NPR fires Juan Williams

[RkFast]

A post-summer low of 38 and a brisk wind coming off Lake Michigan didn't stop me from pedaling ye olde Raleigh to work today. That's right. Kiss my sanctimonious ass!!

 

 

Good on you. I wish I could commute by bike, but too risky where I am. I did, however recently clear "Step One" of any new bike purchase. That is, Spouse Approval.

 

http://www.specialized.com/zz/en/bc/SBCProduct.jsp?spid=52904&scid=1001&scname=Road

 

Now I just have to figure out how to pay for the damned thing.

[IDBillzFan]

Well, so far all we've done is tie NPR to a liberal billionaire and confirm that their programming is subtlely left-leaning.

What folks like yourself fail to understand and accept is that folks like me wouldn't give a rat'sasshair about this if NPR didn't receive federal funds. If it were a completely privately-held entity, this story would get the same play as CNN firing Rich Sanchez.

 

But it's not. Because it gets federal funding.

 

Now, this is where folks like you and conner jump in and say something insightful like "Oh, please. It's 1% of their operating budget. It's peanuts. It's less than $90 million dollars, for crying out loud! It's a drop in the bucket," at which point I wouldn't need to say anything else because you clearly believe the country is in such amazing financial shape right now that we have an extra $90 million to throw at radio station in a world filled with 8 billion radio stations.

 

Perhaps that $90 million could shelter and feed some homeless children. Fund a shovel-ready job in Vegas where unemployment is the highest in the nation. Build a mosque in NYC. Pay down the deficit.

 

But no. In relative terms, it's peanuts. So quitcher bitchin', right?

Edited October 22, 2010 by LABillzFan

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Good on you. I wish I could commute by bike, but too risky where I am. I did, however recently clear "Step One" of any new bike purchase. That is, Spouse Approval.

 

http://www.specializ...001&scname=Road

 

Now I just have to figure out how to pay for the damned thing.

 

 

Bike riders are a menace where I live.

[The Big Cat]

What folks like yourself fail to understand and accept is that folks like me wouldn't give a rat'sasshair about this if NPR didn't receive federal funds. If it were a completely privately-held entity, this story would get the same play as CNN firing Rich Sanchez.

 

But it's not. Because it gets federal funding.

 

Now, this is where folks like you and conner jump in and say something insightful like "Oh, please. It's 1% of their operating budget. It's peanuts. It's less than $90 million dollars, for crying out loud! It's a drop in the bucket," at which point I wouldn't need to say anything else because you clearly believe the country is in such amazing financial shape right now that we have an extra $90 million to throw at radio station in a world filled with 8 billion radio stations.

 

Perhaps that $90 million could shelter and feed some homeless children. Fund a shovel-ready job in Vegas where unemployment is the highest in the nation. Build a mosque in NYC. Pay down the deficit.

 

But no. In relative terms, it's peanuts. So quitcher bitchin', right?

 

Show me where the federal government gave NPR $90M. And then show me where you've demonstrated similar disdain for the federal government handing out boat loads of cash to private defense companies, telecom companies, agricultural companies, education institutions...

 

Good on you. I wish I could commute by bike, but too risky where I am. I did, however recently clear "Step One" of any new bike purchase. That is, Spouse Approval.

 

http://www.specialized.com/zz/en/bc/SBCProduct.jsp?spid=52904&scid=1001&scname=Road

 

Now I just have to figure out how to pay for the damned thing.

 

That's a sick ride, homey.

 

Hillarious! This statement alone confirms that you truly are a full fledged lefty moonbat!

 

Juan Williams gets the boot.

 

NPR hates the fact that he works for FOX, in the past they criticized him and Mara Liasson for being part of their daily programming. To me this is no surprise, if you listen to NPR the way I do in the mornings then you see that 9 out of 10 stories have a left-leaning sympathetic tilt to it. Very subtle, but it's there.

 

Me and the OP both.

[Magox]

He went full-on Muslim. And in today's climate, that **** just aint cool.

He went "full-on Muslim"?? Really?

 

Here's the transcript:

 

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I dont want to get your ego going. But I think youre right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you dont address reality.

 

I mean, look, Bill, Im not a bigot. You know the kind of books Ive 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.

