The Big Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 Conner, with all due respect, I really don't care what you do to your liver, or where you do it. NPR is pussified for having the unmitigated gall to fire Juan for what he said OFF THE JOB. THEY are the ones who are so afraid of gratuitous mewling from groups like CAIR or IAC that they fold like a house of cards. Gutless, spineless, Islamic butt kissers. As a NEWS ANALYST appearing on a broadcast program to a sizable audience, he is most certainly NOT "off the job." Do you understand that?
DrFishfinder Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) As a NEWS ANALYST appearing on a broadcast program to a sizable audience, he is most certainly NOT "off the job." Do you understand that? He was not on an NPR program. Do you understand THAT? There was nothing offensive about what he said and he did not say it on an NPR program. Yet NPR felt compelled to reach over their boundaries and fire him. Sickening. Edited October 23, 2010 by DrFishfinder
The Big Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 He was not on an NPR program. Do you understand THAT? There was nothing offensive about what he said and he did not say it on an NPR program. Yet NPR felt compelled to reach over their boundaries and fire him. Sickening. So no, you don't understand.
Magox Posted October 23, 2010 Author Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) So no, you don't understand. I suppose this was ok though? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA41P41lJH4&feature=related Like I've always said, liberal hypocrisy. Here's Krauthammer challenging Totenberg today. They were both on set today, he calls her out on NPR's hypocrisy, and the entire panel which is obviously on NPR's side, (because they are all liberals of course) couldn't come up with a coherent answer. Krauthammer Directly Challenges Totenberg on NPR’s ‘Hypocrisy’ in Firing Juan Williams While Letting Her Opine Freely By Brent Baker | October 23, 2010 | 14:51 “Why is it okay for Nina to express opinions, as she has tartly, sharply, unashamedly and openly” while serving as “an honored correspondent” for NPR, while Juan Williams, “because he expresses his opinions, gets canned from NPR?” So Charles Krauthammer demanded while sitting Friday with Totenberg on the same Inside Washington set. “In fact, the standard ought to be lower in the case of Juan because he’s an analyst, whereas Nina is a correspondent.” Krauthammer had picked up on NPR CEO Vivian Schiller’s contention that the network had canned Williams because he violated the policy that “news analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that's what's happened in this situation.” An uncomfortable Totenberg asserted “it’s a very, very difficult line to draw. And NPR tries to draw it, in my view, using rules that don’t exist anymore.” To which, Krauthammer wondered: “But what’s the difference between you and Juan expressing opinions? You on this show, and him on Fox?” He condemned NPR: “It’s completely illogical and hypocritical.” Instead of criticizing NPR, Politico’s Jeanne Cummings droned on about how “there are a lot of blurred lines and everyone of us has to bear in mind what responsibilities and what role we want to take in our profession. So it is risky when you get pulled on TV. Sometimes you get asked, if you’re a reporter, you sometimes get asked a question that you don't really feel comfortable answering in your capacity as a reporter.” Krauthammer was unpersuaded: “This is all highfalutin journalistic theory. Where did Juan go over the line?” Beautiful. I love that guy and I'm sure Juan Williams appreciates the fact that he has people sticking up for him, specially in the way Krauthammer just did. Edited October 23, 2010 by Magox
The Big Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 I suppose this was ok though? youtube.com/watch?v=mA41P41lJH4&feature=related Like I've always said, liberal hypocrisy. Are you telling me I think this was okay? I don't. Who's the liberal hypocrite? Me? Or NPR? Or are you saying Nina should have been fired too? This, of course, assuming that her incredibly distasteful comments made about a Senator on another public program in 1995 have the same rhetorical impact as Williams' comments about an entire group of people on Fox News in 2010. To say that the situations warrant the same punishment is to say that the media conditions are the same, and it ignores the fact American Muslim discourse is already at DEFCON 1. Welcome to the youtube generation, you probably don't get away with what Nina said back then with just an apology, which she issued, publicly. That said, I think NPR's firing of Juan Williams was brash. I think it stinks of off-air conflict. I think NPR felt like Williams was helping out their competition a bit too often. I think the speed at which Williams signed a $2M contract with Fox suggests he was approached about the job prior to making his now infamous comments. And if that's the case, Williams could have been leveraging the offer with his bosses at NPR. That is to say, he booting the bees nest all over the backyard. Then he crossed the Muslim line. Does it suck? Yes. Was it the absolute right thing to do? No. Is there some grey area? Yes. The situation is just stick stick sticky, and since he didn't make it out with his job, me thinks there was more going on behind the scenes. And don't call me a hypocrite.
