time he's decided to join Foxnews and Bill O'Reilly at the hip in their stupidity and his only job will be to bash every and anything not conservative, thats part of the conditions of working for Foxnews. He's a hypocrite, he whines about getting fired and ignores the fact that he went on a campaign to get Boyce Watkins fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup he's a 'house Negro'.  He strayed off the reservation.  He violated the PC code.  He expressed an opinion that wasn't on the approved list of talking points, key words, and phrases.  Thus he must be demoralized, critized, diminished, marginalized, characterized as a bad person, and, if possible, destroyed.  And then if he isn't destroyed but goes on with his life, attack that.
> 
> And then whine and rant and march and petition and demand reparations because racism remains alive and well.
> 
> ARRRGH!!!!   It's enough to make a body crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juan Williams is a frustrated slave that ran to the Foxnews plantation after losing his job, had he stood on his own and forged his own path I would have respected him, but running to Bill O'Reilly and Fauxnews? Better to be an angry field slave than be a submissive, apologetic house slave.
Click to expand...


He didn't run to Fox News.  He was fired because he WAS on Fox News.


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup he's a 'house Negro'.  He strayed off the reservation.  He violated the PC code.  He expressed an opinion that wasn't on the approved list of talking points, key words, and phrases.  Thus he must be demoralized, critized, diminished, marginalized, characterized as a bad person, and, if possible, destroyed.  And then if he isn't destroyed but goes on with his life, attack that.
> 
> And then whine and rant and march and petition and demand reparations because racism remains alive and well.
> 
> ARRRGH!!!!   It's enough to make a body crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams is a frustrated slave that ran to the Foxnews plantation after losing his job, had he stood on his own and forged his own path I would have respected him, but running to Bill O'Reilly and Fauxnews? Better to be an angry field slave than be a submissive, apologetic house slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't run to Fox News.  He was fired because he WAS on Fox News.
Click to expand...

dont bother the basshole with facts


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams is a frustrated slave that ran to the Foxnews plantation after losing his job, had he stood on his own and forged his own path I would have respected him, but running to Bill O'Reilly and Fauxnews? Better to be an angry field slave than be a submissive, apologetic house slave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't run to Fox News.  He was fired because he WAS on Fox News.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont bother the basshole with facts
Click to expand...


It wasn't for his benefit.  You never know when somebody who doesn't have the facts might log in, see the stupid, and believe it.  The liberal bloggers are organized and carefully brainwashed, er coached, to put a specific message out there.  You see the same code words, same key phrases, same methodology used again and again on blog after blog after blog.

Some of us simply have to counter at least some of that with the truth.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup he's a 'house Negro'.  He strayed off the reservation.  He violated the PC code.  He expressed an opinion that wasn't on the approved list of talking points, key words, and phrases.  Thus he must be demoralized, critized, diminished, marginalized, characterized as a bad person, and, if possible, destroyed.  And then if he isn't destroyed but goes on with his life, attack that.
> 
> And then whine and rant and march and petition and demand reparations because racism remains alive and well.
> 
> ARRRGH!!!!   It's enough to make a body crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams is a frustrated slave that ran to the Foxnews plantation after losing his job, had he stood on his own and forged his own path I would have respected him, but running to Bill O'Reilly and Fauxnews? Better to be an angry field slave than be a submissive, apologetic house slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't run to Fox News.  He was fired because he WAS on Fox News.
Click to expand...

And after he was fired he RAN straight to FOX to whine on the air.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Juan Williams is a frustrated slave that ran to the Foxnews plantation after losing his job, had he stood on his own and forged his own path I would have respected him, but running to Bill O'Reilly and Fauxnews? Better to be an angry field slave than be a submissive, apologetic house slave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't run to Fox News.  He was fired because he WAS on Fox News.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And after he was fired he RAN straight to FOX to whine on the air.
Click to expand...

proof?


btw ed, you wont have any
he was already a paid contributor to FNC before he was fired
that was the REASON he was fired


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't run to Fox News.  He was fired because he WAS on Fox News.
> 
> 
> 
> dont bother the basshole with facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't for his benefit.  You never know when somebody who doesn't have the facts might log in, see the stupid, and believe it.  The liberal bloggers are organized and carefully brainwashed, er coached, to put a specific message out there.  You see the same code words, same key phrases, same methodology used again and again on blog after blog after blog.
> 
> Some of us simply have to counter at least some of that with the truth.
Click to expand...

Nice projection.
See the first three quotes in my sig.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont bother the basshole with facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't for his benefit.  You never know when somebody who doesn't have the facts might log in, see the stupid, and believe it.  The liberal bloggers are organized and carefully brainwashed, er coached, to put a specific message out there.  You see the same code words, same key phrases, same methodology used again and again on blog after blog after blog.
> 
> Some of us simply have to counter at least some of that with the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice projection.
> See the first three quotes in my sig.
Click to expand...

which are ALL out of context

but continue to show just how fucking moronically stupid you can be


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't run to Fox News.  He was fired because he WAS on Fox News.
> 
> 
> 
> And after he was fired he RAN straight to FOX to whine on the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof?
> 
> 
> btw ed, you wont have any
> he was already a paid contributor to FNC before he was fired
> that was the REASON he was fired
Click to expand...

The perpetual Dumb act again. It's getting pretty tiring!


The day after he was fired he hosted the O'Lielly show whining his ass off.

Juan Williams Hosts O'Reilly - NPR - Video | Mediaite
*A Wrathful Juan Williams Targets NPR, Former Coworkers As Factor Host*


It&#8217;s fair to say that Williams had never been angrier on the airwaves than he was last night while guest-hosting _The O&#8217;Reilly Factor_. Sure, it doesn&#8217;t help that the network on which he initially got himself in trouble, Fox News, upped the ante on his salary and gave him a show to host on the most coveted real estate in cable news, but aside from Fox&#8217;s work, Williams is really embracing the martyr role.
 His &#8220;Talking Points&#8221; segment threw the kitchen sink at NPR: regret at ever associating with liberals, specific swipes against former coworkers *Nina Totenberg *and &#8220;a comedian,&#8221; even the race card for good measure.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And after he was fired he RAN straight to FOX to whine on the air.
> 
> 
> 
> proof?
> 
> 
> btw ed, you wont have any
> he was already a paid contributor to FNC before he was fired
> that was the REASON he was fired
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The perpetual Dumb act again. It's getting pretty tiring!
> 
> 
> The day after he was fired he hosted the O'Lielly show whining his ass off.
> 
> Juan Williams Hosts O'Reilly - NPR - Video | Mediaite
> *A Wrathful Juan Williams Targets NPR, Former Coworkers As Factor Host*
> 
> 
> It&#8217;s fair to say that Williams had never been angrier on the airwaves than he was last night while guest-hosting _The O&#8217;Reilly Factor_. Sure, it doesn&#8217;t help that the network on which he initially got himself in trouble, Fox News, upped the ante on his salary and gave him a show to host on the most coveted real estate in cable news, but aside from Fox&#8217;s work, Williams is really embracing the martyr role.
> His &#8220;Talking Points&#8221; segment threw the kitchen sink at NPR: regret at ever associating with liberals, specific swipes against former coworkers *Nina Totenberg *and &#8220;a comedian,&#8221; even the race card for good measure.
Click to expand...

um, thats not "running" you pathetic simpleton

and i;'ll never accuse you of "playing dumb" you really ARE dumb


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you might have a point, after all, YOU post comments too.
> 
> But aren't you lumping posters into one big group? See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the one that is clearly OUT OF CONTEXT???
> 
> have you yet learned what "context" actually means yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The context of the first quote is obvious and you have never been able to give a different context for the quote.
> 
> Your MessiahRushie, who habitually accuses Libs of doing what he does, accused Libs of doing it in the first quote. The next two quotes are an example of Stuttering LimpTard doing it. In the second quote he is accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude and he gives a telltale sign of a messianic attitude to look for. In the third quote he satisfies his own telltale sign.
> 
> Those three quotes completely demolish your MessiahRushie in all his hypocrisy, driving you so crazy that I live rent free in your head and all you can think about is spiteful retalliation like a little child.
> 
> *Now you tell me what you think the context is.*
Click to expand...




DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't for his benefit.  You never know when somebody who doesn't have the facts might log in, see the stupid, and believe it.  The liberal bloggers are organized and carefully brainwashed, er coached, to put a specific message out there.  You see the same code words, same key phrases, same methodology used again and again on blog after blog after blog.
> 
> Some of us simply have to counter at least some of that with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice projection.
> See the first three quotes in my sig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which are ALL out of context
> 
> but continue to show just how fucking moronically stupid you can be
Click to expand...

You mindlessly parroted that lie this morning and when I challenged you to back up your lie with the correct context, you cut and ran like a little sissy. Now you simply repeat the same lie, so I again challenge you to back up your bullshit lie and give the correct context!


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the one that is clearly OUT OF CONTEXT???
> 
> have you yet learned what "context" actually means yet?
> 
> 
> 
> The context of the first quote is obvious and you have never been able to give a different context for the quote.
> 
> Your MessiahRushie, who habitually accuses Libs of doing what he does, accused Libs of doing it in the first quote. The next two quotes are an example of Stuttering LimpTard doing it. In the second quote he is accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude and he gives a telltale sign of a messianic attitude to look for. In the third quote he satisfies his own telltale sign.
> 
> Those three quotes completely demolish your MessiahRushie in all his hypocrisy, driving you so crazy that I live rent free in your head and all you can think about is spiteful retalliation like a little child.
> 
> *Now you tell me what you think the context is.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice projection.
> See the first three quotes in my sig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which are ALL out of context
> 
> but continue to show just how fucking moronically stupid you can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mindlessly parroted that lie this morning and when I challenged you to back up your lie with the correct context, you cut and ran like a little sissy. Now you simply repeat the same lie, so I again challenge you to back up your bullshit lie and give the correct context!
Click to expand...

you've been told
you ignore it 
not gonna keep telling you only to have you ignore it again
you are just proving you ARE the fucking moron i call you


but please do continue to show everyone i am right


----------



## daveman

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Juan Williams is a frustrated slave that ran to the Foxnews plantation after losing his job, had he stood on his own and forged his own path I would have respected him, but running to Bill O'Reilly and Fauxnews? Better to be an angry field slave than be a submissive, apologetic house slave.


I don't care if you're black -- that's racist as shit.  And the "you don't understand 'cause you're white" thing is horseshit.  

But I expect you want to bitterly cling to your double standards.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The context of the first quote is obvious and you have never been able to give a different context for the quote.
> 
> Your MessiahRushie, who habitually accuses Libs of doing what he does, accused Libs of doing it in the first quote. The next two quotes are an example of Stuttering LimpTard doing it. In the second quote he is accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude and he gives a telltale sign of a messianic attitude to look for. In the third quote he satisfies his own telltale sign.
> 
> Those three quotes completely demolish your MessiahRushie in all his hypocrisy, driving you so crazy that I live rent free in your head and all you can think about is spiteful retalliation like a little child.
> 
> *Now you tell me what you think the context is.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> which are ALL out of context
> 
> but continue to show just how fucking moronically stupid you can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mindlessly parroted that lie this morning and when I challenged you to back up your lie with the correct context, you cut and ran like a little sissy. Now you simply repeat the same lie, so I again challenge you to back up your bullshit lie and give the correct context!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you've been told
> you ignore it
> *not gonna keep telling you *only to have you ignore it again
> you are just proving you ARE the fucking moron i call you
> 
> 
> but please do continue to show everyone i am right
Click to expand...

You're just a pathological liar. In order to keep telling me you have to tell me the first time first. You've never given a different context and you know it.

You know I'm using all three quotes in the correct context and as a CON$ervative you are not man enough to admit it. Soooooooooo TYPICAL!!!!!!!

The quotes only have the devastating effect of exposing the hypocrisy of your MessiahRushie if he himself is accusing others of doing the things he does himself.

In the first quote he is accusing Dems of doing exactly what he is doing in the second quote by accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude when the third quote exposes his OWN Messianic attitude by the very trait he says confirms a Messianic attitude.

There is no other context!

Man up and admit the truth for the first time in your worthless lie of a life, you gutless coward.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mindlessly parroted that lie this morning and when I challenged you to back up your lie with the correct context, you cut and ran like a little sissy. Now you simply repeat the same lie, so I again challenge you to back up your bullshit lie and give the correct context!
> 
> 
> 
> you've been told
> you ignore it
> *not gonna keep telling you *only to have you ignore it again
> you are just proving you ARE the fucking moron i call you
> 
> 
> but please do continue to show everyone i am right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just a pathological liar. In order to keep telling me you have to tell me the first time first. You've never given a different context and you know it.
> 
> You know I'm using all three quotes in the correct context and as a CON$ervative you are not man enough to admit it. Soooooooooo TYPICAL!!!!!!!
> 
> The quotes only have the devastating effect of exposing the hypocrisy of your MessiahRushie if he himself is accusing others of doing the things he does himself.
> 
> In the first quote he is accusing Dems of doing exactly what he is doing in the second quote by accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude when the third quote exposes his OWN Messianic attitude by the very trait he says confirms a Messianic attitude.
> 
> There is no other context!
> 
> Man up and admit the truth for the first time in your worthless lie of a life, you gutless coward.
Click to expand...

fuck off you pathetic PoS
i never lie
but you do all the fucking time


----------



## Queen

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't run to Fox News.  He was fired because he WAS on Fox News.
> 
> 
> 
> And after he was fired he RAN straight to FOX to whine on the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof?
> 
> 
> btw ed, you wont have any
> he was already a paid contributor to FNC before he was fired
> that was the REASON he was fired
Click to expand...


You need proof that he ran to FOX to whine about being fired? I thought you watched FOX? You missed those days of whining? 

And he wasn't fired for being on FOX. He was fired for stating his fear of Muslims. NPR doesn't have racists as news analysts. But FOX does!


----------



## DiveCon

Queen said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And after he was fired he RAN straight to FOX to whine on the air.
> 
> 
> 
> proof?
> 
> 
> btw ed, you wont have any
> he was already a paid contributor to FNC before he was fired
> that was the REASON he was fired
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need proof that he ran to FOX to whine about being fired? I thought you watched FOX? You missed those days of whining?
> 
> And he wasn't fired for being on FOX. He was fired for stating his fear of Muslims. NPR doesn't have racists as news analysts. But FOX does!
Click to expand...

appearing is not ruining or whining'
you are just another pathetic fucking moron


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've been told
> you ignore it
> *not gonna keep telling you *only to have you ignore it again
> you are just proving you ARE the fucking moron i call you
> 
> 
> but please do continue to show everyone i am right
> 
> 
> 
> You're just a pathological liar. In order to keep telling me you have to tell me the first time first. You've never given a different context and you know it.
> 
> You know I'm using all three quotes in the correct context and as a CON$ervative you are not man enough to admit it. Soooooooooo TYPICAL!!!!!!!
> 
> The quotes only have the devastating effect of exposing the hypocrisy of your MessiahRushie if he himself is accusing others of doing the things he does himself.
> 
> In the first quote he is accusing Dems of doing exactly what he is doing in the second quote by accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude when the third quote exposes his OWN Messianic attitude by the very trait he says confirms a Messianic attitude.
> 
> There is no other context!
> 
> Man up and admit the truth for the first time in your worthless lie of a life, you gutless coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fuck off you pathetic PoS
> *i never lie*
> but you do all the fucking time
Click to expand...