 

Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, Americas war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I dont think theres any way to get away from these facts.

 

But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, its not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque

 

OREILLY: Well, there isnt any theology involved in this at all from my perspective, Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts. You actually work for NPR, OK?

 

WILLIAMS: Yes.

 

OREILLY: And its not about its about politics as I said. But my analysis is that this Israel thing and that liberals feel that United states is somehow guilty in the world, of exploitation and backing the wrong side, and it makes it easier for them to come up with this kind of crazy stuff that, well, you cant really say the Muslims attacked us on 9/11.

 

WILLIAMS: No, but what Barbara Walters said to you

 

OREILLY: Were they Norwegians? I mean, come on.

 

WILLIAMS: 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 dont say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. Thats crazy.

 

OREILLY: But its not at that level. It doesnt rise near to that level.

 

WILLIAMS: Correct. Thats and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think thats a point, you know?

OREILLY: But everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?

 

WILLIAMS: No, you dont but you got to be this is what Barbara Walters was saying

 

OREILLY: I got to be careful, you just said it. I got to be careful. I have got to qualify everything 50 times. You know what, Juan? Im not doing it anymore. Im not doing that anymore.

 

WILLIAMS: OK. So, be yourself. Take responsibility.

 

OREILLY: But Im not going to say, oh, its only a few. Its only a tiny bit. Its not, Juan. Its whole nations, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, whole nations.

 

Go ahead, Mary Katharine. You want to get in here. Go.

 

MARY KATHARINE HAM, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: First of all first of all, the left only thinks that you should be careful with rhetoric in dangerous times when its a right winger using the rhetoric. When theyre doing it themselves, when it deals with other issues, they dont care. So theres a double standard there.

 

Second of all, theres a distinction worth making between moderate and extremism Islam as you have made that point in the talking points, because frankly, as a conservative, if anybody who believes in the mission in Iraq where you are building up a society of moderate Muslims to push back on extremists, you have to believe in that distinction. So, I think thats important to make.

 

But, this whole getting up and running off set because you dont use the distinction in every single sentence you say, I think, was ridiculous and immature and they stopped the conversation, not you. It was them freaking out about a conservative position and leaving the stage to stop the conversation.

 

OREILLY: All right. But, look, heres the deal. Angela Merkel, all right, in the politically correct nation of Germany Germany has gone from being a militaristic society to a politically correct society in a generation. OK?

 

Angela Merkel comes out today and says, You know what? This is out of control in our country. We cant control it anymore.

 

So, if its only a few, and a couple and just in the mountains of Pakistan, thats all, why is Angela Merkel having such a hard time? Why are the French banning burqas? You know why

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

OREILLY: Come on.

 

WILLIAMS: Because they have a problem because people have stopped emphasizing and she went on to say, this integration assimilation.

 

OREILLY: Why, Juan? Why?

 

WILLIAMS: to live side by side. That was wrong-headed and because she sees it as a threat. I think that she pointed out that two of every three or so children under the age of 5 in Germany is Muslim.

 

OREILLY: Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there or the Germans?

 

WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

 

OREILLY: Whos causing the problem?

 

WILLIAMS: I think I think no, no, wait. See, you did it again. Its extremists. Its people who refuse to

 

OREILLY: Its not extremists.

 

WILLIAMS: Its a German society. They are the ones causing that problem.

(CROSSTALK)

 

OREILLY: But, Juan, Merkel according to Merkel, its not extremists. Its most of the 5 million Muslims who have come there arent assimilating. Thats the problem.

 

HAM: And also what happens, Bill Bill, also what happens is that when moderate Muslims want to assimilate or want to stand up, they run the risk of being blown up by their co-religionist who are extreme. So, that is thats a threat that moderate Christians and Jews dont think.

 

OREILLY: But that doesnt happen in America where most Muslim- Americans have assimilated.

 

HAM: Because our society demands that people assimilate. Thats what we demand and thats why it works here.

 

WILLIAMS: But, Bill, heres a caution point. The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabbys neck and says hes attacking him or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero

 

HAM: That guy works at a liberal

 

OREILLY: Yes, he was a crackpot.

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

OREILLY: Look, Americans are smart enough to know, Juan.

 

HAM: But I dont think the point is the rhetoric was not pushing him to do that.