drnykterstein Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 (edited) Conner, with all due respect, I really don't care what you do to your liver, or where you do it. NPR is pussified for having the unmitigated gall to fire Juan for what he said OFF THE JOB. THEY are the ones who are so afraid of gratuitous mewling from groups like CAIR or IAC that they fold like a house of cards. Gutless, spineless, Islamic butt kissers. Usually firing someone is seen as taking some balls to do. I guess through your Fox New stained glass window things look a bit different. Fox is just trying to eliminate competition for the money with this whole "controversy". Stop doing their bidding. Edited October 24, 2010 by conner
Magox Posted October 24, 2010 Author Posted October 24, 2010 Usually firing someone is seen as taking some balls to do. I guess through your Fox New stained glass window things look a bit different. Fox is just trying to eliminate competition for the money with this whole "controversy". Stop doing their bidding. idiot
Rob's House Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 Are you telling me I think this was okay? I don't. Who's the liberal hypocrite? Me? Or NPR? Or are you saying Nina should have been fired too? This, of course, assuming that her incredibly distasteful comments made about a Senator on another public program in 1995 have the same rhetorical impact as Williams' comments about an entire group of people on Fox News in 2010. To say that the situations warrant the same punishment is to say that the media conditions are the same, and it ignores the fact American Muslim discourse is already at DEFCON 1. Welcome to the youtube generation, you probably don't get away with what Nina said back then with just an apology, which she issued, publicly. That said, I think NPR's firing of Juan Williams was brash. I think it stinks of off-air conflict. I think NPR felt like Williams was helping out their competition a bit too often. I think the speed at which Williams signed a $2M contract with Fox suggests he was approached about the job prior to making his now infamous comments. And if that's the case, Williams could have been leveraging the offer with his bosses at NPR. That is to say, he booting the bees nest all over the backyard. Then he crossed the Muslim line. Does it suck? Yes. Was it the absolute right thing to do? No. Is there some grey area? Yes. The situation is just stick stick sticky, and since he didn't make it out with his job, me thinks there was more going on behind the scenes. And don't call me a hypocrite. I wouldn't call you a hypocrite. It seems you've been fairly consistent in your belief that it is perfectly acceptable for a "news organization" to fire it's analysts (I thought analysis was when you study a situation and provide your assessment, but I digress) for making comments that are inconsistent with the political agenda of the company and/or CEO. Liberals have a long history of silencing those with whom they disagree. When the libs were still reeling from 9/11 (back in the days when they'd cry on TV and sing "God Bless America" in Congress) the lib brass at ABC gave their own Bill Maher the boot for suggesting the highjackers weren't cowards. It's just who they are. When your point of view is based on prejudice and emotion that can't stand up to the slightest scrutiny it makes sense to silence your opposition and attack their character and motives every chance you get (see Sarah Palin). Just don't sing some bs about the desire for open dialogue and open discourse. That would make you a hypocrite.
drnykterstein Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/22/my-opinion-npr-shouldnt-have-hired-juan-williams-in-the-first/ Juan Williams sexually harassed a girl, and was fired from his job in 1991. This guy belongs at Fox.
Rob's House Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/22/my-opinion-npr-shouldnt-have-hired-juan-williams-in-the-first/ Juan Williams sexually harassed a girl, and was fired from his job in 1991. This guy belongs at Fox. The writer of that article really needs to brush that chip off her va... er, shoulder. Apparently Juan Williams said something that someone took to be somewhat offensive (what, we have no idea) and for that reason he should be barred from employment? I find her article offensive, perhaps she should be relegated to back room file clerk. I wonder how this woman(for lack of an appropriate term) felt about the Bill Clinton incident. Hmmm...