Well if you're so damn honest, then humor me just this once and post the context one LAST time instead of posting excuses, because if you ever did post it I never saw it, and if you ever did post the context it will be piss easy for you to do it this one last time.

Of course, if you are lying you will just make more excuses.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just a pathological liar. In order to keep telling me you have to tell me the first time first. You've never given a different context and you know it.
> 
> You know I'm using all three quotes in the correct context and as a CON$ervative you are not man enough to admit it. Soooooooooo TYPICAL!!!!!!!
> 
> The quotes only have the devastating effect of exposing the hypocrisy of your MessiahRushie if he himself is accusing others of doing the things he does himself.
> 
> In the first quote he is accusing Dems of doing exactly what he is doing in the second quote by accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude when the third quote exposes his OWN Messianic attitude by the very trait he says confirms a Messianic attitude.
> 
> There is no other context!
> 
> Man up and admit the truth for the first time in your worthless lie of a life, you gutless coward.
> 
> 
> 
> fuck off you pathetic PoS
> *i never lie*
> but you do all the fucking time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're so damn honest, then humor me just this once and post the context one LAST time instead of posting excuses, because if you ever did post it I never saw it, and if you ever did post the context it will be piss easy for you to do it this one last time.
> 
> Of course, if you are lying you will just make more excuses.
Click to expand...

one last time
the first one is him repeating what someone else said, not HIS words

the other 2 are hyperbole
do you need that word defined?


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> fuck off you pathetic PoS
> *i never lie*
> but you do all the fucking time
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you're so damn honest, then humor me just this once and post the context one LAST time instead of posting excuses, because if you ever did post it I never saw it, and if you ever did post the context it will be piss easy for you to do it this one last time.
> 
> Of course, if you are lying you will just make more excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one last time
> the first one is him repeating what someone else said, not HIS words
> 
> the other 2 are hyperbole
> do you need that word defined?
Click to expand...

Well your first claim is an out and out lie. He makes the same accusation about the Lib Dems habitually and never has it been someone else's words.

The second quote was him dead serious in his attack of Obama.

And the "Don't doubt me" he has said a million times and he means it absolutely.

So as I said you are a pathological liar and you can't give a credible alternate context for the quotes I use.

Clinton, Inc. Runs Sleazy Campaign
Clinton, Inc. Runs Sleazy Campaign
December 13, 2007
RUSH:  "You know what?* Republicans are going to use this.* The Republicans are going to use this.* We can't nominate this guy! You're supporting Obama. He's in big trouble! He's got a slush fund. He's got drug use in his past.* If you support Obama, you're going to nominate him. Republicans will destroy him and we're not going to win!"* Really?* He has the chutzpah to say the Republicans might remind us, when it's the Hillary camp that did remind us.* More projection: You blame the Republicans for something that hadn't happened, that you've done.* We were told Mrs. Clinton is a victim, not a victimizer.* We were told she's attacked, not that she's the attacker.* We were told that there's a vast, right-thing wing conspiracy out to get her and her co-president.* Looky here! All that Barbra Streisand was pure BS.** Misdirection, transference: Accuse your opponents of doing what you do,* get everything looking to the right while you go pick their pocket.* We knew it.* Now Barack Obama knows it, but he can take comfort in this, I think.* The Clinton calendar probably had this scheduled for two weeks from now but certain developments in momentum -- as in she's imploding, along with her husband, and he's rising -- have made the announcement more urgent if you're on the left, more desperate if you're not on the left. This does smack of desperation.

The Goldman Sachs Inquisition
The Goldman Sachs Inquisition
April 27, 2010
RUSH:  We know that Jay Rockefeller prepared a memo for internal use on how to politicize 9/11 and a number of other things against George W. Bush, to turn the Democrats' position from supporting the invasion of Iraq around to, "We were lied to! We had no clue," blah, blah, blah. It was an internal memo.** So we know these Democrats do exactly what they accuse everybody else of doing.** So I would invite Senator Levin to make his e-mails available to the public since that seems to be an important standard here for going after whoever the enemy of the regime happens to be on a daily basis.*

Can Democrats Cheat Enough to Overcome Tuesday's Teanami?
Can Democrats Cheat Enough to Overcome Tuesday's Teanami?
October 27, 2010
CALLER:* This tells us that when they were talking about the Chamber of Commerce, this is the pot calling the kettle black. This is when legend becomes fact.

RUSH:* Well, exactly.* It's a good lesson.** When the Democrats accuse us of something, odds are they're already doing it.** Good lesson to learn there.*


END TRANSCRIPT

Economy Provides Great Opening for McCain Camp to Go on Offense
Economy Provides Great Opening for McCain Camp to Go on Offense
September 5, 2008
BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: The Fox people on the graphics side made a goof.* Obama did not say at his town meeting in Scranton, Pennsylvania that average income went up $75,000 a year during Clinton, he said $7,500.

OBAMA:* When Bill Clinton was president the average family income went up $7,500 dollars.* Since George Bush has been in office the average family income has gone down $2,000.

RUSH:* And I don't think either number is true.* But anyway that's what he's out there saying, and he's saying it from the defensive, ladies and gentlemen.* Obama has been dis-Obamalated.* He's in unfamiliar territory.** You know, when you are a messiah, when you have a messianic attitude about yourself, nobody's supposed to criticize you, nobody's supposed to doubt you.* Nobody is even really supposed to oppose you.* That's blasphemous.** Obama lost the aura that he had three months ago, Karl Rove said last night on Fox.* He's been studying the young vote, the 18-34 vote, Obama is down 20, 25%, because Obama's no longer what he was to these people. He's now just become a traditional, identifiable left-wing party hack. *


END TRANSCRIPT

The Next Storyline: Hillary 2012
The Next Storyline: Hillary 2012
October 11, 2010
RUSH:  Now, the next storyline is Hillary in 2012.* Have you picked up on that?* That's the next storyline.** Don't doubt me on this.* I have made a career out of studying the left.* I know how they do things.**

Obama: Mexicans Were Here Before America Was Even an Idea
Obama: Mexicans Were Here Before America Was Even an Idea
September 22, 2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

*RUSH: Don't doubt me on this, folks.** This is Wednesday night, a week ago, at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institutes's Annual Awards Gala.

OBAMA:* Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples: The British and French -- 

RUSH:* Yeah?

OBAMA:* -- to the Dutch and Spanish -- 

RUSH:* Right.

OBAMA:* -- to Mexican 

FOLLOWERS: (cheers)

RUSH:* No.* No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No.

OBAMA:* -- to countless Indian tribes -- 

RUSH:* No.

OBAMA:* -- we all shared -- 

RUSH:* Well...

OBAMA:* -- the same land.

RUSH:* Yeah, but --

OBAMA:* We didn't always get along.

RUSH:* They were Spaniards. The Spaniards became Mexicans. It was the Spaniards.* But, anyway, in black liberation theology (which is the teaching of Reverend Wright) the genocide of the American Indian is a major tenet.* Wright preached it constantly, the genocide of the American Indian, and Obama heard it.* It's a huge deal.* And people who speak this way are really just saying everything was peachy keen in North America until those racist Europeans showed up and start oppressing everybody.* That's what he believes.*



BREAK TRANSCRIPT


----------



## DiveCon

you post it, but you dont comprehend it
you prove once again you ARE the fucking moron i call you


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> you post it, but you dont comprehend it
> you prove once again you ARE the fucking moron i call you


I can "comprehend" what are HIS words and what aren't his words which you apparently pretend to be too dumb to be able to do.

You once again prove you are the pathological liar incapable of admitting the truth I said you are.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you post it, but you dont comprehend it
> you prove once again you ARE the fucking moron i call you
> 
> 
> 
> I can "comprehend" what are HIS words and what aren't his words which you apparently pretend to be too dumb to be able to do.
> 
> You once again prove you are the pathological liar incapable of admitting the truth I said you are.
Click to expand...

yes, he said it, but in the context of what he said he was refering to what OTHERS do, not what he wanted YOU or his listeners to do
you are a fucking idiot


----------



## DiveCon

and you are not a liar, you are too fucking STUPID to be one


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> Your MessiahRushie, who habitually accuses Libs of doing what he does, accused Libs of doing it in the first quote. The next two quotes are an example of Stuttering LimpTard doing it. In the second quote he is accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude and he gives a telltale sign of a messianic attitude to look for. In the third quote he satisfies his own telltale sign.





edthecynic said:


> In the first quote he is accusing Dems of doing exactly what he is doing in the second quote by accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude when the third quote exposes his OWN Messianic attitude by the very trait he says confirms a Messianic attitude.
> 
> There is no other context!





DiveCon said:


> yes, he said it, but in the context of what he said he was refering to what OTHERS do, not what he wanted YOU or his listeners to do
> you are a fucking idiot


And that is exactly the context it was used as, otherwise it would not expose him as a hypocrite. And I've already explained it to you twice in this thread alone. I reposted them above.

In the first quote LimpTard accuses others of doing what he does. The second and third quotes prove that he does it and that his first quote is hypocritical.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your MessiahRushie, who habitually accuses Libs of doing what he does, accused Libs of doing it in the first quote. The next two quotes are an example of Stuttering LimpTard doing it. In the second quote he is accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude and he gives a telltale sign of a messianic attitude to look for. In the third quote he satisfies his own telltale sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the first quote he is accusing Dems of doing exactly what he is doing in the second quote by accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude when the third quote exposes his OWN Messianic attitude by the very trait he says confirms a Messianic attitude.
> 
> There is no other context!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, he said it, but in the context of what he said he was refering to what OTHERS do, not what he wanted YOU or his listeners to do
> you are a fucking idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that is exactly the context it was used as, otherwise it would not expose him as a hypocrite. And I've already explained it to you twice in this thread alone. I reposted them above.
> 
> In the first quote LimpTard accuses others of doing what he does. The second and third quotes prove that he does it and that his first quote is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

first off, he isnt my "anything"
second you are still an idiot


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> and you are not a liar, you are too fucking STUPID to be one


CON$ believe their talent for lying, on loan from Gawwwwwd-da, makes them intellectually superior to honest people, so thank you.

Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
- Samuel Butler


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you are not a liar, you are too fucking STUPID to be one
> 
> 
> 
> CON$ believe their talent for lying, on loan from Gawwwwwd-da, makes them intellectually superior to honest people, so thank you.
> 
> Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
> - Samuel Butler
Click to expand...

you are an idiot


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your MessiahRushie, who habitually accuses Libs of doing what he does, accused Libs of doing it in the first quote. The next two quotes are an example of Stuttering LimpTard doing it. In the second quote he is accusing Obama of having a Messianic attitude and he gives a telltale sign of a messianic attitude to look for. In the third quote he satisfies his own telltale sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, he said it, but in the context of what he said he was refering to what OTHERS do, not what he wanted YOU or his listeners to do
> you are a fucking idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that is exactly the context it was used as, otherwise it would not expose him as a hypocrite. And I've already explained it to you twice in this thread alone. I reposted them above.
> 
> In the first quote LimpTard accuses others of doing what he does. The second and third quotes prove that he does it and that his first quote is hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> first off, he isnt my "anything"
> second you are still an idiot
Click to expand...

An idiot who can make a fool of the voice of the Modern CON$ervative Movement with 3 simple quotes. Something the "Liberal media" has been unable to do in over 20 years of trying!


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you are not a liar, you are too fucking STUPID to be one
> 
> 
> 
> CON$ believe their talent for lying, on loan from Gawwwwwd-da, makes them intellectually superior to honest people, so thank you.
> 
> Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
> - Samuel Butler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are an idiot
Click to expand...

An idiot who OWNS you none the less!


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> CON$ believe their talent for lying, on loan from Gawwwwwd-da, makes them intellectually superior to honest people, so thank you.
> 
> Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
> - Samuel Butler
> 
> 
> 
> you are an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An idiot who OWNS you none the less!
Click to expand...

ah there it is again
yuz da winnah on da interwebs



keep proving yourself a fucking idiot, its very amusing


----------



## Intense

*"EdtheCynic: An idiot who can make a fool of the voice of the Modern CON$ervative Movement with 3 simple quotes. Something the "Liberal media" has been unable to do in over 20 years of trying!"*

What Liberals do after bankrupting Radio Networks Fail. They get Government Jobs any way they can, then they tear down and destroy the quality of life through incompetence. You wish you had half the talent and skill as Rush. You can't have him and you can't be him. Live with it. So many have tried to compete from the Left, epic clueless fail. You don't even understand sarcasm or context, which makes your claim a fraud.

Pathetic Loser: The Uptake: Senator Al Franken at Dayton Rally | Al Franken - U.S. Senator, Minnesota


----------



## Intense

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> CON$ believe their talent for lying, on loan from Gawwwwwd-da, makes them intellectually superior to honest people, so thank you.
> 
> Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
> - Samuel Butler
> 
> 
> 
> you are an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An idiot who OWNS you none the less!
Click to expand...


Now you advocate Slavery! OMG   

Just following your line of poor reasoning and misdirection to make a point.


----------



## DiveCon

Intense said:


> *"EdtheCynic: An idiot who can make a fool of the voice of the Modern CON$ervative Movement with 3 simple quotes. Something the "Liberal media" has been unable to do in over 20 years of trying!"*
> 
> What Liberals do after bankrupting Radio Networks Fail. They get Government Jobs any way they can, then they tear down and destroy the quality of life through incompetence. You wish you had half the talent and skill as Rush. You can't have him and you can't be him. Live with it. So many have tried to compete from the Left, epic clueless fail. You don't even understand sarcasm or context, which makes your claim a fraud.
> 
> Pathetic Loser: The Uptake: Senator Al Franken at Dayton Rally | Al Franken - U.S. Senator, Minnesota


i doubt he has the capacity to understand what context means


----------



## Intense

DiveCon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"EdtheCynic: An idiot who can make a fool of the voice of the Modern CON$ervative Movement with 3 simple quotes. Something the "Liberal media" has been unable to do in over 20 years of trying!"*
> 
> What Liberals do after bankrupting Radio Networks Fail. They get Government Jobs any way they can, then they tear down and destroy the quality of life through incompetence. You wish you had half the talent and skill as Rush. You can't have him and you can't be him. Live with it. So many have tried to compete from the Left, epic clueless fail. You don't even understand sarcasm or context, which makes your claim a fraud.
> 
> Pathetic Loser: The Uptake: Senator Al Franken at Dayton Rally | Al Franken - U.S. Senator, Minnesota
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt he has the capacity to understand what context means
Click to expand...


What do they do, just read partial transcripts and use a diving rod to discern witness from sarcasm, satire, and jokes? It's amazing how many Rush's voice has rescued from the Kool-Aid Nazis.


----------



## edthecynic

Intense said:


> *"EdtheCynic: An idiot who can make a fool of the voice of the Modern CON$ervative Movement with 3 simple quotes. Something the "Liberal media" has been unable to do in over 20 years of trying!"*
> 
> What Liberals do after bankrupting Radio Networks Fail. They get Government Jobs any way they can, then they tear down and destroy the quality of life through incompetence. *You wish you had half the talent* and skill as Rush. You can't have him and you can't be him. Live with it. So many have tried to compete from the Left, epic clueless fail. You don't even understand sarcasm or context, which makes your claim a fraud.
> 
> Pathetic Loser: The Uptake: Senator Al Franken at Dayton Rally | Al Franken - U.S. Senator, Minnesota


His one and only "talent" is for LYING, something I would NEVER wish to have.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"EdtheCynic: An idiot who can make a fool of the voice of the Modern CON$ervative Movement with 3 simple quotes. Something the "Liberal media" has been unable to do in over 20 years of trying!"*
> 
> What Liberals do after bankrupting Radio Networks Fail. They get Government Jobs any way they can, then they tear down and destroy the quality of life through incompetence. *You wish you had half the talent* and skill as Rush. You can't have him and you can't be him. Live with it. So many have tried to compete from the Left, epic clueless fail. You don't even understand sarcasm or context, which makes your claim a fraud.
> 
> Pathetic Loser: The Uptake: Senator Al Franken at Dayton Rally | Al Franken - U.S. Senator, Minnesota
> 
> 
> 
> His one and only "talent" is for LYING, something I would NEVER wish to have.
Click to expand...

yet you cant document a single lie
not without taking things out of context


----------



## Kat

What the heck happened to this flipping thread? I so wish some threads could just be debate....even strong debate, but when it resorts to nothing but name calling..what good is it anymore?  
Another one to ''unsubscribe'' I suppose.


