Rob's House Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 What I really find funny, still after all these years, is people whining about the liberal media, taking sides...the conservatives have their FOX News...it is allegedly where more people their news in this country, than anywhere else. So, by crying about the liberal media, conservatives (and the clowns at FOX themselves) are acknowledging that they are not a legitimate source for news. I realize, few here (though I am sure not all) consider FOX anything legit... I think everyone with an IQ at least in the high double digits and a head residing outside their !@#$ understands that FOX News primarily comes from a conservative view point, just as CNN and MSNBC come from a liberal point of view. The "liberal media" typically refers to the overwhelming liberal bias that permeates network news and typically non-news media like sitcoms and talk shows. And the presence of this bias is indisputable. Any attempt to do so simply exposes either retardation or dishonesty.
Buftex Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) This whole "controversy" is nothing but trumped up bull ****. Anyone who took those comments to imply that Obama shares genocidal tendencies with Hitler, suffers from severe mental retardation. Of course the libs come out to draw an equivalence between what was essentially an extreme example to illustrate an adversarial group (Dems & Republicans playing together is like Nazis and Israelis doing likewise) to all the Bush is Hitler bull ****, that actually was comparing Bush to Hitler in a substantive way. It's funny that the libs' argument here is that they're too stupid to know the difference. On another note, this is ESPN's greatest humanitarian moment since declaring that no one employed by their station will discuss the asymmetrical treatment of black quarterbacks by the media. I agree, 100%, the whole controversy is trumped up bull ****. But, ESPN, for all intents and purposes, created this "controversy" using the conservative principle that saying something that is bad for business, is, well...bad for business. Would anybody have given a **** about this, or hell, would anyone have even known about this, if ESPN hadn't taken action? Would anyone have been up in arms? While I agree with your point, I should point out, Williams didn't compare anyone to "Nazis"...he said "Hitler", so, it isn't all that different than the "Bush is Hitler" non-sense. I think you either didn't hear what Williams actually said, or, you are shading it to make your argument...but, if I say that, then GG will say that it is a typical knee-jerk reaction by a lib...and as I have learned, GG is morally superior, I would hate to get on his bad side... Edited October 5, 2011 by Buftex
OCinBuffalo Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) Don't want to be overly general. While a racist is an !@#$, an !@#$ isn't necessarily a racist. That's my point. To piggy back on GG's point, which already piggy backed on my point, if you just call them an a-hole...that engineers the parameter of race, and all its inherent machinations, right out of the problem. It takes away any excuse that could be made if you called them "reverse racists" or "double standard bearers". I have a client who loves to say: piggy back on your point engineer it out of the problem...the parameter part is what he means, but he says part, as in "the race part" machinations....but I don't think he knows what the the word inherent means We can usually tell his comfort/understanding level with what the material we are discussing based on the number of times he uses these things. The less we hear them, the better he gets it. Edited October 5, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Buftex Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 The knee jerk defense is right there. The stock conservative response is there's reverse discrimination*, when in reality it's just a double standard to excuse bad behavior. The stock liberal response is that not only isn't there reverse discrimination*, there's no double standard either. So, I guess that is a typical knee-jerk conservative response, to deny facts, so you can repeat a tired point, because you are (mostly) amongst like-minded inter-net buddies who confirm your awesomeness for you...you can't think of any examples, similar to the Williams thing, where a "lib" said something that wasn't acceptable to some people, and got canned for it? Really? I can think of quite a few...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 So, I guess that is a typical knee-jerk conservative response, to deny facts, so you can repeat a tired point, because you are (mostly) amongst like-minded inter-net buddies who confirm your awesomeness for you...you can't think of any examples, similar to the Williams thing, where a "lib" said something that wasn't acceptable to some people, and got canned for it? Really? I can think of quite a few... You mean like the NPR people....who fired Juan Williams for telling the truth and telling his opinion...on an opinion show where he is paid to give his opinion? And then it took 2 more incidents and some ballsy kid to actually video tape their douchbaggery in a restaurant before they themselves finally got fired? All the while, the entire incident was completely ignored by the MSM, until the video tape made that impossible? Like that? Yeah, that's the exact same as the Hank Williams thing.
Buftex Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 You mean like the NPR people....who fired Juan Williams for telling the truth and telling his opinion...on an opinion show where he is paid to give his opinion? And then it took 2 more incidents and some ballsy kid to actually video tape their douchbaggery in a restaurant before they themselves finally got fired? All the while, the entire incident was completely ignored by the MSM, until the video tape made that impossible? Like that? Yeah, that's the exact same as the Hank Williams thing. Well...that really doesn't have anything to do with much of anything, but let it all out... Nowhere was I making an argument that anyone was above any sort of behavior, just making the point that Williams "punishment" is no different than other celebrities who were knocked down, for making controversial statements...there have been plenty, espousing both liberal and conservative views. The argument always seems to be (such as the case of the Dixie Chicks or Bill Maher), you have the "freedom of speech" to say what you want, but people have the freedom to react to your words, and take action if they don't like it...I guess I am just unclear as to why so many of you loons think Hank Jr is being any more unfairly treated than others, of a liberal persuasion...