IDBillzFan Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/22/my-opinion-npr-shouldnt-have-hired-juan-williams-in-the-first/ Juan Williams sexually harassed a girl, and was fired from his job in 1991. This guy belongs at Fox. Way to eat your own again, Libs.
/dev/null Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 (edited) Juan Williams sexually harassed a girl Pics? Edited October 24, 2010 by /dev/null
DC Tom Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/22/my-opinion-npr-shouldnt-have-hired-juan-williams-in-the-first/ Juan Williams sexually harassed a girl, and was fired from his job in 1991. This guy belongs at Fox. Your reading comprehension issues are matched only by your complete lack of brains.
Chef Jim Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 NPR gets at most less than 10% of indirect federal funding. http://www.cbsnews.c...383-503544.html I hope those that want to end that funding for NPR will be consistent and call for the end of tax exemptions for churches the next time one of them fires or refuses to hire a person because of their opinions on gays or abortion. I do. But we're not talking about churches now are we.
RkFast Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 The writer of that article really needs to brush that chip off her va... er, shoulder. Apparently Juan Williams said something that someone took to be somewhat offensive (what, we have no idea) and for that reason he should be barred from employment? I find her article offensive, perhaps she should be relegated to back room file clerk. I wonder how this woman(for lack of an appropriate term) felt about the Bill Clinton incident. Hmmm... Thats how liberals work. Even IF Williams is guilty of what this c-nt claims, according to her, he should never be employed in the media again. Tolerant bunch, arent they? Lets hope her husband never finds out who she's fu-king, or her stash of coke isnt found.... and SHE needs to be granted a second chance.
Nanker Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Maybe he called one of them a whore. In years past, that would have been a bad thing to say about a woman - even for a liberal. I know now it's viewed nearly as a term of endearment by the left. Back then, not so much.
The Big Cat Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 I wouldn't call you a hypocrite. It seems you've been fairly consistent in your belief that it is perfectly acceptable for a "news organization" to fire it's analysts (I thought analysis was when you study a situation and provide your assessment, but I digress) for making comments that are inconsistent with the political agenda of the company and/or CEO. Liberals have a long history of silencing those with whom they disagree. When the libs were still reeling from 9/11 (back in the days when they'd cry on TV and sing "God Bless America" in Congress) the lib brass at ABC gave their own Bill Maher the boot for suggesting the highjackers weren't cowards. It's just who they are. When your point of view is based on prejudice and emotion that can't stand up to the slightest scrutiny it makes sense to silence your opposition and attack their character and motives every chance you get (see Sarah Palin). Just don't sing some bs about the desire for open dialogue and open discourse. That would make you a hypocrite. I 100% agree that liberals put too strict of parameters on public discourse. Their means are the pits, but I don't all together disagree with the ends, i.e. creating a giant, all-inclusive tent under which nobody, for any reason, is ostracized. But therein lies the hypocrisy since those parameters of all-inclusiveness exclude folks who don't want to subscribe to mamby pamby respect and common courtesy. They'll stick to their beliefs regardless of how many people they offend, and then they're removed, forthwith from the dialogue.
Rob's House Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 I 100% agree that liberals put too strict of parameters on public discourse. Their means are the pits, but I don't all together disagree with the ends, i.e. creating a giant, all-inclusive tent under which nobody, for any reason, is ostracized. But therein lies the hypocrisy since those parameters of all-inclusiveness exclude folks who don't want to subscribe to mamby pamby respect and common courtesy. They'll stick to their beliefs regardless of how many people they offend, and then they're removed, forthwith from the dialogue. What the !@#$ is that supposed to mean?
The Big Cat Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 What the !@#$ is that supposed to mean? It means that liberals want to be nice to everyone, and some people...don't. And when somebody steps outside the liberal contention of "nice," the liberals get real nasty. It's hypocritical, but I still think that cultivating a 'nice' rhetorical environment ought to be the goal. I just don't' know how you go about doing it, and liberals--every time they get 'nasty'--are failing at their own ends by violating their own means.
Recommended Posts