----------



## edthecynic

Intense said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"EdtheCynic: An idiot who can make a fool of the voice of the Modern CON$ervative Movement with 3 simple quotes. Something the "Liberal media" has been unable to do in over 20 years of trying!"*
> 
> What Liberals do after bankrupting Radio Networks Fail. They get Government Jobs any way they can, then they tear down and destroy the quality of life through incompetence. You wish you had half the talent and skill as Rush. You can't have him and you can't be him. Live with it. So many have tried to compete from the Left, epic clueless fail. You don't even understand sarcasm or context, which makes your claim a fraud.
> 
> Pathetic Loser: The Uptake: Senator Al Franken at Dayton Rally | Al Franken - U.S. Senator, Minnesota
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt he has the capacity to understand what context means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What do they do, just read partial transcripts *and use a diving rod to discern witness from sarcasm, satire, and jokes? It's amazing how many Rush's voice has rescued from the Kool-Aid Nazis.
Click to expand...

That's what your MessiahRushie has programmed you to say. 

So I challenge you to find anyone else using my Messiah quote that I could have gotten  from a partial transcript. Other than myself, you will only find the transcript that quote came from on his web site and the CON$ervative sites that repost his entire transcripts.

Face facts, I know the pathological liar better than he knows himself. Do you really think he sees HIS own Messianic attitude?


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt he has the capacity to understand what context means
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What do they do, just read partial transcripts *and use a diving rod to discern witness from sarcasm, satire, and jokes? It's amazing how many Rush's voice has rescued from the Kool-Aid Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what your MessiahRushie has programmed you to say.
> 
> So I challenge you to find anyone else using my Messiah quote that I could have gotten  from a partial transcript. Other than myself, you will only find the transcript that quote came from on his web site and the CON$ervative sites that repost his entire transcripts.
> 
> Face facts, I know the pathological liar better than he knows himself. Do you really think he sees HIS own Messianic attitude?
Click to expand...


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt he has the capacity to understand what context means
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What do they do, just read partial transcripts *and use a diving rod to discern witness from sarcasm, satire, and jokes? It's amazing how many Rush's voice has rescued from the Kool-Aid Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what your MessiahRushie has programmed you to say.
> 
> So I challenge you to find anyone else using my Messiah quote that I could have gotten  from a partial transcript. Other than myself, you will only find the transcript that quote came from on his web site and the CON$ervative sites that repost his entire transcripts.
> 
> Face facts, I know the pathological liar better than he knows himself. Do you really think he sees HIS own Messianic attitude?
Click to expand...

another thing you dont understand, hyperbole


----------



## Kat

Kat said:


> What the heck happened to this flipping thread? I so wish some threads could just be debate....even strong debate, but when it resorts to nothing but name calling..what good is it anymore?
> Another one to ''unsubscribe'' I suppose.





So, what do you think of Juan losing his job like that? Is he better off now? I say yes!


----------



## Kat

Kat said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck happened to this flipping thread? I so wish some threads could just be debate....even strong debate, but when it resorts to nothing but name calling..what good is it anymore?
> Another one to ''unsubscribe'' I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of Juan losing his job like that? Is he better off now? I say yes!
Click to expand...


Oh I agree Kat. He was done dirty. But, he will survive. And be better off for it. Yup.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"EdtheCynic: An idiot who can make a fool of the voice of the Modern CON$ervative Movement with 3 simple quotes. Something the "Liberal media" has been unable to do in over 20 years of trying!"*
> 
> What Liberals do after bankrupting Radio Networks Fail. They get Government Jobs any way they can, then they tear down and destroy the quality of life through incompetence. *You wish you had half the talent* and skill as Rush. You can't have him and you can't be him. Live with it. So many have tried to compete from the Left, epic clueless fail. You don't even understand sarcasm or context, which makes your claim a fraud.
> 
> Pathetic Loser: The Uptake: Senator Al Franken at Dayton Rally | Al Franken - U.S. Senator, Minnesota
> 
> 
> 
> His one and only "talent" is for LYING, something I would NEVER wish to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet you cant document a single lie
> not without taking things out of context
Click to expand...

First of all, you've worn out that "out of context" BS already.

And I can certainly document his lies, do you want to put up some money against me?


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What do they do, just read partial transcripts *and use a diving rod to discern witness from sarcasm, satire, and jokes? It's amazing how many Rush's voice has rescued from the Kool-Aid Nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what your MessiahRushie has programmed you to say.
> 
> So I challenge you to find anyone else using my Messiah quote that I could have gotten  from a partial transcript. Other than myself, you will only find the transcript that quote came from on his web site and the CON$ervative sites that repost his entire transcripts.
> 
> Face facts, I know the pathological liar better than he knows himself. Do you really think he sees HIS own Messianic attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another thing you dont understand, hyperbole
Click to expand...

Actually I do! 

And I also understand the difference between exaggeration to make a point and exaggeration to the point of lying.
You obviously don't!


----------



## Kat

Kat said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck happened to this flipping thread? I so wish some threads could just be debate....even strong debate, but when it resorts to nothing but name calling..what good is it anymore?
> Another one to ''unsubscribe'' I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of Juan losing his job like that? Is he better off now? I say yes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I agree Kat. He was done dirty. But, he will survive. And be better off for it. Yup.
Click to expand...


But, some people just don't get it, and just go on and on ad nauseum...beating a dead horse with their DERAILS!


----------



## California Girl

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what your MessiahRushie has programmed you to say.
> 
> So I challenge you to find anyone else using my Messiah quote that I could have gotten  from a partial transcript. Other than myself, you will only find the transcript that quote came from on his web site and the CON$ervative sites that repost his entire transcripts.
> 
> Face facts, I know the pathological liar better than he knows himself. Do you really think he sees HIS own Messianic attitude?
> 
> 
> 
> another thing you dont understand, hyperbole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I do!
> 
> And I also understand the difference between exaggeration to make a point and exaggeration to the point of lying.
> You obviously don't!
Click to expand...


Hey, ed.... you know what's really funny about that first quote in your sig? Rush was taking a play from Saul Alinski's Rules for Radicals. It wasn't Rush's idea - it's a tactic that the left have used for decades. But you don't quote Saul, you quote Rush. 

That makes you a hypocrite, to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.... be they left or right.


----------



## Intense

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PZPpWTRTU[/ame]


----------



## Intense

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> His one and only "talent" is for LYING, something I would NEVER wish to have.
> 
> 
> 
> yet you cant document a single lie
> not without taking things out of context
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, you've worn out that "out of context" BS already.
> 
> And I can certainly document his lies, do you want to put up some money against me?
Click to expand...


Ed, How about just keeping conversations about Rush on Rush Threads, God knows there are enough of them. Fair????? Good.


----------



## edthecynic

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPR claims to reach 34 million listeners.  More than 10% of America?  I doubt that.
> 
> First interview with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing | Radio & TV Talk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was posting here I think, months ago.  The top 4 talk radio programs in America are:
> 
> 1.  Rush Limbaugh
> 2.  "All Things Considered" (NPR)
> 3.  "Morning Edition" (NPR)
> 4.  Sean Hannity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.*
Click to expand...




edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Colmes: Theres no such thing as radical Islam [video] | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
> 
> What a buffoon Comes is!  Hes just like Holder and everyone else in the Obama Administration, a Radical Socialist-Democrat.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Breitbart.tv  Alan Colmes: Theres No Such Thing as Radical Islam
> 
> Colmes should have a hot poker stuck in his.... Ummmm, Ummmm, ummm, mmm, mmm, mmm, Brarack Husain Obama, sorry, he should have that hot poker stuck somewhere for being a radical, liberaral, progressive, Marxist, who can't admit the truth to protect a lie.
> 
> 
> Colmes is as disgusting as the dangerous, radical Muslim usurper occupying the WH
> 
> 
> Why would anyone be surprised at this coming from colmes - he is beneath scum of the earth. O'Rielly and Fox news are stupid for having him on - I turn them off everytime he shows up - although it is difficult to recognize if it is him or a horses butt!!!! Can't tell the difference. Another partner in the Chicago thugs.
> 
> 
> Hannity dropped this blathering idiot, not because he's a Nazi Socialist, not because he loves Mao, Lenin and Stalin and covertly hates blacks, ala Margaret Sanger, but because he's just too stupid to know how stupid he is.
> 
> 
> Colmes is just another misguided, naive, liberal, pie-in-the-sky progressive who thinks everyone will sing Kumbaya around the campfire if we appease them enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Breitbart.tv  Alan Colmes Wants to Stop Commemorating 9/11
> 
> Personally I like Alan but he is a first class ,kool-aid spewing,party-toting,not with main stream America,Obama loving,liberal MOONBAT.
> 
> 
> You know...Allan...I give you every right to say all the garbage you spew out on behalf of your savior and messiah...the puppet of the Bilderberg...Obama the Bush...but I just wish you would take it to MSNBC where you would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> Always felt Alan was out of touch, now this just confirms it. I'm sure Alan feels right at home at an apartment in Red Square or in Beijing.
> 
> 
> Being Fair and Balanced is an understatement with Colmes on board Fox News. The pendulum swings wide everytime he opens his mouth. I always hit the mute button because he makes my brain hurt trying to comprehend his arguments. Say what?
> 
> 
> colmes is such a libRETARD! It's a shame he is back on FOX. His opinions are as DUMB as ever, and I can't stand watching FOX when he is on. The only good thing about him being on FOX is when Oreilly sets him straight and makes him look like the libRETARD that he is. I can't believe this CLOWN is related to Monica Crowley. Just goes to show you, there's always on in the family! Please FOX, get rid of him. He deserves a spot on msLSD or cnn, not FOX!
> 
> 
> Typical Leftist Fool. MARXIST=DEMOCRATS=TERRORIST All the same. More proof.
> 
> 
> Another American traitor I wonder, if a terrorist plane crashed through his home and killed his entire family would he stop for a remembrance each year... The pathetic moron.
> Why is it that each and every person, man or woman, that looks like this stupid moron, turn out to be a lunatic left wing communist dolt?
> 
> 
> Alan has drank SO MUCH of the kool-aid that his brain is rotting.
> 
> 
> Alan Colmes is an America hating loonbat who thinks Nazi Piglosi is main stream.
> 
> 
> 
> ah, so people posting comments on a blog now qualify as rational people
> LOL
> 
> there is your mistake, you lump everyone you perceive as conservative into one big group(like that moron rdean) and then assume you can say that of everyone that is a conservative
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are your typical GRASS ROOTS CON$ervatives. You asked WHO, you didn't put any qualification on what WHO is.
Click to expand...




DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah, so people posting comments on a blog now qualify as rational people
> LOL
> 
> there is your mistake , you lump everyone you perceive as conservative into one big group(like that moron rdean) and then assume you can say that of everyone that is a conservative
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you might have a point, after all, YOU post comments too.
> 
> But aren't you lumping posters into one big group? See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *you mean the one that is clearly OUT OF CONTEXT???*
> 
> have you yet learned what "context" actually means yet?
Click to expand...




Intense said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet you cant document a single lie
> not without taking things out of context
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you've worn out that "out of context" BS already.
> 
> And I can certainly document his lies, do you want to put up some money against me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ed, How about just keeping conversations about Rush on Rush Threads, God knows there are enough of them. Fair????? Good.
Click to expand...

I love how CON$ are allowed to bring up Stuttering LimpTard to make a point, but not me.

And it was DumbCon who derailed this thread by lying about the first quote in my sig being "out of context" even though he had no idea what the context was and thinking his MessiahRushie was quoting someone else's words.


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was posting here I think, months ago.  The top 4 talk radio programs in America are:
> 
> 1.  Rush Limbaugh
> 2.  "All Things Considered" (NPR)
> 3.  "Morning Edition" (NPR)
> 4.  Sean Hannity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you've worn out that "out of context" BS already.
> 
> And I can certainly document his lies, do you want to put up some money against me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ed, How about just keeping conversations about Rush on Rush Threads, God knows there are enough of them. Fair????? Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love how CON$ are allowed to bring up Stuttering LimpTard to make a point, but not me.
> 
> And it was DumbCon who derailed this thread by lying about the first quote in my sig being "out of context" even though he had no idea what the context was and thinking his MessiahRushie was quoting someone else's words.
Click to expand...




If all that is true, then WHY do you keep it going? Is that Dive's fault too???


----------



## edthecynic

Kat said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ed, How about just keeping conversations about Rush on Rush Threads, God knows there are enough of them. Fair????? Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love how CON$ are allowed to bring up Stuttering LimpTard to make a point, but not me.
> 
> And it was DumbCon who derailed this thread by lying about the first quote in my sig being "out of context" even though he had no idea what the context was and thinking his MessiahRushie was quoting someone else's words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all that is true, then WHY do you keep it going? Is that Dive's fault too???
Click to expand...

So you are saying I must allow false statements to stand unchallenged.
Did you neg rep DumbCon for his continuing the derailment he started of this thread, or just me?


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how CON$ are allowed to bring up Stuttering LimpTard to make a point, but not me.
> 
> And it was DumbCon who derailed this thread by lying about the first quote in my sig being "out of context" even though he had no idea what the context was and thinking his MessiahRushie was quoting someone else's words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all that is true, then WHY do you keep it going? Is that Dive's fault too???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying I must allow false statements to stand unchallenged.
> Did you neg rep DumbCon for his continuing the derailment he started of this thread, or just me?
Click to expand...



I find the back and forth name calling by EITHER of you annoying after a while. I can see it here and there, but to totally derail a thread by either of you just to call names is silly.

What do you think about what was done to Juan Williams? Was it okay to fire the man for giving his feelings as he did?


----------



## edthecynic

Kat said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all that is true, then WHY do you keep it going? Is that Dive's fault too???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying I must allow false statements to stand unchallenged.
> Did you neg rep DumbCon for his continuing the derailment he started of this thread, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I find the back and forth name calling by EITHER of you annoying after a while. I can see it here and there, but to totally derail a thread by either of you just to call names is silly.
> 
> What do you think about what was done to Juan Williams? Was it okay to fire the man for giving his feelings as he did?
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a "just me."

This thread was dead long before DumbCon and I got into it as exemplified by your failed efforts to revive the discussion about Williams.

But, nice guy that I am, I'll try to help you revive the Williams angle.

I think Williams knew he was stepping over the line he was warned about by NPR and did it deliberately.