 

WILLIAMS: I dont know what is in that guys head. But Im saying, we dont want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they heard a rhetoric from Bill OReilly and they act crazy. Weve got to say to people as Bill was saying tonight, that guy is a nut.

 

OREILLY: He is a nut. And I said that about the guy in Florida who wanted to burn the Koran. I came town on him like crazy.

 

WILLIAMS: Correct. There you go.

 

OREILLY: But Ill tell you what if there was going to be a backlash against Muslims, it would happened after 9/11. It didnt happen in this country.

 

WILLIAMS: It didnt happen in this country.

 

OREILLY: It did not happen here. So, we are smart enough to understand who the good Muslims are and who the bad Muslims are. But to diminish the whole thing as the left wants to do, very dangerous. I have got to go, guys, as always.

 

WILLIAMS: That would be hypocrisy.

 

OREILLY: All right. Thank you very much.

 

 

What you just did is you took a single statement and take it out of context of the larger message he was trying to portray, which makes you no better or different than what Andrew Breitbart did to Shirley Sherrod. This my friends, is what we call Liberal Hypocrisy.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Magox

[The Big Cat]

He went "full-on Muslim"?? Really?

 

Here's the transcript:

 

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

 

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.

 

Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. 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.

 

But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque –

 

 

 

What you just did is you took a single statement and take it out of context of the larger message he was trying to portray, which makes you no better or different than what Andrew Breitbart did to Shirley Sherrod. This my friends, is what we call Liberal Hypocrisy.

 

Oh, the lengths you'll go to disagree with me. How adorable.

[Magox]

Oh, the lengths you'll go to disagree with me. How adorable.

It really wasn't that difficult, a few sentences and a paste and copy and here you go. Come on, at least admit that your "full-on" characterization was a stretch.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Magox

[The Big Cat]

It really wasn't that difficult, a few sentences and a paste and copy and here you go. Come on, at least admit that your "full-on" characterization was a stretch.

 

No **** it was a characterization stretch. It was a play on Tropic Thunder. But since you can't say "I was joking and you didn't get it," I'll just sit back and let you do your thing.

 

[Magox]

No **** it was a characterization stretch. It was a play on Tropic Thunder. But since you can't say "I was joking and you didn't get it," I'll just sit back and let you do your thing.

 

youtube.com/watch?v=SgHITc1OL-c

bull ****!

[The Big Cat]

bull ****!

 

Unless you're being sarcastic, you've just proven my point.

[IDBillzFan]

Show me where the federal government gave NPR $90M. And then show me where you've demonstrated similar disdain for the federal government handing out boat loads of cash to private defense companies, telecom companies, agricultural companies, education institutions...

You see, this is why conner loves to see you pop in here. He needs to be pushed.

 

The $90M is the amount I heard reported on the news last night that the federal government makes available for public broadcasting, which NPR gets a share of through grants. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that NPR gets only $22M based on your earlier comment that federal monies only account for 5% of NPR stations' funding. Hell, let's say they only get $5M, $3M or even $1M, mmmmkay? It would seem reasonable that, based on revenues of approximately $500M (according to the documents you linked to), they could easily live without that money, so why fund it with taxpayer dollars when there are more important things to fund? It makes absolutely NO SENSE.

 

Defund NPR, let it compete on it's own, an no one will care less who gets fired or why. Your inability to understand that very basic premise is mind-boggling.

 

And I'm not sure if you got the memo, but challenging people for taking a stand on something simply because you don't remember them taking a stand on similar issues is SOOO 2009. Grow up. It's a childish argument that is so embarrassing that even the likes of conner stopped employing it.

[The Big Cat]

You see, this is why conner loves to see you pop in here. He needs to be pushed.

 

The $90M is the amount I heard reported on the news last night that the federal government makes available for public broadcasting, which NPR gets a share of through grants. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that NPR gets only $22M based on your earlier comment that federal monies only account for 5% of NPR stations' funding. Hell, let's say they only get $5M, $3M or even $1M, mmmmkay? It would seem reasonable that, based on revenues of approximately $500M (according to the documents you linked to), they could easily live without that money, so why fund it with taxpayer dollars when there are more important things to fund? It makes absolutely NO SENSE.