Rob's House Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Well...that really doesn't have anything to do with much of anything, but let it all out... Nowhere was I making an argument that anyone was above any sort of behavior, just making the point that Williams "punishment" is no different than other celebrities who were knocked down, for making controversial statements...there have been plenty, espousing both liberal and conservative views. The argument always seems to be (such as the case of the (1)Dixie Chicks or (2)Bill Maher), you have the "freedom of speech" to say what you want, but people have the freedom to react to your words, and take action if they don't like it...I guess I am just unclear as to (3)why so many of you loons think Hank Jr is being any more unfairly treated than others, of a liberal persuasion... 1. Dixie Chicks were being held accountable for the actual substance of their speech, not because they invoked a name that causes a knee jerk reaction in morons. 2. Bill Maher got **** on by liberals who were in their post-911 emotional period. Conservatives actually came to his defense, and again, the controversy was based on the message he intended to convey rather than invoking a scary name or having his words misinterpreted, therefore on the substance of his statement. 3. Hank Williams message wasn't terribly offensive. The outrage was based on the use of Hitler's name in the same sentence as Obama's. No one [with any sense] truly believes he was comparing Obama to Hitler's genocidal tendencies or desires (the offensive stuff), thus his treatment is not based on the substance of his statements. It's a pretty clear distinction.
LeviF Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 3. Hank Williams message wasn't terribly offensive. The outrage was based on the use of Hitler's name in the same sentence as Obama's. No one [with any sense] truly believes he was comparing Obama to Hitler's genocidal tendencies or desires (the offensive stuff), thus his treatment is not based on the substance of his statements. It's a pretty clear distinction. I, for one, thought it was complimentary. I thought he was comparing Obama to Hitler's go out and get'em, pull yourself up by the bootstraps background. Think about it, at 21 years old, Hitler was homeless. He slept on a park bench and dreamed of the world, and look where he ended up!
OCinBuffalo Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Well...that really doesn't have anything to do with much of anything, but let it all out... Nowhere was I making an argument that anyone was above any sort of behavior, just making the point that Williams "punishment" is no different than other celebrities who were knocked down, for making controversial statements...there have been plenty, espousing both liberal and conservative views. The argument always seems to be (such as the case of the Dixie Chicks or Bill Maher), you have the "freedom of speech" to say what you want, but people have the freedom to react to your words, and take action if they don't like it...I guess I am just unclear as to why so many of you loons think Hank Jr is being any more unfairly treated than others, of a liberal persuasion... You are acting as though blatant examples like this either don't exist, or, "it's the same for everybody". That's simply not the case. In all cases, if you make the choice to take money from any company to represent them publicly, then any public bad behavior, at ALL times, is grounds for termination. This never was and never will be a free speech issue. The Dixie Chicks tried to make it into one. They are retarded. This was only the 2nd piece of evidence that backs up that statement. The first was saying the stupid stuff they did in the first place. (um, you make good records, you have a lot of fans...be happy; you wouldn't risk that....unless you are...retarded). The only protection they enjoy is not being thrown in jail for saying the stupid things they said. There is no protection against being called a pig-faced idiot, which the lead one most certainly is, so there's not even a slander case there. There are no protections against lawful consequences for saying stupid things, for anybody. As my signature used to say "You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mercilessly mock you for it".
Buftex Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 1. Dixie Chicks were being held accountable for the actual substance of their speech, not because they invoked a name that causes a knee jerk reaction in morons. 2. Bill Maher got **** on by liberals who were in their post-911 emotional period. Conservatives actually came to his defense, and again, the controversy was based on the message he intended to convey rather than invoking a scary name or having his words misinterpreted, therefore on the substance of his statement. 3. Hank Williams message wasn't terribly offensive. The outrage was based on the use of Hitler's name in the same sentence as Obama's. No one [with any sense] truly believes he was comparing Obama to Hitler's genocidal tendencies or desires (the offensive stuff), thus his treatment is not based on the substance of his statements. It's a pretty clear distinction. On the Maher thing, he said, IMO, something that wasn't terribly offensive, and was fired from a long-time job, by the same company that is having a problem with Willimas...and I actually agree with you completely on the HWJR words, but it is a long standing principle in the media, you always avoid Hitler comparisons...no matter how you meant them. It was is one of the few taboos...Maher was **** on by Disney, a conservative company...and I certainly don't recall many (O'Riley the one exception...but he is a closet Hollywood liberal anyways) coming to Maher's defense, until long after the story had gone away.