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying I must allow false statements to stand unchallenged.
> Did you neg rep DumbCon for his continuing the derailment he started of this thread, or just me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find the back and forth name calling by EITHER of you annoying after a while. I can see it here and there, but to totally derail a thread by either of you just to call names is silly.
> 
> What do you think about what was done to Juan Williams? Was it okay to fire the man for giving his feelings as he did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll take that as a "just me."
> 
> This thread was dead long before DumbCon and I got into it as exemplified by your failed efforts to revive the discussion about Williams.
> 
> But, nice guy that I am, I'll try to help you revive the Williams angle.
> 
> I think Williams knew he was stepping over the line he was warned about by NPR and did it deliberately.
Click to expand...


What do you base that on? He didn't seem to have done it deliberately. What would be his motive?


And yes, maybe the thread was dead, but I have seen many efforts to bring it back too.

As for Dive, that would be between the 2 of us. If he decides to reveal whether he was negged, that is up to him, but just because I didn't answer you, doesn't mean your assumptions are correct.


----------



## edthecynic

Kat said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the back and forth name calling by EITHER of you annoying after a while. I can see it here and there, but to totally derail a thread by either of you just to call names is silly.
> 
> What do you think about what was done to Juan Williams? Was it okay to fire the man for giving his feelings as he did?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a "just me."
> 
> This thread was dead long before DumbCon and I got into it as exemplified by your failed efforts to revive the discussion about Williams.
> 
> But, nice guy that I am, I'll try to help you revive the Williams angle.
> 
> I think Williams knew he was stepping over the line he was warned about by NPR and did it deliberately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you base that on? He didn't seem to have done it deliberately. What would be his motive?
> 
> 
> And yes, maybe the thread was dead, but I have seen many efforts to bring it back too.
> 
> As for Dive, that would be between the 2 of us. If he decides to reveal whether he was negged, that is up to him, but just because I didn't answer you, doesn't mean your assumptions are correct.
Click to expand...

Well to be honest, I'm not a mind-reader. I only said that because I thought it would be provocative enough to get the thread going.

But if I had to speculate I would guess he wanted to leave NPR and tap the rich minefields of Right wing media and saw this as a golden opportunity to generate publicity for the move.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a "just me."
> 
> This thread was dead long before DumbCon and I got into it as exemplified by your failed efforts to revive the discussion about Williams.
> 
> But, nice guy that I am, I'll try to help you revive the Williams angle.
> 
> I think Williams knew he was stepping over the line he was warned about by NPR and did it deliberately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you base that on? He didn't seem to have done it deliberately. What would be his motive?
> 
> 
> And yes, maybe the thread was dead, but I have seen many efforts to bring it back too.
> 
> As for Dive, that would be between the 2 of us. If he decides to reveal whether he was negged, that is up to him, but just because I didn't answer you, doesn't mean your assumptions are correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well to be honest, I'm not a mind-reader. I only said that because I thought it would be provocative enough to get the thread going.
> 
> But if I had to speculate I would guess he wanted to leave NPR and tap the rich minefields of Right wing media and saw this as a golden opportunity to generate publicity for the move.
Click to expand...

you are an idiot, carby was the one to bring up rush, not any conservative
you are not only a hypocrite you are a pathological LIAR


----------



## Kat

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you base that on? He didn't seem to have done it deliberately. What would be his motive?
> 
> 
> And yes, maybe the thread was dead, but I have seen many efforts to bring it back too.
> 
> As for Dive, that would be between the 2 of us. If he decides to reveal whether he was negged, that is up to him, but just because I didn't answer you, doesn't mean your assumptions are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be honest, I'm not a mind-reader. I only said that because I thought it would be provocative enough to get the thread going.
> 
> But if I had to speculate I would guess he wanted to leave NPR and tap the rich minefields of Right wing media and saw this as a golden opportunity to generate publicity for the move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are an idiot, carby was the one to bring up rush, not any conservative
> you are not only a hypocrite you are a pathological LIAR
Click to expand...




Okay. Fine. I give up. Back to your playground....have fun big boys.


----------



## chanel

Any statement of support from the NAACP yet? Sharpton?


----------



## edthecynic

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be honest, I'm not a mind-reader. I only said that because I thought it would be provocative enough to get the thread going.
> 
> But if I had to speculate I would guess he wanted to leave NPR and tap the rich minefields of Right wing media and saw this as a golden opportunity to generate publicity for the move.
> 
> 
> 
> you are an idiot, carby was the one to bring up rush, not any conservative
> you are not only a hypocrite you are a pathological LIAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Fine. I give up. Back to your playground....have fun big boys.
Click to expand...

Now, I purposely didn't take his lies on, just as you suggested, and YOU cut and run.
Again, I'll take that as I'm the only one you negged.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are an idiot, carby was the one to bring up rush, not any conservative
> you are not only a hypocrite you are a pathological LIAR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Fine. I give up. Back to your playground....have fun big boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, I purposely didn't take his lies on, just as you suggested, and YOU cut and run.
> Again, I'll take that as I'm the only one you negged.
Click to expand...

whine some more

btw, are you going to admit you lied yet?


----------



## Intense

chanel said:


> Any statement of support from the NAACP yet? Sharpton?



Maybe when Hell freezes over. I'd like to hear what Al has to say though. I'd bet it would be good.


----------



## Intense

I haven't neg repped either of you. Why not take the argument to a Rush Thread?


----------



## DiveCon

Intense said:


> I haven't neg repped either of you. Why not take the argument to a Rush Thread?


doesnt every thread ed the moron posts in become a rush thread?


----------



## Intense

DiveCon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't neg repped either of you. Why not take the argument to a Rush Thread?
> 
> 
> 
> doesnt every thread ed the moron posts in become a rush thread?
Click to expand...


Allot.


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are an idiot, carby was the one to bring up rush, not any conservative
> you are not only a hypocrite you are a pathological LIAR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Fine. I give up. Back to your playground....have fun big boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, I purposely didn't take his lies on, just as you suggested, and YOU cut and run.
> Again, I'll take that as I'm the only one you negged.
Click to expand...


I didn't cut and run. I am not going to try and post in this thread with you guys doing your pansy back and forth name calling.

Re what you said above:
I think Juan Williams is an honest enough man. I think if he wanted to leave, and do what he is now doing, that is exactly what he would have done. No way did he do it on purpose TO TRY AND LAND ANOTHER JOB.


----------



## edthecynic

Kat said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Fine. I give up. Back to your playground....have fun big boys.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I purposely didn't take his lies on, just as you suggested, and YOU cut and run.
> Again, I'll take that as I'm the only one you negged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't cut and run. I am not going to try and post in this thread with you guys doing your pansy back and forth name calling.
> 
> Re what you said above:
> I think Juan Williams is an honest enough man. I think if he wanted to leave, and do what he is now doing, that is exactly what he would have done. No way did he do it on purpose TO TRY AND LAND ANOTHER JOB.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to do it to try to land a new job, but someone with a  media job certainly would want a lot of publicity to promote the new job. And it did generate a ton of publicity, there's no denying that. 

I found it interesting just how quickly FOX had a new contract drawn up and agreed to with all the little sticky contractual details resolved in a matter of hours. I suspect the move to FOX was decided well in advance of the publicity stunt.


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I purposely didn't take his lies on, just as you suggested, and YOU cut and run.
> Again, I'll take that as I'm the only one you negged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't cut and run. I am not going to try and post in this thread with you guys doing your pansy back and forth name calling.
> 
> Re what you said above:
> I think Juan Williams is an honest enough man. I think if he wanted to leave, and do what he is now doing, that is exactly what he would have done. No way did he do it on purpose TO TRY AND LAND ANOTHER JOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't have to do it to try to lane a new job, but someone with a  media job certainly would want a lot of publicity to promote the new job. And it did generate a ton of publicity, there's no denying that.
> 
> I found it interesting just how quickly FOX had a new contract drawn up and agreed to with all the little sticky contractual details resolved in a matter of hours. I suspect the move to FOX was decided well in advance of the publicity stunt.
Click to expand...


No. NPR got him the publicity...not Juan. Darn right it went public. You really expect that to stay quiet?

He was already with Fox anyway. I would guess it was pretty darn easy to get that set.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I purposely didn't take his lies on, just as you suggested, and YOU cut and run.
> Again, I'll take that as I'm the only one you negged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't cut and run. I am not going to try and post in this thread with you guys doing your pansy back and forth name calling.
> 
> Re what you said above:
> I think Juan Williams is an honest enough man. I think if he wanted to leave, and do what he is now doing, that is exactly what he would have done. No way did he do it on purpose TO TRY AND LAND ANOTHER JOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't have to do it to try to land a new job, but someone with a  media job certainly would want a lot of publicity to promote the new job. And it did generate a ton of publicity, there's no denying that.
> 
> I found it interesting just how quickly FOX had a new contract drawn up and agreed to with all the little sticky contractual details resolved in a matter of hours. I suspect the move to FOX was decided well in advance of the publicity stunt.
Click to expand...

get your tinfoil hat


----------



## edthecynic

Kat said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't cut and run. I am not going to try and post in this thread with you guys doing your pansy back and forth name calling.
> 
> Re what you said above:
> I think Juan Williams is an honest enough man. I think if he wanted to leave, and do what he is now doing, that is exactly what he would have done. No way did he do it on purpose TO TRY AND LAND ANOTHER JOB.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't have to do it to try to lane a new job, but someone with a  media job certainly would want a lot of publicity to promote the new job. And it did generate a ton of publicity, there's no denying that.
> 
> I found it interesting just how quickly FOX had a new contract drawn up and agreed to with all the little sticky contractual details resolved in a matter of hours. I suspect the move to FOX was decided well in advance of the publicity stunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. NPR got him the publicity...not Juan. Darn right it went public. You really expect that to stay quiet?
> 
> He was already with Fox anyway. I would guess it was pretty darn easy to get that set.
Click to expand...

If his new job was the same as his old job at FOX he wouldn't need a new contract. I find it hard to believe Williams would have signed a new contract without having his lawyer read it, and not too many GOOD lawyers are sitting around all day with nothing to do except waiting for Williams to call and ask them to drop everything and carefully read over the new contract, after all the new contract had an exclusivity clause and a new regular column on foxnews.com.

The Cynic in me suspects the job and the contract were already agreed to and they were just waiting for the opportunity to get some publicity.


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't have to do it to try to lane a new job, but someone with a  media job certainly would want a lot of publicity to promote the new job. And it did generate a ton of publicity, there's no denying that.
> 
> I found it interesting just how quickly FOX had a new contract drawn up and agreed to with all the little sticky contractual details resolved in a matter of hours. I suspect the move to FOX was decided well in advance of the publicity stunt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. NPR got him the publicity...not Juan. Darn right it went public. You really expect that to stay quiet?
> 
> He was already with Fox anyway. I would guess it was pretty darn easy to get that set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If his new job was the same as his old job at FOX he wouldn't need a new contract. I find it hard to believe Williams would have signed a new contract without having his lawyer read it, and not too many GOOD lawyers are sitting around all day with nothing to do except waiting for Williams to call and ask them to drop everything and carefully read over the new contract, after all the new contract had an exclusivity clause and a new regular column on foxnews.com.
> 
> The Cynic in me suspects the job and the contract were already agreed to and they were just waiting for the opportunity to get some publicity.
Click to expand...




I didn't say his new job was the same as his old one. I said he was already WITH Fox.
And how do you know when the contract was signed? Contracts may be drawn up, and not signed immediately, even if a verbal agreement is made. Sheesh.


----------



## edthecynic

Kat said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. NPR got him the publicity...not Juan. Darn right it went public. You really expect that to stay quiet?
> 
> He was already with Fox anyway. I would guess it was pretty darn easy to get that set.
> 
> 
> 
> If his new job was the same as his old job at FOX he wouldn't need a new contract. I find it hard to believe Williams would have signed a new contract without having his lawyer read it, and not too many GOOD lawyers are sitting around all day with nothing to do except waiting for Williams to call and ask them to drop everything and carefully read over the new contract, after all the new contract had an exclusivity clause and a new regular column on foxnews.com.
> 
> The Cynic in me suspects the job and the contract were already agreed to and they were just waiting for the opportunity to get some publicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say his new job was the same as his old one. I said he was already WITH Fox.
> And how do you know when the contract was signed? Contracts may be drawn up, and not signed immediately, even if a verbal agreement is made. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role - Los Angeles Times
*In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role*

*The  cable news network signs the analyst to a new three-year contract for  nearly $2 million. Meanwhile, conservative figures blast the public  radio network for its response to Williams' comments about Muslims.*

*Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year  contract* *Thursday morning*, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a  considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington  Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively  and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column  on FoxNews.com.


*On Wednesday, NPR told Williams it was terminating his contract,* saying  his remarks were inconsistent with our editorial standards and  practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If his new job was the same as his old job at FOX he wouldn't need a new contract. I find it hard to believe Williams would have signed a new contract without having his lawyer read it, and not too many GOOD lawyers are sitting around all day with nothing to do except waiting for Williams to call and ask them to drop everything and carefully read over the new contract, after all the new contract had an exclusivity clause and a new regular column on foxnews.com.
> 
> The Cynic in me suspects the job and the contract were already agreed to and they were just waiting for the opportunity to get some publicity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say his new job was the same as his old one. I said he was already WITH Fox.
> And how do you know when the contract was signed? Contracts may be drawn up, and not signed immediately, even if a verbal agreement is made. Sheesh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role - Los Angeles Times
> *In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role*
> 
> *The  cable news network signs the analyst to a new three-year contract for  nearly $2 million. Meanwhile, conservative figures blast the public  radio network for its response to Williams' comments about Muslims.*
> 
> *Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year  contract* *Thursday morning*, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a  considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington  Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively  and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column  on FoxNews.com.
> 
> 
> *On Wednesday, NPR told Williams it was terminating his contract,* saying  his remarks were inconsistent with our editorial standards and  practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.
Click to expand...



Doesn't mean it was a literal signature. OR How do you know an atty didn't look at it? Just because you think it, doesn't make it so.
Juan was visibility upset over all that happened. He had no reason whatsoever to fake it. 
People change jobs all the time...so if that was what he was after, it would have been easy.
Stop being suck a cynic and looking for the worst in all.


----------



## edthecynic

Kat said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say his new job was the same as his old one. I said he was already WITH Fox.
> And how do you know when the contract was signed? Contracts may be drawn up, and not signed immediately, even if a verbal agreement is made. Sheesh.
> 
> 
> 
> In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role - Los Angeles Times
> *In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role*
> 
> *The  cable news network signs the analyst to a new three-year contract for  nearly $2 million. Meanwhile, conservative figures blast the public  radio network for its response to Williams' comments about Muslims.*
> 
> *Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year  contract* *Thursday morning*, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a  considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington  Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively  and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column  on FoxNews.com.
> 
> 
> *On Wednesday, NPR told Williams it was terminating his contract,* saying  his remarks &#8220;were inconsistent with our editorial standards and  practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean it was a literal signature. OR *How do you know an atty didn't look at it?* Just because you think it, doesn't make it so.
> Juan was visibility upset over all that happened. He had no reason whatsoever to fake it.
> People change jobs all the time...so if that was what he was after, it would have been easy.
> Stop being suck a cynic and looking for the worst in all.
Click to expand...

I never said Williams' lawyer didn't read it, in fact I argued that with lawyers involved on BOTH sides, Fox's drawing up the new contract with an exclusivity clause and Williams' lawyer trying to protect his client from possible excessive demands in that exclusivity, I find it hard to believe all the details could have been worked out in a matter of hours, especially if at least one lawyer (Williams'?) is being paid by the hour.

Again, it's my cynical nature that suspects the contract and new job were already worked out well in advance and both parties were only waiting for the right opportunity for a big publicity stunt.