 

Defund NPR, let it compete on it's own, an no one will care less who gets fired or why. Your inability to understand that very basic premise is mind-boggling.

 

And I'm not sure if you got the memo, but challenging people for taking a stand on something simply because you don't remember them taking a stand on similar issues is SOOO 2009. Grow up. It's a childish argument that is so embarrassing that even the likes of conner stopped employing it.

 

I'm sorry, so now you're not only pissed that a liberal gave them money which may have or may not have had anything to do with Williams' dismissal, but you're also pissed that they receive federal money, regardless of what happened with Williams.

 

Mmmkay.

 

So, what's your point? Or is this just an opportunity to spout your beef with NPR, regardless of why anyone's even talking about them?

Edited October 22, 2010 by The Big Cat

[IDBillzFan]

I'm sorry, so now you're not only pissed that a liberal gave them money which may have or may not have had anything to do with Williams' dismissal, but you're also pissed that they receive federal money, regardless of what happened with Williams.

 

Mmmkay.

 

So, what's your point? Or is this just an opportunity to spout your beef with NPR, regardless of why anyone's even talking about them?

You see, this is the problem with having a bad memory like I do. You don't post here regularly and I genuinely, honestly forgot that trying to have a conversation with you reminds me why some mother animals eat their young.

 

Sorry to waste my time. Carry on. Maybe you can drag Magox along a little farther.

[The Big Cat]

You see, this is the problem with having a bad memory like I do. You don't post here regularly and I genuinely, honestly forgot that trying to have a conversation with you reminds me why some mother animals eat their young.

 

Sorry to waste my time. Carry on. Maybe you can drag Magox along a little farther.

 

No, you just like to piss and B word for the sake of being a contrarian a-hole with the personalities here you've deemed 'the opposition.'

 

So, you'll twist and turn an argument and your point and the topic at large just so you can scrap together a reason to bicker with someone on whom you e-hate.

 

Then, when the thing as unraveled beyond any semblance of continuity, you just call that person stupid.

[IDBillzFan]

No, you just like to piss and B word for the sake of being a contrarian a-hole with the personalities here you've deemed 'the opposition.'

 

So, you'll twist and turn an argument and your point and the topic at large just so you can scrap together a reason to bicker with someone on whom you e-hate.

 

Then, when the thing as unraveled beyond any semblance of continuity, you just call that person stupid.

Now you're just babbling.

 

And for the record, I never called you stupid. I implied you were less intelligent than conner. Totally different.

[Chef Jim]

No, you just like to piss and B word for the sake of being a contrarian a-hole with the personalities here you've deemed 'the opposition.'

 

So, you'll twist and turn an argument and your point and the topic at large just so you can scrap together a reason to bicker with someone on whom you e-hate.

 

Then, when the thing as unraveled beyond any semblance of continuity, you just call that person stupid.

 

Let me step in here and ask you a quick question. How do you feel about your tax dollars going to a radio station?

[The Big Cat]

Let me step in here and ask you a quick question. How do you feel about your tax dollars going to a radio station?

 

When I think about how many more of my tax dollars are funding a Cold War military infrastructure, I have little to no reservation of shelling out fractions of a DOLLAR for radio. At least I get an ROI on that investment.

[Chef Jim]

When I think about how many more of my tax dollars are funding a Cold War military infrastructure, I have little to no reservation of shelling out fractions of a DOLLAR for radio. At least I get an ROI on that investment.

 

So because we spend a shitload of money on the military spending money on a radio station is ok?

 

BTW, what is your return on that investment??

Edited October 22, 2010 by Chef Jim

[Rob's House]

When I think about how many more of my tax dollars are funding a Cold War military infrastructure, I have little to no reservation of shelling out fractions of a DOLLAR for radio. At least I get an ROI on that investment.

I'm just curious if you'd still hold the same opinion if the NPR lineup included Rush, Beck, etc. instead of pretentious libs.

 

Edit: I get zero ROI on that investment

Edited October 22, 2010 by Rob's House

[IDBillzFan]

When I think about how many more of my tax dollars are funding a Cold War military infrastructure, I have little to no reservation of shelling out fractions of a DOLLAR for radio. At least I get an ROI on that investment.

And there is it...the old "drop in a bucket" liberal mentality. As predictable as as can be.