Rob's House Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) On the Maher thing, he said, IMO, something that wasn't terribly offensive, and was fired from a long-time job, by the same company that is having a problem with Willimas...and I actually agree with you completely on the HWJR words, but it is a long standing principle in the media, you always avoid Hitler comparisons...no matter how you meant them. It was is one of the few taboos...Maher was **** on by Disney, a conservative company...and I certainly don't recall many (O'Riley the one exception...but he is a closet Hollywood liberal anyways) coming to Maher's defense, until long after the story had gone away. I didn't find Maher that offensive either, but it was post 911 and he said the terrorists weren't cowards, and the highly emotional (i.e. liberal) crowd turned on him. But regardless of whether you or I find it offensive, it was the intended meaning of his message that was attacked. Sean Hannity and a few others said they didn't think he should be fired, and O'Reilly invited him on the show to support him. And Disney is by no means a conservative company, nor is ABC. Not by any stretch. Edited October 6, 2011 by Rob's House
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 6, 2011 Author Posted October 6, 2011 On the Maher thing, he said, IMO, something that wasn't terribly offensive, and was fired from a long-time job, by the same company that is having a problem with Willimas...and I actually agree with you completely on the HWJR words, but it is a long standing principle in the media, you always avoid Hitler comparisons...no matter how you meant them. It was is one of the few taboos...Maher was **** on by Disney, a conservative company...and I certainly don't recall many (O'Riley the one exception...but he is a closet Hollywood liberal anyways) coming to Maher's defense, until long after the story had gone away. So ESPN will no longer refer to "Blitzing" defenses? Is that funny to a Pole who was alive in 1939? Where is the absolute line?
Buftex Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) So ESPN will no longer refer to "Blitzing" defenses? Is that funny to a Pole who was alive in 1939? Where is the absolute line? Again, pretty much any mention of Hitler, or the Holocoust in any sort of non-historical context is taboo...not my rules, just a fact...it will get anybody in trouble. Larry David had a pretty good bit about it...the things you just can't do, no matter who you are..."South Park" may be the only "place" on earth that gets around this stuff... Remember the whole hubub that Tiki Barber caused a month or so ago, comparing himself to Ann Frank? Honestly, I can't stand Barber, but, he was just using it as a metaphor...but in our simple society, you just can't use that metaphor, without the back-lash. Edited October 6, 2011 by Buftex
DC Tom Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 Again, pretty much any mention of Hitler, or the Holocoust in any sort of non-historical context is taboo... That's the sort of thinking Hitler would have appreciated.
GG Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 So, I guess that is a typical knee-jerk conservative response, to deny facts, so you can repeat a tired point, because you are (mostly) amongst like-minded inter-net buddies who confirm your awesomeness for you...you can't think of any examples, similar to the Williams thing, where a "lib" said something that wasn't acceptable to some people, and got canned for it? Really? I can think of quite a few... Deny facts? Do you honestly think there's no double standard in reactions to stupid things said by conservatives vs liberals? Your POV may be flavored by Texans & their attitudes, but my POV is flavored by Manhattan leftist elites, who are every bit prejudicial, racist, bigoted and small minded as the conservatives you stereotype. Except their racism comes in a more vile subtle form in thinking that the minorities can't handle life on their own, without the fatherly white benefactors. To me the soft racism of low expectations is the worst kind.
Buftex Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 Deny facts? Do you honestly think there's no double standard in reactions to stupid things said by conservatives vs liberals? Your POV may be flavored by Texans & their attitudes, but my POV is flavored by Manhattan leftist elites, who are every bit prejudicial, racist, bigoted and small minded as the conservatives you stereotype. Except their racism comes in a more vile subtle form in thinking that the minorities can't handle life on their own, without the fatherly white benefactors. To me the soft racism of low expectations is the worst kind. I have always said, some of the most bigoted, red-neck, small-minded people I have ever known, were from growing up in New York.
/dev/null Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 Elementary school? Have to start them young http://www.breitbart.tv/biden-propagandizes-5th-graders-things-got-really-bad-before-we-came-into-office/
Adam Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 There are very few people who can legitimately be compared to Hitler. Saddam comes to mind, but not too many other people. Hank Williams Jr., made an emotional mistake. He apologized. I think that relatives of mine suffered in the Holocaust, but I am not offended by what Williams said, I think he is a good man that made an over the top statement. He was wrong for saying it, but I think he should be back. I grew up on associating football with that song. As far as what I said relating to Hitler.....Ha! Whatever. It is true- the people in this country are the ones responsible for where it is now. We the People, keep blaming everyone else. It's our fault.
Buftex Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 That's the sort of thinking Hitler would have appreciated. Indeed.
Adam Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 MSNBC......FOX.......call them liberal and conservative? I call it entertainment for dummies who can't think for themselves and need self validation. As far as ESPN being wrong? Well, maybe the government needs to step in to regulate hiring and firing practices......
Recommended Posts