The cynics are right nine times out of ten.
    H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role - Los Angeles Times
> *In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role*
> 
> *The  cable news network signs the analyst to a new three-year contract for  nearly $2 million. Meanwhile, conservative figures blast the public  radio network for its response to Williams' comments about Muslims.*
> 
> *Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year  contract* *Thursday morning*, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a  considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington  Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively  and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column  on FoxNews.com.
> 
> 
> *On Wednesday, NPR told Williams it was terminating his contract,* saying  his remarks were inconsistent with our editorial standards and  practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean it was a literal signature. OR *How do you know an atty didn't look at it?* Just because you think it, doesn't make it so.
> Juan was visibility upset over all that happened. He had no reason whatsoever to fake it.
> People change jobs all the time...so if that was what he was after, it would have been easy.
> Stop being suck a cynic and looking for the worst in all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said Williams' lawyer didn't read it, in fact I argued that with lawyers involved on BOTH sides, Fox's drawing up the new contract with an exclusivity clause and Williams' lawyer trying to protecting his client from possible excessive demands in that exclusivity, I find it hard to believe all the details could have been worked out in a matter of hours, especially if at least one lawyer (Williams'?) is being paid by the hour.
> 
> Again, it's my cynical nature that suspects the contract and new job were already worked out well in advance and both parties were only waiting for the right opportunity for a big publicity stunt.
> 
> The cynics are right nine times out of ten.
> H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Click to expand...




I distrust a lot. I am glad I do not distrust everything. I would not want to live that way. It has to be lonely.


----------



## DiveCon

you have rarely been right


----------



## Kat

DiveCon said:


> you have rarely been right



Pardon?


----------



## edthecynic

Kat said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean it was a literal signature. OR *How do you know an atty didn't look at it?* Just because you think it, doesn't make it so.
> Juan was visibility upset over all that happened. He had no reason whatsoever to fake it.
> People change jobs all the time...so if that was what he was after, it would have been easy.
> Stop being suck a cynic and looking for the worst in all.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said Williams' lawyer didn't read it, in fact I argued that with lawyers involved on BOTH sides, Fox's drawing up the new contract with an exclusivity clause and Williams' lawyer trying to protecting his client from possible excessive demands in that exclusivity, I find it hard to believe all the details could have been worked out in a matter of hours, especially if at least one lawyer (Williams'?) is being paid by the hour.
> 
> Again, it's my cynical nature that suspects the contract and new job were already worked out well in advance and both parties were only waiting for the right opportunity for a big publicity stunt.
> 
> The cynics are right nine times out of ten.
> H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I distrust a lot. I am glad I do not distrust everything. I would not want to live that way. It has to be lonely.
Click to expand...

This is a crazy world. Believe it or not there are women who are fans of jailed murders.  
I'm not quite that bad, .... so there is always hope. 

Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
    Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary


----------



## Kat

edthecynic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said Williams' lawyer didn't read it, in fact I argued that with lawyers involved on BOTH sides, Fox's drawing up the new contract with an exclusivity clause and Williams' lawyer trying to protecting his client from possible excessive demands in that exclusivity, I find it hard to believe all the details could have been worked out in a matter of hours, especially if at least one lawyer (Williams'?) is being paid by the hour.
> 
> Again, it's my cynical nature that suspects the contract and new job were already worked out well in advance and both parties were only waiting for the right opportunity for a big publicity stunt.
> 
> The cynics are right nine times out of ten.
> H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I distrust a lot. I am glad I do not distrust everything. I would not want to live that way. It has to be lonely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a crazy world. Believe it or not there are women who are fans of jailed murders.
> I'm not quite that bad, .... so there is always hope.
> 
> Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
> Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary
Click to expand...



This is true


----------



## DiveCon

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have rarely been right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon?
Click to expand...

that was for edthemoron


----------



## Kat

DiveCon said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have rarely been right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that was for edthemoron
Click to expand...


Oh. You posted right after me, so I didn't know.


----------



## edthecynic

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon?
> 
> 
> 
> that was for edthemoron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh. You posted right after me, so I didn't know.
Click to expand...

It was his lame attempt to provoke me and divert the thread.


----------



## JamesMorrison

Foxfyre said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing:  conservatives consistently complain about the "liberal bias" of the Main Stream Media...yet they are ardently AGAINST the re-establishing of the Fairness Doctrine, which would guarantee at least one hour of contrary programming.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Oh well, NPR has egg on it's face...the neocon driven GOP is trying to score voting points by advocating defunding of NPR....and Juan Williams just a got a shitload of a raise to be the new token liberal whipping boy for Fox News.
> 
> God bless us....every one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree the 'Defund NPR' effort is a wasteful red herring promoted by those who lean right. However, I do believe a 112th Congress looking for a good faith effort to cut spending, which is why they are being elected, can demonstrate their comity with the electorate by abolishing the CPB (Corp. for Public Broadcasting). A good way to establish your desired 'Fairness' is to rid ourselves of government sponsored media. After all, government sponsoring of just about anything, other than those constitutional responsibilities, is undesirable for the simple reason government is not run by "angels" it is run by humans like you and I. The less influence they are able to exert upon us the better.
> 
> Don't be too concerned about Juan's new contract. Thats FOXs problem not that of us taxpayers. Surely you can see the beauty of ridding ourselves of CPB, for if the CPB is no longer we taxpayers wont be footing the bill for an outdated media outlet. The argument that has initiated and perpetuated CPB (the public needs their alternate programming) has been amply invalidated with the advent of cable/satellite TV and, especially, the internet.
> 
> Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you: How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to regulate it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'.
> 
> JM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm for the government phasing out all funding--go slowly as necessary to avoid unnecessary pain to those the government has made dependent on the funding--that doesn't fit into its Constitutionally mandated obvious duties.  Certainly the government should have no control or influence over the media other than its Constitutionally mandated oversight to ensure a free press.   Certainly government funding of any part of the media invites temptation to coerce or put pressure on that same media.
> 
> As for a free internet, that's probably going to be the next sticky wicket.  Let's get the election on Tuesday out of the way, and then maybe you or I can initiate a thread on that important subject?
Click to expand...


Yeh, we probably agree with each other. Personally, well... let me just say that the GOP or at least its conservative element should take a lesson on the Dems rapidity and midwifery in passing their leftist wish list. Just read an interesting article about white blue collar voters and what pleases them and what scares them RE candidates. Perhaps that and institutional change RE conservative thinking can be considered. Election coverage starts about 6PM EDT (bout 1 hr) so I'll get some supper and then enjoy the schadenfreudeliciousness.

Later dudette,

JM


----------



## edthecynic

JamesMorrison said:


> Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you:* How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to &#8216;regulate&#8217; it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'. *
> 
> JM


Further proof that mindless CON$ are the most MISINFORMED brainwashed people on earth!

Frequently Asked Questions | Save the Internet
*What is Net Neutrality?*

  Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
 Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not  discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online.  It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet  technologies.
 Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic  innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects  the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or  service without interference from the network provider. With Net  Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose  which data to privilege with higher quality service.


*Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?*

  The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including  AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet  gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't  load at all.
 They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of  their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search  engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing  down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
 These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a  level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own  content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the  steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
 The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions  of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission  to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk. 



*Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?*

  Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since  its inception. Pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the  inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a  neutral network. And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality  have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1920s.
*But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications  Commission,** Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open  Internet -- was put in jeopardy.* Now, cable and phone company lobbyists  are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
 Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we  currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about  "deregulation," the cable and phone giants don't want real competition.  They want special rules written in their favor.



*What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?*

  AT&T and other telecom giants have funded a massive  misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and  "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.
 Learn how to separate the myths from the realities in our report, Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction.


*What's happening in Congress?*

*In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009  (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality  under the Communications Act*, safeguarding the future of the open  Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online. 
 Urge your member of Congress to support this important piece of legislation today!
 The SavetheInternet.com coalition also applauds the recent passage of  the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The law, which allocates  $7.2 billion to expand broadband access and adoption, attaches open  Internet conditions to all broadband networks built with public funds. 
 But these conditions only apply to the broadband lines built with  federal stimulus money. We need to make Net Neutrality the law of the  land to ensure that all networks are open and free from discrimination.  That&#8217;s why the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458) is so important. Take action today to pass this bill and to make Net Neutrality the law.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you:* How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to &#8216;regulate&#8217; it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'. *
> 
> JM
> 
> 
> 
> Further proof that mindless CON$ are the most MISINFORMED brainwashed people on earth!
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions | Save the Internet
> *What is Net Neutrality?*
> 
> Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
> Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not  discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online.  It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet  technologies.
> Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic  innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects  the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or  service without interference from the network provider. With Net  Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose  which data to privilege with higher quality service.
> 
> 
> *Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?*
> 
> The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including  AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet  gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't  load at all.
> They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of  their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search  engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing  down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
> These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a  level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own  content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the  steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
> The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions  of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission  to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.
> 
> 
> 
> *Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?*
> 
> Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since  its inception. Pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the  inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a  neutral network. And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality  have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1920s.
> *But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications  Commission,** Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open  Internet -- was put in jeopardy.* Now, cable and phone company lobbyists  are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
> Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we  currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about  "deregulation," the cable and phone giants don't want real competition.  They want special rules written in their favor.
> 
> 
> 
> *What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?*
> 
> AT&T and other telecom giants have funded a massive  misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and  "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.
> Learn how to separate the myths from the realities in our report, Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction.
> 
> 
> *What's happening in Congress?*
> 
> *In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009  (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality  under the Communications Act*, safeguarding the future of the open  Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online.
> Urge your member of Congress to support this important piece of legislation today!
> The SavetheInternet.com coalition also applauds the recent passage of  the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The law, which allocates  $7.2 billion to expand broadband access and adoption, attaches open  Internet conditions to all broadband networks built with public funds.
> But these conditions only apply to the broadband lines built with  federal stimulus money. We need to make Net Neutrality the law of the  land to ensure that all networks are open and free from discrimination.  That&#8217;s why the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458) is so important. Take action today to pass this bill and to make Net Neutrality the law.
Click to expand...

ed, you fucking pathetic idiot
you found a PRO net neutrality site
BIASED


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you:* How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to regulate it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'. *
> 
> JM
> 
> 
> 
> Further proof that mindless CON$ are the most MISINFORMED brainwashed people on earth!
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions | Save the Internet
> *What is Net Neutrality?*
> 
> Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
> Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not  discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online.  It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet  technologies.
> Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic  innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects  the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or  service without interference from the network provider. With Net  Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose  which data to privilege with higher quality service.
> 
> 
> *Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?*
> 
> The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including  AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet  gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't  load at all.
> They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of  their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search  engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing  down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
> These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a  level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own  content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the  steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
> The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions  of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission  to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.
> 
> 
> 
> *Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?*
> 
> Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since  its inception. Pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the  inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a  neutral network. And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality  have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1920s.
> *But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications  Commission,** Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open  Internet -- was put in jeopardy.* Now, cable and phone company lobbyists  are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
> Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we  currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about  "deregulation," the cable and phone giants don't want real competition.  They want special rules written in their favor.
> 
> 
> 
> *What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?*
> 
> AT&T and other telecom giants have funded a massive  misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and  "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.
> Learn how to separate the myths from the realities in our report, Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction.
> 
> 
> *What's happening in Congress?*
> 
> *In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009  (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality  under the Communications Act*, safeguarding the future of the open  Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online.
> Urge your member of Congress to support this important piece of legislation today!
> The SavetheInternet.com coalition also applauds the recent passage of  the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The law, which allocates  $7.2 billion to expand broadband access and adoption, attaches open  Internet conditions to all broadband networks built with public funds.
> But these conditions only apply to the broadband lines built with  federal stimulus money. We need to make Net Neutrality the law of the  land to ensure that all networks are open and free from discrimination.  Thats why the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458) is so important. Take action today to pass this bill and to make Net Neutrality the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ed, you fucking pathetic idiot
> you found a PRO net neutrality site
> BIASED
Click to expand...

Gee what a surprise that you would be too STUPID to recognize the truth from any source. NOT

Of course, everybody knows the last thing CON$ want is free access to all information. CON$ervatism cannot survive in the arena of ideas so all nonCON$ervative ideas must be blocked from the internet.

Allbritton backs broadband reclassification, net neutrality - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

In comments filed with the FCC on Friday, Allbritton's senior vice  president for legal and strategic affairs, Jerald Fritz, argues that  without net-neutrality rules Internet service providers will be able to  discriminate against competitors and control what news reaches  consumers.


"An Internet controlled by gatekeepers with incentives to favor  their own content  a very real possibility without the FCCs intervention  would have stymied  past growth, and may very well stunt wired and mobile Internet innovation far into the future  should broadband providers be left entirely unregulated," Fritz writes. "This situation would be exacerbated  where carriers also provide competitive program offerings."


----------



## Kat

Would you two please...











 STOP IT!!!!


----------



## DiveCon

Kat said:


> Would you two please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STOP IT!!!!


NO!!!

you not the boss of me


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further proof that mindless CON$ are the most MISINFORMED brainwashed people on earth!
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions | Save the Internet
> *What is Net Neutrality?*
> 
> Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
> Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not  discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online.  It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet  technologies.
> Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic  innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects  the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or  service without interference from the network provider. With Net  Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose  which data to privilege with higher quality service.
> 
> 
> *Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?*
> 
> The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including  AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet  gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't  load at all.
> They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of  their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search  engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing  down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
> These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a  level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own  content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the  steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
> The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions  of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission  to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.
> 
> 
> 
> *Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?*
> 
> Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since  its inception. Pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the  inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a  neutral network. And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality  have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1920s.
> *But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications  Commission,** Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open  Internet -- was put in jeopardy.* Now, cable and phone company lobbyists  are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
> Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we  currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about  "deregulation," the cable and phone giants don't want real competition.  They want special rules written in their favor.
> 
> 
> 
> *What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?*
> 
> AT&T and other telecom giants have funded a massive  misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and  "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.
> Learn how to separate the myths from the realities in our report, Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction.
> 
> 
> *What's happening in Congress?*
> 
> *In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009  (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality  under the Communications Act*, safeguarding the future of the open  Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online.
> Urge your member of Congress to support this important piece of legislation today!
> The SavetheInternet.com coalition also applauds the recent passage of  the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The law, which allocates  $7.2 billion to expand broadband access and adoption, attaches open  Internet conditions to all broadband networks built with public funds.
> But these conditions only apply to the broadband lines built with  federal stimulus money. We need to make Net Neutrality the law of the  land to ensure that all networks are open and free from discrimination.  Thats why the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458) is so important. Take action today to pass this bill and to make Net Neutrality the law.
> 
> 
> 
> ed, you fucking pathetic idiot
> you found a PRO net neutrality site
> BIASED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee what a surprise that you would be too STUPID to recognize the truth from any source. NOT
> 
> Of course, everybody knows the last thing CON$ want is free access to all information. CON$ervatism cannot survive in the arena of ideas so all nonCON$ervative ideas must be blocked from the internet.
> 
> Allbritton backs broadband reclassification, net neutrality - The Hill's Hillicon Valley
> 
> In comments filed with the FCC on Friday, Allbritton's senior vice  president for legal and strategic affairs, Jerald Fritz, argues that  without net-neutrality rules Internet service providers will be able to  discriminate against competitors and control what news reaches  consumers.
> 
> 
> "An Internet controlled by gatekeepers with incentives to favor  their own content  a very real possibility without the FCCs intervention  would have stymied  past growth, and may very well stunt wired and mobile Internet innovation far into the future  should broadband providers be left entirely unregulated," Fritz writes. "This situation would be exacerbated  where carriers also provide competitive program offerings."
Click to expand...

