Juan Williams Loses Job At NPR For Telling The Truth

[Intense]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Ravi]

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.

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.

Or religion...but they do. Actually, they are only barred constitutionally from funding religion...and they still do it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

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.

You made an unbelievably ignorant statement. Don't try to blame me for that.

 

[Intense]

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.

Or religion...but they do. Actually, they are only barred constitutionally from funding religion...and they still do it.

Other than Non Secular Community Programs I agree with you fully.

 

[Annie]

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.

Or religion...but they do. Actually, they are only barred constitutionally from funding religion...and they still do it.

Please elaborate. Something the government funds, that requires religious teachings?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

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.

Hmmm...more people watch FOX broadcasting than PBS. Where's FOX's funding?

 

[Intense]

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.

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.

It is a Shit Storm! NPR really, Really, screwed up.

 

[California Girl]

He violated his employment contract.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

Or religion...but they do. Actually, they are only barred constitutionally from funding religion...and they still do it.

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]

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.

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.

right, need to make sure the elected representatives hear us.

 

[WillowTree]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQW5MrITME&feature=player_embedded

He's got her now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

 

[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]

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.

There's no reason to defund NPR here. IF any wrongdoing occurred, the person responsible can be removed.

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]

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.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Valerie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQW5MrITME&feature=player_embedded

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.