Moron, you wouldnt know the truth if it hit you on the nose


----------



## Kat

DiveCon said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you two please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STOP IT!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO!!!
> 
> you not the boss of me
Click to expand...





Kiss off you whiny a$$. You think name calling is debate?  GMAB!


----------



## DiveCon

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you two please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STOP IT!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO!!!
> 
> you not the boss of me
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss off you whiny a$$. You think name calling is debate?  GMAB!
Click to expand...

debate???

you think there was a debate here?
its just ed the moron posting bullshit and me calling him a moron for posting bullshit


----------



## JamesMorrison

edthecynic said:


> Further proof that mindless CON$ are the most MISINFORMED brainwashed people on earth!



This is quite an encompassing statement with, well, no supporting argument. I suppose I am to find the evidence to your claim in your quote of your posted article? OK, lets examine some of it

From your post:





> What is Net Neutrality?
> 
> Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
> Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
> Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.



Like most things the internet is not free, one pays for access. Then we see that supposedly, this net neutrality or this freedom and openness have driven economic innovation. This is simply wrong. The force driving innovation is profit motive, the willingness to provide a good or service which comes from real world economic concerns. Do any of us go to work for guiding principles alone? What suppresses innovation is government intrusion. Further, a consumers right to this or that object is a false premise, period. The network's only job is to satisfy his customer. But the other part of this false choice presented here, the choosing, is the role of the customer. There is a lot of false information here which leads one to be suspicious as to the authors intent. Generally, names such as Net Neutrality and Employee Free Choice Act deserve initial skepticism and further detailed examination.

Truth is, companies develop better, faster, and more reliable technology so they can charge a premium for it (profit). This encourages others to compete and then to develop even better stuff. In the process of competition older technologies become cheaper and cheaper (remember the cost of early Plasma flat screens?)

But here is something that should make us suspicious. 





>  Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?
> 
> Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1920s.
> But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now, cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
> Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and phone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.


And then this:





>  In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality under the Communications Act, safeguarding the future of the open Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online.



So the order of events according to this narrative is:
1.	The free neutral internet
2.	FCC decides to regulate
3.	Congress decides to regulate the regulations

Wouldnt it just have been simpler to have left the internet alone? Isnt this a case of legislative creep?

Its really important to determine the business dynamics here. This piece attempts to demonize internet suppliers but we must ask who is doing the demonizing here? Who would benefit by legislatively hog tying internet suppliers? Well, their consumers like Google and Facebook and others whos potential downloads or uploads contain massive amounts of data requiring broader more expensive bandwidth. This net neutrality allows those such as Google to use more resources than others thereby slowing the internet. Wouldnt it be fairer if internet suppliers simply offered different speeds at different prices allowing all a choice? That in a nutshell is all the suppliers want to do. The extra money they make on the high speed they can plow back into innovation for ever increasing bandwidth. When the higher speed comes online what used to be the highest is effectively reduced in cost.

The real problem here is the FCC and its latest desire to reclassify the internet and regulate it as a phone line. Have you looked at a phone bill lately? There is much potential for statist mischief here, from increased cost to all internet users to government regulation of speech. If you are for a well maintained, technically relevant internet free from government control you should reject Net Neutrality and the head of the FCC Julius Genachowskis efforts to regulate it. 

JM

P.S. a lot of leftist organizations on the coalition list, dude
Join Us | Save the Internet  Freepress included


----------



## edthecynic

JamesMorrison said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further proof that mindless CON$ are the most MISINFORMED brainwashed people on earth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is quite an encompassing statement with, well, no supporting argument. I suppose I am to find the evidence to your claim in your quote of your posted article? OK, let&#8217;s examine some of it
> 
> From your post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is Net Neutrality?
> 
> Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
> Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
> Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like most things the internet is not free, one pays for access. Then we see that supposedly, this net neutrality or this freedom and openness have &#8220;driven economic innovation&#8221;. This is simply wrong. The force driving innovation is profit motive, the willingness to provide a good or service which comes from real world economic concerns. Do any of us go to work for &#8220;guiding principles&#8221; alone? What suppresses innovation is government intrusion. Further, a consumer&#8217;s right to this or that object is a false premise, period. The &#8220;network's only job&#8221; is to satisfy his customer. But the other part of this false choice presented here, the &#8216;choosing&#8217;, is the role of the customer. There is a lot of false information here which leads one to be suspicious as to the author&#8217;s intent. Generally, names such as &#8220;Net Neutrality&#8221; and &#8220;Employee Free Choice Act&#8221; deserve initial skepticism and further detailed examination.
> 
> Truth is, companies develop better, faster, and more reliable technology so they can charge a premium for it (profit). This encourages others to compete and then to develop even better stuff. In the process of competition older technologies become cheaper and cheaper (remember the cost of early Plasma flat screens?)
> 
> But here is something that should make us suspicious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8221; Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?
> 
> Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1920s.
> But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now, cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
> Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and phone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8221; In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality under the Communications Act, safeguarding the future of the open Internet and* protecting Internet users from discrimination online.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the order of events according to this narrative is:
> 1.    The free &#8216;neutral&#8217; internet
> 2.    FCC decides to regulate
> 3.    Congress decides to regulate the regulations
> 
> Wouldn&#8217;t it just have been simpler to have left the internet alone? Isn&#8217;t this a case of legislative creep?
> 
> It&#8217;s really important to determine the business dynamics here. This piece attempts to demonize internet suppliers but we must ask who is doing the demonizing here? Who would benefit by legislatively hog tying internet suppliers? Well, their consumers like Google and Facebook and others who&#8217;s potential downloads or uploads contain massive amounts of data requiring broader more expensive bandwidth. This net neutrality allows those such as Google to use more resources than others thereby slowing the internet. Wouldn&#8217;t it be fairer if internet suppliers simply offered different speeds at different prices allowing all a choice? That in a nutshell is all the suppliers want to do. The extra money they make on the high speed they can plow back into innovation for ever increasing bandwidth. When the higher speed comes online what used to be the highest is effectively reduced in cost.
> 
> The real problem here is the FCC and its latest desire to reclassify the internet and regulate it as a phone line. Have you looked at a phone bill lately? There is much potential for statist mischief here, from increased cost to all internet users to government regulation of speech. If you are for a well maintained, technically relevant internet free from government control you should reject &#8220;Net Neutrality&#8221; and the head of the FCC Julius Genachowski&#8217;s efforts to regulate it.
> 
> JM
> 
> P.S. a lot of leftist organizations on the coalition list, dude
> Join Us | Save the Internet  Freepress included
Click to expand...

Funny how you left this part out! NOT!



> The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including   AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet   gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow *and which won't   load at all.*
> They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of   their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search   engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing   down or *blocking services offered by their competitors*.


You blamed "Obama's FCC" for "regulating" the net when it was BUSH's FCC in 2005 who set up the regulations that could block *"the free flow of information."* And it was Obama's congress that was * "protecting Internet users from discrimination online"* allowing the free flow of information which you pretended to care about. 

You are simply BRAINWASHED into mindlessly attacking Obama and government without the foggiest idea of what's going on, even he is doing exactly what you pretend you want.



> Originally Posted by *JamesMorrison*
> 
> _*Given your concern for the free flow of information,* here's a question for you:*  How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to  take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to  &#8216;regulate&#8217; it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'. *
> 
> JM_


----------



## Intense

That or Someone is defending the Entitlement of getting more than you pay for at someone else's expense. I get it. I pay for Road Runner Turbo. It's enhanced service and handles those big downloads quicker. Actually I need it for my Vonage lines. You offering to help me pay the bill right? It's only fair. It's my need, right. I want what I want, but why should I have to pay when you could pay for me. I've been discriminated against because I am White, and I'm not a Union Member. You need to start signing checks right now. Isn't that how the logic works? What we need now is a catchy Foundation Name l like "Kittens and Puppies United To Give Intense a Free Internet and Premium Cable TV Line UP, Because He Is White, Non-Union, and Discriminated Against By Statist Fascists Foundation". KAPUTGIAFIAPCTLUBHIWNUADABSFF for short. We need that an an off shore account, and I'm set.


----------



## edthecynic

Intense said:


> That or Someone is defending the Entitlement of getting more than you pay for at someone else's expense.* I get it. I pay for Road Runner Turbo. It's enhanced service and handles those big downloads quicker.* Actually I need it for my Vonage lines. You offering to help me pay the bill right? It's only fair. It's my need, right. I want what I want, but why should I have to pay when you could pay for me. I've been discriminated against because I am White, and I'm not a Union Member. You need to start signing checks right now. Isn't that how the logic works? What we need now is a catchy Foundation Name l like "Kittens and Puppies United To Give Intense a Free Internet and Premium Cable TV Line UP, Because He Is White, Non-Union, and Discriminated Against By Statist Fascists Foundation". KAPUTGIAFIAPCTLUBHIWNUADABSFF for short. We need that an an off shore account, and I'm set.


No you don't get it!

Broadband  service providers already charged different rates based on how much  bandwidth you use long BEFORE Bush's FCC interfered. That is why people who subscribe to a 756Kbps DSL  service pay $15 a month and people who subscribe to a 50Mbps broadband  service pay close to $100 a month.

The concern is that  without formal rules of the road, broadband providers could abuse their  power. They might slow or block traffic from  competitors to encourage consumers to use their own services more. 

 For example, say your broadband provider offers a streaming video  service. It might be tempted to give its service priority in the network  over a competitor's streaming video service. So while a competitor's  video service would stutter, the broadband provider's service would fly  through the network and provide superior quality.

That kind of abuse is what Bush's FCC made possible and Obama's Congress is trying to legislate against, not charging more for faster service.
Get it now?
​ ​


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> That or Someone is defending the Entitlement of getting more than you pay for at someone else's expense.* I get it. I pay for Road Runner Turbo. It's enhanced service and handles those big downloads quicker.* Actually I need it for my Vonage lines. You offering to help me pay the bill right? It's only fair. It's my need, right. I want what I want, but why should I have to pay when you could pay for me. I've been discriminated against because I am White, and I'm not a Union Member. You need to start signing checks right now. Isn't that how the logic works? What we need now is a catchy Foundation Name l like "Kittens and Puppies United To Give Intense a Free Internet and Premium Cable TV Line UP, Because He Is White, Non-Union, and Discriminated Against By Statist Fascists Foundation". KAPUTGIAFIAPCTLUBHIWNUADABSFF for short. We need that an an off shore account, and I'm set.
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't get it!
> 
> Broadband  service providers already charged different rates based on how much  bandwidth you use long BEFORE Bush's FCC interfered. That is why people who subscribe to a 756Kbps DSL  service pay $15 a month and people who subscribe to a 50Mbps broadband  service pay close to $100 a month.
> 
> The concern is that  without formal rules of the road, broadband providers could abuse their  power. *They might slow or block traffic from  competitors to encourage consumers to use their own services more. *
> 
> For example, say your broadband provider offers a streaming video  service. It might be tempted to give its service priority in the network  over a competitor's streaming video service. So while a competitor's  video service would stutter, the broadband provider's service would fly  through the network and provide superior quality.
> 
> That kind of abuse is what Bush's FCC made possible and Obama's Congress is trying to legislate against, not charging more for faster service.
> Get it now?
> ​ ​
Click to expand...

AOL tried that for a while
how did that work out for them as an internet service provider?


----------



## Foxfyre

I think the free market is usually the best arbiter of these things.  Anti trust laws should apply as they do for all other commercial mediums, but I should pay more for faster service than I do for dial up.  Why shouldn't Comcast charge me more for highspeed internet than AOL would charge me for a slow dial up?  Or is it unfair to Comcast to compete with a number of services that provide dial up for free?  So far nobody seems to be suffering or complaining. 

I'm willing to pay the price to get high speed.  And Comcast's fees are naturally kept affordable because there are other services I could immediately go to if Comcast became too expensive.

So yes, the government should be involved to enforce RICO and anti trust laws to prevent the big boys from beating up on the small fry,  but I don't want the government to get involved in any kind of 'fairness doctrine' re internet content as no good of any kind is likely to come from that.


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> I think the free market is usually the best arbiter of these things.  Anti trust laws should apply as they do for all other commercial mediums, but I should pay more for faster service than I do for dial up.  Why shouldn't Comcast charge me more for highspeed internet than AOL would charge me for a slow dial up?  Or is it unfair to Comcast to compete with a number of services that provide dial up for free?  So far nobody seems to be suffering or complaining.
> 
> I'm willing to pay the price to get high speed.  And Comcast's fees are naturally kept affordable because there are other services I could immediately go to if Comcast became too expensive.
> 
> So yes, the government should be involved to enforce RICO and anti trust laws to prevent the big boys from beating up on the small fry,  but I don't want the government to get involved in any kind of 'fairness doctrine' re internet content as no good of any kind is likely to come from that.


and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
i'd take a slower connection over restricted access


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the free market is usually the best arbiter of these things.  Anti trust laws should apply as they do for all other commercial mediums, but I should pay more for faster service than I do for dial up.  Why shouldn't Comcast charge me more for highspeed internet than AOL would charge me for a slow dial up?  Or is it unfair to Comcast to compete with a number of services that provide dial up for free?  So far nobody seems to be suffering or complaining.
> 
> I'm willing to pay the price to get high speed.  And Comcast's fees are naturally kept affordable because there are other services I could immediately go to if Comcast became too expensive.
> 
> So yes, the government should be involved to enforce RICO and anti trust laws to prevent the big boys from beating up on the small fry,  but I don't want the government to get involved in any kind of 'fairness doctrine' re internet content as no good of any kind is likely to come from that.
> 
> 
> 
> and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
> i'd take a slower connection over restricted access
Click to expand...


So would I.  But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home.  But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and, if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision.  And they would stop doing it.

Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters.  There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the free market is usually the best arbiter of these things.  Anti trust laws should apply as they do for all other commercial mediums, but I should pay more for faster service than I do for dial up.  Why shouldn't Comcast charge me more for highspeed internet than AOL would charge me for a slow dial up?  Or is it unfair to Comcast to compete with a number of services that provide dial up for free?  So far nobody seems to be suffering or complaining.
> 
> I'm willing to pay the price to get high speed.  And Comcast's fees are naturally kept affordable because there are other services I could immediately go to if Comcast became too expensive.
> 
> So yes, the government should be involved to enforce RICO and anti trust laws to prevent the big boys from beating up on the small fry,  but I don't want the government to get involved in any kind of 'fairness doctrine' re internet content as no good of any kind is likely to come from that.
> 
> 
> 
> and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
> i'd take a slower connection over restricted access
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So would I.  But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home.  But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and, if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision.  And they would stop doing it.
> 
> Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters.  There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.
Click to expand...

exactly, which is the fallacy of "net neutrality"


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
> i'd take a slower connection over restricted access
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would I.  But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home.  But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and, if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision.  And they would stop doing it.
> 
> Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters.  There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly, which is the fallacy of "net neutrality"
Click to expand...


You don't see 'net neutrality' as being a hands off position by the government and letting the free market work?


----------



## Intense

How about Google Competitive Bid Advertising. Look at those stock prices, and they get tax breaks.

OMG... They are monitoring us....... hide me..... Mommy!!!!!


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So would I.  But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home.  But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and, if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision.  And they would stop doing it.
> 
> Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters.  There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, which is the fallacy of "net neutrality"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see 'net neutrality' as being a hands off position by the government and letting the free market work?
Click to expand...

thats not what it is
thats why i put it in quotation marks


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, which is the fallacy of "net neutrality"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see 'net neutrality' as being a hands off position by the government and letting the free market work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats not what it is
> thats why i put it in quotation marks
Click to expand...


Then I did miss something.  So what is your definition of or explanation of 'net neutrality'?


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the free market is usually the best arbiter of these things.  Anti trust laws should apply as they do for all other commercial mediums, but I should pay more for faster service than I do for dial up.  Why shouldn't Comcast charge me more for highspeed internet than AOL would charge me for a slow dial up?  Or is it unfair to Comcast to compete with a number of services that provide dial up for free?  So far nobody seems to be suffering or complaining.
> 
> I'm willing to pay the price to get high speed.  And Comcast's fees are naturally kept affordable because there are other services I could immediately go to if Comcast became too expensive.
> 
> So yes, the government should be involved to enforce RICO and anti trust laws to prevent the big boys from beating up on the small fry,  but I don't want the government to get involved in any kind of 'fairness doctrine' re internet content as no good of any kind is likely to come from that.
> 
> 
> 
> and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
> i'd take a slower connection over restricted access
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So would I.  But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home.  But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and,* if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision.*  And they would stop doing it.
> 
> Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters.  There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.
Click to expand...

Again you are assuming that all areas have such choices!!!!!! 

In my area there is only 1 broadband provider, no DSL too far from central office, no VIOS, only 1 cable provider, so it's them or dial up.


----------



## taichiliberal

JamesMorrison said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing:  conservatives consistently complain about the "liberal bias" of the Main Stream Media...yet they are ardently AGAINST the re-establishing of the Fairness Doctrine, which would guarantee at least one hour of contrary programming.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Oh well, NPR has egg on it's face...the neocon driven GOP is trying to score voting points by advocating defunding of NPR....and Juan Williams just a got a shitload of a raise to be the new token liberal whipping boy for Fox News.
> 
> God bless us....every one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree the 'Defund NPR' effort is a wasteful red herring promoted by those who lean right. However, I do believe a 112th Congress looking for a good faith effort to cut spending, which is why they are being elected, can demonstrate their comity with the electorate by abolishing the CPB (Corp. for Public Broadcasting). A good way to establish your desired 'Fairness' is to rid ourselves of government sponsored media. After all, government sponsoring of just about anything, other than those constitutional responsibilities, is undesirable for the simple reason government is not run by "angels" it is run by humans like you and I. The less influence they are able to exert upon us the better.
> 
> 
> Don't be too concerned about Juan's new contract. Thats FOXs problem not that of us taxpayers. Surely you can see the beauty of ridding ourselves of CPB, for if the CPB is no longer we taxpayers wont be footing the bill for an outdated media outlet. The argument that has initiated and perpetuated CPB (the public needs their alternate programming) has been amply invalidated with the advent of cable/satellite TV and, especially, the internet.
> 
> And in a perfect world, your assertion might have validity...but remember why the CPB was established....it was to INSURE a difference in viewpoints and programming on the public awares....to curtail and avoid a monopoly.  Sadly, with the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the Telecommunications Act, the CPB's effectiveness has been severely curtailed, and the results are Murdoch owning TV, radio and print mediums in the same state, of Clear Channel buying a radio station and replacing ALL local programming with "approved" programming, and then claiming that their contracting personalities are popular.  The "free market" without oversight or regulation, would essentially be ruled by those who have the most gold...and we all know via history that corruption, avarice, and all the other vices fall all too easily to some who are of vast wealth and do not like to be contradicted on any level.  Again, IF the MSM was "liberally biased", then why fight against the one ruling that could give voice to those who perceive themselves the victims of that bias?
> 
> Given your concern for the free flow of information, here's a question for you: How do you feel about the government's attempt (via Obama's FCC) to take over this very internet we now converse over? The FCC wants to regulate it. The subject is generally known as 'Net Neutrality'.
> 
> JM
Click to expand...


Attempted Regulation of the internet preceded Obama.....there is already regulation of the internet to some degree.  As usual, it's more about control of the potential revenue than it's about content (let's face it....without porn, the internet would be seriously revenue compromised)....IMHO, of course.

Our original discussion is about broadcast medium that is open to the public via radio and (commercial) TV.....let's stay focused on that.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> and how long would you stay with comcast if they started filtering the internet for you?
> i'd take a slower connection over restricted access
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would I.  But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home.  But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and,* if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision.*  And they would stop doing it.
> 
> Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters.  There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are assuming that all areas have such choices!!!!!!
> 
> In my area there is only 1 broadband provider, no DSL too far from central office, no VIOS, only 1 cable provider, so it's them or dial up.
Click to expand...

if you dont like the service you get from cable, check out the service available from a Sat provider

if T-W tries to limit or restrict my access at all, i would switch to a sat service in an instant

hell, with the expansion of 3G services, you could use that as your internet access


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So would I.  But I would appreciate having that ability if we still had kids at home.  But no, I don't want unrequested filtering and,* if my current service presumed to do that, I would be looking for another provider who didn't do that and if enough people would do the same, Comcast would get the message that filtering is not a good marketing decision.*  And they would stop doing it.
> 
> Again, the free market generally works pretty well in such matters.  There are simply too many 'geeks' out there these days that catch everybody doing everything and that too helps to keep the system honest.
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are assuming that all areas have such choices!!!!!!
> 
> In my area there is only 1 broadband provider, no DSL too far from central office, no VIOS, only 1 cable provider, so it's them or dial up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you dont like the service you get from cable, check out the service available from a Sat provider
> 
> if T-W tries to limit or restrict my access at all, i would switch to a sat service in an instant
> 
> hell, with the expansion of 3G services, you could use that as your internet access
Click to expand...

Satellite in my area drops out every time it rains, I tried it for TV as it was much less than cable and last time I checked a few years ago when I tried the TV service they didn't offer internet access for Mac users, and 3G is more expensive than cable and slower.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are assuming that all areas have such choices!!!!!!
> 
> In my area there is only 1 broadband provider, no DSL too far from central office, no VIOS, only 1 cable provider, so it's them or dial up.
> 
> 
> 
> if you dont like the service you get from cable, check out the service available from a Sat provider
> 
> if T-W tries to limit or restrict my access at all, i would switch to a sat service in an instant
> 
> hell, with the expansion of 3G services, you could use that as your internet access
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Satellite in my area drops out every time it rains, I tried it for TV as it was much less than cable and last time I checked a few years ago when I tried the TV service they didn't offer internet access for Mac users, and 3G is more expensive than cable and slower.
Click to expand...

it would still give you access
so you would not be limited to one provider


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you dont like the service you get from cable, check out the service available from a Sat provider
> 
> if T-W tries to limit or restrict my access at all, i would switch to a sat service in an instant
> 
> hell, with the expansion of 3G services, you could use that as your internet access
> 
> 
> 
> Satellite in my area drops out every time it rains, I tried it for TV as it was much less than cable and last time I checked a few years ago when I tried the TV service they didn't offer internet access for Mac users, and 3G is more expensive than cable and slower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it would still give you access
> so you would not be limited to one provider
Click to expand...

I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satellite in my area drops out every time it rains, I tried it for TV as it was much less than cable and last time I checked a few years ago when I tried the TV service they didn't offer internet access for Mac users, and 3G is more expensive than cable and slower.
> 
> 
> 
> it would still give you access
> so you would not be limited to one provider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.
Click to expand...

the point is you CAN do that
thats why they wont do what all you whiny pussies for "net neutrality" fear


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> it would still give you access
> so you would not be limited to one provider
> 
> 
> 
> I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point is you CAN do that
> thats why they wont do what all you whiny pussies for "net neutrality" fear
Click to expand...

They won't do it because the GOP shills are in the pockets of the lobbyists.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.
> 
> 
> 
> the point is you CAN do that
> thats why they wont do what all you whiny pussies for "net neutrality" fear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They won't do it because the GOP shills are in the pockets of the lobbyists.
Click to expand...

in this case, the lobbyists are RIGHT
net neutrality is bullshit


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see 'net neutrality' as being a hands off position by the government and letting the free market work?
> 
> 
> 
> thats not what it is
> thats why i put it in quotation marks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I did miss something.  So what is your definition of or explanation of 'net neutrality'?
Click to expand...

look it up and read what they are pushing for
its not neutrality, its just more government regulation on something that doesnt need it


----------



## JamesMorrison

edthecynic said:


> Funny how you left this part out! NOT!



Actually what was left out was your argument. This then allowed me to assume that it (your argument) totally agreed with the article. Further, if you felt you had a specific argument to make you might have done that either pre or post article. You chose neither. So you attempt to label any response to your post as ignoring or leaving out an important part of you argument is fallacious.

Next, we are directed to this part of your article:





> The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
> They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.


This statement is misleading. First these companies supply the internet to their customers and already are, by definition, "gatekeepers". Also they will not Tax (only government taxes, another red flag here), they will charge for a contractually guaranteed speed of delivery. 

We must note that a significant number of the providers coverage areas have, at least, one other competitor (I have at least three in my area). This article would have us believe there is evil afoot regarding the intent of the providers. But If, say, Verizon's VIOS decided to restrict access to a site the other competitors would use this to convince customers to use their service instead. If it decided to slow its service, ditto. Again you should look to who supports this "Net Neutrality" and see what they have to gain from it. Google has had a large role in promoting "Net Neutrality" simply because they are consumers of what the "gatekeepers" provide and by having government restrict those providers Google can lower their own costs. Google has dropped itself from the coalition list(see your FreePress site) because of the controversy. I have personally stopped using Google altogether, I now use Bing. Google has supported Obamacare (again to lower its healthcare costs by shifting it, eventually, to the government) and it has allegedly allowed Dem operatives to interfere with its Maps function to give erroneous info on directions to conservative functions. Then there is the spy thing. Wasn't Google's motto 'Do No Evil' or something?





edthecynic said:


> You blamed "Obama's FCC" for "regulating" the net when it was BUSH's FCC in 2005 who set up the regulations that could block "the free flow of information." And it was Obama's congress that was "protecting Internet users from discrimination online" allowing the free flow of information which you pretended to care about.
> 
> You are simply BRAINWASHED into mindlessly attacking Obama and government without the foggiest idea of what's going on, even he is doing exactly what you pretend you want.



How was Obama's congress allowing the free flow of information? More legislation? What legislation would that be? Or perhaps Congress subpoenaed the head of the FCC to find out what he was doing regarding Title II reclassification? Do you have some evidence here?

Seems you are trying to change the subject here from "Net Neutrality" to "JM's just secretly attacking Obama". Then you get to knock down this strawman with your self imposed metrics which, not surprisingly, leads to the questioning of my cerebral viability. The whole purpose of which is to discredit my argument. Problem with this attempt is that said argument, in my former post, was, specifically, that this whole controversy would be moot if we simply eliminated any government role in the internet itself at all. No need for Obama, his Congress, or Bush to even enter into the calculation. Like the economic forces I discussed above RE internet providers, a free market system unencumbered by government pretty much regulates itself. There is another argument you could make for some government help but since you have not so alerted us I wont address it here. 

Actually I think we might want the same thing here; fast internet access to any site we so choose at a reasonable price. I, however, just can't see government doing it. When government passes regulations it puts restrictions on business most of the time that favors some over others. This hinders a customer's greatest friend: Competition.

JM

P.S. In regard to the present FCC's attempt to regulate the internet this is referred to as Title II Reclassification. Here is an admittedly conservative site that has been following "Net Neutrality" for a number of years. The articles are listed from latest to earliest.
Tech At Night | RedState
You might note that we conservatives favor Henry Waxman's bill on this, but note the reason why.


----------



## edthecynic

JamesMorrison said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you left this part out! NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what was left out was your argument. This then allowed me to assume that it (your argument) totally agreed with the article. Further, if you felt you had a specific argument to make you might have done that either pre or post article. You chose neither. So you attempt to label any response to your post as ignoring or leaving out an important part of you argument is fallacious.
> 
> Next, we are directed to this part of your article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
> They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This statement is misleading. First these companies supply the internet to their customers and already are, by definition, "gatekeepers". *Also they will not Tax* (only government taxes, another red flag here), *they will charge* for a contractually guaranteed speed of delivery.
> 
> We must note that a significant number of the providers coverage areas have, at least, one other competitor (I have at least three in my area). This article would have us believe there is evil afoot regarding the intent of the providers. But If, say, Verizon's VIOS decided to restrict access to a site the other competitors would use this to convince customers to use their service instead. If it decided to slow its service, ditto. Again you should look to who supports this "Net Neutrality" and see what they have to gain from it. Google has had a large role in promoting "Net Neutrality" simply because they are consumers of what the "gatekeepers" provide and by having government restrict those providers Google can lower their own costs. Google has dropped itself from the coalition list(see your FreePress site) because of the controversy. I have personally stopped using Google altogether,* I now use Bing. Google has supported Obamacare* (again to lower its healthcare costs by shifting it, eventually, to the government) and it has allegedly allowed Dem operatives to interfere with its Maps function to give erroneous info on directions to conservative functions. Then there is the spy thing. Wasn't Google's motto 'Do No Evil' or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You blamed "Obama's FCC" for "regulating" the net when it was BUSH's FCC in 2005 who set up the regulations that could block "the free flow of information." And it was Obama's congress that was "protecting Internet users from discrimination online" allowing the free flow of information which you pretended to care about.
> 
> You are simply BRAINWASHED into mindlessly attacking Obama and government without the foggiest idea of what's going on, even he is doing exactly what you pretend you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How was Obama's congress allowing the free flow of information? More legislation? What legislation would that be?* Or perhaps Congress subpoenaed the head of the FCC to find out what he was doing regarding Title II reclassification? Do you have some evidence here?
> 
> *Seems you are trying to change the subject here from "Net Neutrality" to "JM's just secretly attacking Obama".* Then you get to knock down this strawman with your self imposed metrics which, not surprisingly, leads to the questioning of my cerebral viability. The whole purpose of which is to discredit my argument. Problem with this attempt is that said argument, in my former post, was, specifically, that this whole controversy would be moot if we simply eliminated any government role in the internet itself at all. No need for Obama, his Congress, or Bush to even enter into the calculation. Like the economic forces I discussed above RE internet providers, a free market system unencumbered by government pretty much regulates itself. There is another argument you could make for some government help but since you have not so alerted us I wont address it here.
> 
> Actually I think we might want the same thing here; fast internet access to any site we so choose at a reasonable price. I, however, just can't see government doing it. When government passes regulations it puts restrictions on business most of the time that favors some over others. This hinders a customer's greatest friend: Competition.
> 
> JM
> 
> P.S. In regard to the present FCC's attempt to regulate the internet this is referred to as Title II Reclassification. Here is an admittedly conservative site that has been following "Net Neutrality" for a number of years. The articles are listed from latest to earliest.
> Tech At Night | RedState
> You might note that we conservatives favor* Henry Waxman's bill* on this, but note the reason why.
Click to expand...

Tax, charge, it all depends on what the definition of "is" is. 

After denying that you are really out to attack Obama for anything and everything, you admit you awitrched to Bing because google dared to support health care reform that you call "Obamacare." How dare anyone call you blindly anti-Obama. 

And speaking of willful blindness, I loved how you played dumb asking * "What legislation would that be?* about the legislation in Obama's Congress to protect the public from Bush's 2005 FCC legislation when I posted it for you to IGNORE.
Here it is again for you to ignore:



> *In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009  (H.R. 3458).*



Also, if you notice it is from Edward Markey not Henry Waxman.
Here is what the bill says:



> SEC. 12. INTERNET FREEDOM.
> 
> (b) DUTIES OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE PRO-
> 15
> VIDERS.With respect to any Internet access service of-
> 16
> fered to the public, each Internet access service provider
> 17
> shall have the duty to
> 18
> (1)* not block, interfere with, discriminate
> 19
> against, impair, or degrade* the ability of any person
> 20
> to use an Internet access service to access, use,
> 21
> send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, ap-
> 22
> plication, or service through the Internet;
> 23
> (2)* not impose a charge* on any Internet con-
> 24
> tent, service, or application provider to enable any
> 25
> 
> 7
> 
> lawful Internet content, application, or service to be
> 1
> offered, provided, or used through the providers
> 2
> service,* beyond the end user charges associated with
> 3
> providing the service to such provider; *
> 4
> (3) not prevent or obstruct a user from at-
> 5
> taching any lawful device to or utilizing any such de-
> 6
> vice in conjunction with such service, provided such
> 7
> device does not harm the providers network



So tell me what do you have against that legislation, other than it comes from Obama's congress.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satellite in my area drops out every time it rains, I tried it for TV as it was much less than cable and last time I checked a few years ago when I tried the TV service they didn't offer internet access for Mac users, and 3G is more expensive than cable and slower.
> 
> 
> 
> it would still give you access
> so you would not be limited to one provider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't be forced to do anything.  You have total freedom to choose to live someplace that has twenty internet providers spanning the full gamut of costs and types of services.

I pay more for Homeowners insurance and auto insurance because of where I live.  I do not have the option to pay a lesser amount that I could pay if I moved to a place where rates were lower.  Real Estate in our area is priced less than half of what it would be in coastal California but costs twice what the same quality property would be less than 300 miles east of us.  Should the government require that everybody pay the same?

I have lived in places where we couldn't get a non party telephone line without paying construction costs ourselves.  I have lived in places where we had to drive 100 miles to see a medical specialist or where there wasn't a decent hardware store or dress shop within 40 miles.  That's just the way the mop flops sometimes and we do what we have to do to deal with it.   Or we move.

There is no right to internet service any more than it is a right to have convenient shopping or readily accessible products of any kind.  Fortunately we live in a country where just about everybody who wants internet service can get it.  That is an amazing thing.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> it would still give you access
> so you would not be limited to one provider
> 
> 
> 
> I would just be FORCED to pay MORE for less or FORCED to pay MORE for unfiltered access.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You wouldn't be forced to do anything.  You have total freedom to choose* to live someplace that has twenty internet providers spanning the full gamut of costs and types of services.
> 
> I pay more for Homeowners insurance and auto insurance because of where I live.  I do not have the option to pay a lesser amount that I could pay if I moved to a place where rates were lower.  Real Estate in our area is priced less than half of what it would be in coastal California but costs twice what the same quality property would be less than 300 miles east of us.  Should the government require that everybody pay the same?
> 
> I have lived in places where we couldn't get a non party telephone line without paying construction costs ourselves.  I have lived in places where we had to drive 100 miles to see a medical specialist or where there wasn't a decent hardware store or dress shop within 40 miles.  That's just the way the mop flops sometimes and we do what we have to do to deal with it.   Or we move.
> 
> There is no right to internet service any more than it is a right to have convenient shopping or readily accessible products of any kind.  Fortunately we live in a country where just about everybody who wants internet service can get it.  That is an amazing thing.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the argument the robber told the judge. I gave the victim the CHOICE, "your money or your life" and he freely chose to give me his money.

Again, the government does not require everyone to pay the same for internet access, you need a better Straw Man. 

Read the law:



> SEC. 12. INTERNET FREEDOM.
> 
> (b) DUTIES OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE PRO-
> 15
> VIDERS.With respect to any Internet access service of-
> 16
> fered to the public, each Internet access service provider
> 17
> shall have the duty to
> 18
> (1)* not block, interfere with, discriminate
> 19
> against, impair, or degrade* the ability of any person
> 20
> to use an Internet access service to access, use,
> 21
> send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, ap-
> 22
> plication, or service through the Internet;
> 23
> (2)* not impose a charge* on any Internet con-
> 24
> tent, service, or application provider to enable any
> 25
> 
> 7
> 
> lawful Internet content, application, or service to be
> 1
> offered, provided, or used through the providers
> 2
> service,* beyond the end user charges associated with
> 3
> providing the service to such provider*


----------



## Foxfyre

Oh I'm sorry Ed.  I was responding to your complaints that you can't get the internet service you want in your area.  I see now that you were intending something entirely different from what you said.

Oh well.  Cest la vie.

Good night everybody.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Oh I'm sorry Ed.  I was responding to your complaints that you can't get the internet service you want in your area.  I see now that you were intending something entirely different from what you said.
> 
> Oh well.  Cest la vie.
> 
> Good night everybody.


No, I was countering the claim that if my ISP filtered or blocked my access to certain sites I could simply switch providers and I was pointing out that not all areas of the US have that choice as a practical matter. They were arguing that competition would prevent filtering so no government intervention is necessary and I was arguing that competition is not universal in practical terms so government protection is needed.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I'm sorry Ed.  I was responding to your complaints that you can't get the internet service you want in your area.  I see now that you were intending something entirely different from what you said.
> 
> Oh well.  Cest la vie.
> 
> Good night everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was countering the claim that if my ISP filtered or blocked my access to certain sites I could simply switch providers and I was pointing out that not all areas of the US have that choice as a practical matter. They were arguing that competition would prevent filtering so no government intervention is necessary and I was arguing that competition is not universal in practical terms so government protection is needed.
Click to expand...

but you were and are wrong
there still is competition
you just dont like the options that are available


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I'm sorry Ed.  I was responding to your complaints that you can't get the internet service you want in your area.  I see now that you were intending something entirely different from what you said.
> 
> Oh well.  Cest la vie.
> 
> Good night everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was countering the claim that if my ISP filtered or blocked my access to certain sites I could simply switch providers and I was pointing out that not all areas of the US have that choice as a practical matter. They were arguing that competition would prevent filtering so no government intervention is necessary and I was arguing that competition is not universal in practical terms so government protection is needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but you were and are wrong
> there still is competition
> you just dont like the options that are available
Click to expand...

The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was countering the claim that if my ISP filtered or blocked my access to certain sites I could simply switch providers and I was pointing out that not all areas of the US have that choice as a practical matter. They were arguing that competition would prevent filtering so no government intervention is necessary and I was arguing that competition is not universal in practical terms so government protection is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> but you were and are wrong
> there still is competition
> you just dont like the options that are available
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.
Click to expand...

the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you were and are wrong
> there still is competition
> you just dont like the options that are available
> 
> 
> 
> The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
> if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
> and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
> also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
> if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand
Click to expand...


And given human ingenuity coupled with a free market, when what is available is no longer suitable, somebody will invariably devise something better.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you were and are wrong
> there still is competition
> you just dont like the options that are available
> 
> 
> 
> The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
> if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
> and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
> also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
> if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand
Click to expand...

As I said, there is no DSL. DSL must be within a certain distance of the central office and I and many others are well beyond that distance. There is no FIOS service available in my area. Satellite service drops out every time it rains. There is only 1 cable provider for broadband. That's it, or dial up.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.
> 
> 
> 
> the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
> if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
> and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
> also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
> if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, there is no DSL. DSL must be within a certain distance of the central office and I and many others are well beyond that distance. There is no FIOS service available in my area. Satellite service drops out every time it rains. There is only 1 cable provider for broadband. That's it, or dial up.
Click to expand...

There is no right to broadband.  Are you wanting the government to act like there is?


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The options are not practical therefore the "competition" is not real.
> 
> 
> 
> the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
> if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
> and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
> also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
> if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, there is no DSL. DSL must be within a certain distance of the central office and I and many others are well beyond that distance. There is no FIOS service available in my area. Satellite service drops out every time it rains. There is only 1 cable provider for broadband. That's it, or dial up.
Click to expand...

again, i dont give a shit if sat service drops in the rain, its not like that happens all the time either
i have dish net for tv service, because they offer a better package than the local cable does
but if T/W started filtering the internet i would dump them in a heartbeat and go with sat service
until someone else offered either a FIOS type service or a DSL type service
if T/W is stupid enough to risk losing their customers then they will bring about a NEED for unfiltered service, SOMEONE would step up and fill that void


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
> if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
> and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
> also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
> if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, there is no DSL. DSL must be within a certain distance of the central office and I and many others are well beyond that distance. There is no FIOS service available in my area. Satellite service drops out every time it rains. There is only 1 cable provider for broadband. That's it, or dial up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again, i dont give a shit if sat service drops in the rain, its not like that happens all the time either
> i have dish net for tv service, because they offer a better package than the local cable does
> but if T/W started filtering the internet i would dump them in a heartbeat and go with sat service
> until someone else offered either a FIOS type service or a DSL type service
> if T/W is stupid enough to risk losing their customers then they will bring about a NEED for unfiltered service, SOMEONE would step up and fill that void
Click to expand...

It's been raining here the last 2 days. In June of 2009 it rained 29 of the 30 days. You may not give a shit if service drops out in the rain, but I do.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, there is no DSL. DSL must be within a certain distance of the central office and I and many others are well beyond that distance. There is no FIOS service available in my area. Satellite service drops out every time it rains. There is only 1 cable provider for broadband. That's it, or dial up.
> 
> 
> 
> again, i dont give a shit if sat service drops in the rain, its not like that happens all the time either
> i have dish net for tv service, because they offer a better package than the local cable does
> but if T/W started filtering the internet i would dump them in a heartbeat and go with sat service
> until someone else offered either a FIOS type service or a DSL type service
> if T/W is stupid enough to risk losing their customers then they will bring about a NEED for unfiltered service, SOMEONE would step up and fill that void
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been raining here the last 2 days. In June of 2009 it rained 29 of the 30 days. You may not give a shit if service drops out in the rain, but I do.
Click to expand...

even cable service can drop out in bad weather
even in good weather
no service is 100% always working
i dont care if you dont want to do it, thats not the point 

the point is service is available from multiple sources
there is no way a cable service is going to filter the internet when their customer base DOESNT WANT IT


----------



## Intense

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Sat option is practical and the limitations are not that bad
> if the cable company decided to filter the net, i would choose that option
> and i dont mean i would just consider it, i mean i would DO it
> also, they do that and it makes the DSL options more viable as well as the FIOS type service
> if there is a demand, someone will step up to fill that demand
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, there is no DSL. DSL must be within a certain distance of the central office and I and many others are well beyond that distance. There is no FIOS service available in my area. Satellite service drops out every time it rains. There is only 1 cable provider for broadband. That's it, or dial up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again, i dont give a shit if sat service drops in the rain, its not like that happens all the time either
> i have dish net for tv service, because they offer a better package than the local cable does
> but if T/W started filtering the internet i would dump them in a heartbeat and go with sat service
> until someone else offered either a FIOS type service or a DSL type service
> if T/W is stupid enough to risk losing their customers then they will bring about a NEED for unfiltered service, SOMEONE would step up and fill that void
Click to expand...


Totally agree. I would drop them too, if they did that.


----------



## JamesMorrison

'Net Neutrality" as a legislative topic is probably dead for at least the next 2 years and probably the next 6 years if not even more. However, with Title II reclassification the non-elected bearucrats at the FCC will push for government regulation. Here is an informative article By the WSJ's L. Gordon Crovitz located at Crovitz: 'Net Neutrality' Goes 0 for 95 - WSJ.com
The last paragraph sums up the conservative position in a nutshell:





> "Government's most active role on the Internet is the regulation of broadband providers, which has resulted in monopolies and duopolies. Indeed, there is little discussion of net neutrality in Europe or Asia, where there is real competition among broadband providers. U.S. politicians and regulators would be better off focusing on ways to increase competition on the Internetnot looking for new ways to regulate it.'



For those who do not subscribe here is the entire short article:





> "By L. GORDON CROVITZ
> As a reminder of unpredictability in politics, consider what happened when the Progressive Change Campaign Committee last month announced that 95 candidates for Congress had signed a pledge to support "net neutrality." The candidates promised: "In Congress, I'll fight to protect Net Neutrality for the entire Internetwired and wirelessand make sure big corporations aren't allowed to take control of free speech online."
> 
> Last week all 95 candidates lost. Opponents of net neutrality chortled, and the advocacy group retreated to the argument that regulation of the Internet wasn't a big issue in the election.
> 
> The broader lesson may be that people fear government regulation of what has been a free and open Internet more than they fear what any other institution might do to the Web. This is a good time to reset the argument about how to ensure that the Internet remains a lively place for users and innovators.
> 
> Over the past decade, lobbyists have tried to argue that more government control over the Web would somehow result in more freedom. Many in the high-tech world originally supported this view, perhaps because "net neutrality" sounds like the side of the angels. But as other industries have learned, the relationship between regulation and freedom is inverse, not direct. There's not much wrong with the Internet now, but there's a big risk in giving regulators more control of an industry in which even the gurus have little idea what innovations will come next.
> 
> Everyone agrees that Internet providers shouldn't discriminate based on content. The question is the role for government. If Comcast, which is in the process of acquiring NBC, started to discriminate against CBS or ABC, its Internet competitors would be quicker than regulators to point to an inferior consumer experience.
> 
> To take another example, Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America, points out, "Proponents of net neutrality have long claimed that the Federal Communications Commission needs to lay down some rules ensuring freedom of speech on the Internet. As a songwriter, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept that the FCC is going out of the censorship business and into the protection of free speech."
> 
> In the name of neutrality, lobbyists want to stop Internet providers from managing their networks by charging more to providers or users of bandwidth-hogging services such as video and online games. This amounts to a forced subsidy of certain users of the Web at the expense of others. As demands on the Web escalate, speed and reliability will inevitably depend on more management of the network, including through different prices for different levels of service.
> 
> As these debates simmered, the FCC lost several legal cases on whether it can even claim jurisdiction over the Web. The commissioners now threaten to reclassify the Internet so that it would come under the regulatory regime written in the 1930s to help the FCC micromanage a monopoly telephone service. A bipartisan group of more than 200 members of Congress objected earlier this year to the agency reclassifying broadband as a telecommunication service. Having bureaucrats decide on the speeds, levels of service and prices that people and businesses should pay for Web access is not a political winner.
> 
> Technology is running laps ahead of regulators. Verizon and Google have jointly proposed that wireless networks should be excluded from the rules that apply to cable and other hardwire providers. They also would exclude "additional, differentiated online services," referring to the next set of consumer services.
> 
> It looks like the future will increasingly feature these new services. The Internet itself is in flux, with Wired magazine recently declaring on its cover: "The Web is Dead." The provocative point was that many of the most successful new online products rely on the Internet but are no longer delivered through standard Web sites.
> 
> For example, Apple offers applications designed specifically for its iPad tablet. Amazon's Kindle has a special deal with Sprint that allows for lightning-fast downloads of books. The closed community of Facebook regulates how people link to one another. Do we really want regulators in the name of neutrality determining which apps should be available on the iPad? How fair it is that Kindle has fast book downloads? Should the FCC decide how many Facebook friends are too many? It's not even clear what net neutrality means in the context of these services.
> 
> Government's most active role on the Internet is the regulation of broadband providers, which has resulted in monopolies and duopolies. Indeed, there is little discussion of net neutrality in Europe or Asia, where there is real competition among broadband providers. U.S. politicians and regulators would be better off focusing on ways to increase competition on the Internetnot looking for new ways to regulate it.



JM


----------

