Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Wow ! Sure glad THIS bigot got shown the door !!
Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:34 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:58 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “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,” Mr. Williams said.
Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:04 AM
PIZMOBEACH
... fully loaded, safety off...
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Quote:Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “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,” Mr. Williams said. A war against Muslims?
Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:17 AM
Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:05 AM
Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:14 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:23 AM
Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Quoting the radical jihadist's worldview and then agreeing with it. Sorry, war 'with' Muslims. How is that better?
Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:03 AM
THEHAPPYTRADER
Quote:Mr. Williams’s contributions on Fox raised eyebrows at NPR in the past. In February 2009, NPR said it had asked that he stop being identified on “The O’Reilly Factor” as a “senior correspondent for NPR,” even though that title was accurate.
Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:32 AM
JONGSSTRAW
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: So, Juan Williams, intelligent, articulate , upstanding Civil Rights advocate & long time Lib in good standing is now.... an idiot? Wow
Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:13 AM
Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:21 AM
Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:27 AM
Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:40 AM
Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:41 AM
MAL4PREZ
Quote:Originally posted by Jongsstraw: You obviously need all of that self-delusional and egotistical power to get you thru life. I'm quite sure you're already making bullet points of excuses and spin in advance of your well-deserved come-uppance.
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:01 AM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Still laughing? How long until it happens to you?
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:03 AM
Quote:JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth By Juan Williams Published October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims. 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’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’t identify them by their religion. And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without fear 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. This was an honest, sensitive debate hosted by O’Reilly. At the start of the debate Bill invited me, challenged me to tell him where he was wrong for stating the fact that “Muslims killed us there,” in the 9/11 attacks. He made that initial statement on the ABC program, "The View," which caused some of the co-hosts to walk off the set. They did not return until O’Reilly apologized for not being clear that he did not mean the country was attacked by all Muslims but by extremist radical Muslims. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/21/juan-williams-npr-fired-truth-muslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/
Quote: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
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:06 AM
CHRISISALL
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:33 AM
FREMDFIRMA
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:41 AM
Quote:Liberals are all for Free Speech as long as someone else pays and you only say things they agree with.
Quote:When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones"; or "protest zones"; where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."; The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone"; on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."; At Neel's trial, police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views"; in a so-called free speech area. Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.'"; Pennsylvania district judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"; Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators-two of whom were grandmothers-were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."; One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons."; The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."; Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 2003, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined. Denise Lieberman of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."; When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her five-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars. The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil"; sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free speech zone"; half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free speech zone."; Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the policeman if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.'"; Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."; Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department-in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.-quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States."; If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5000 fine. Federal magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a "petty offense."; Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide. Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access. Bursey sought to subpoena John Ashcroft and Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached."; The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free speech zone"; but refused to co-operate. Magistrate Marchant is expected to issue his decision in December. The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non-support that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way."; Except for having their constitutional rights shredded. Marr's comments are a mockery of this country's rich heritage of vigorous protests. Somehow, all of a sudden, after George W. Bush became president people became so stupid that federal agents had to cage them to prevent them from walking out in front of speeding vehicles. The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern-and-practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas, and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political threat."; The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries. When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by the US President, George Bush, and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."; Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area. For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city, and impose a "virtual three day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters,"; according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free speech zone";-as such areas are labeled in the U.S.-the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone"; to protect Bush from protesters' messages. Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government."; If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of "suspected terrorists."; Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington, and elsewhere. Film footage of a February New York antiwar rally showed what looked like a policeman on horseback charging into peaceful aged Leftists. The neoconservative New York Sun suggested in February 2003 that the New York Police Department "send two witnesses along for each participant [in an antiwar demonstration], with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution"; since all the demonstrators were guilty of "giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein."; One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the port of Oakland, injuring a number of people. When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."; Van Winkle justified classifying protesters like terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."; Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:42 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Not to mention, yanno - Weekend + Full Moon + Holiday Season, it's gonna be a damn weirdness fest for the next coupla days anyways.
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:45 AM
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:49 AM
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:51 AM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Niki, no doubt who the worst offenders of attacking free speech are, it's just that the Left should not behave like them. The laughing Chrisisall
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:52 AM
WHOZIT
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: The Left should not behave like themselves ?
Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:57 AM
Quote:Originally posted by whozit: I like it when libs get canned, I hope Olbermann's next...and he's stupid.
Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:01 PM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: The Left should not behave like themselves ? That sure am a knee-slapper, son! Thing is, sittin' up here on the fence gives a much better perspective than bein' on either side of it...
Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:06 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Oh yeah, the high and mighty moral middle. Takes some getting use to, having that picket fence pokin' ya up the bum, huh? roflol!
Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:12 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: ...aaaand Hero kindly provides a perfect example of what I was saying; thanx Hero!Quote:Liberals are all for Free Speech as long as someone else pays and you only say things they agree with.Shall we go into all the town halls (paid for by someone else) where Tea Partiers shut down the free speech of their representatives and the citizens who wanted to question them? Shall we go into the people simply wearing anti-Bush t-shirts (which actually THEY paid for) who were arreseted? How about the RNC warning television stations across the country not to run ads from the MoveOn.org that criticize President Bush?
Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:35 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: BTW Does free speech apply to corporations?
Thursday, October 21, 2010 2:03 PM
Quote:Pretty big difference - "war against Muslims" can only mean a war America wages against Muslims, with America as the aggressor. "war with Muslims" could be either,
Thursday, October 21, 2010 2:49 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Quote:Pretty big difference - "war against Muslims" can only mean a war America wages against Muslims, with America as the aggressor. "war with Muslims" could be either, Okay so America's war 'with' Muslims could mean fighting 'along with' them, side by side, like brothers... do we think that's what the radical jihadist meant? Obviously he meant it as war versus/against Muslims. And then Williams described this radical view as 'facts'. To characterise the war on terror as a war versus all Muslims is a stupid and dangerous mistake that I'm tired of hearing conservatives make - but we hear it again and again: every time O'Reilly opens his mouth, and every 'Islam' thread on these boards...
Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:16 PM
KANEMAN
Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:23 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:25 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kaneman: "By the way, where in the Constitution does it specifically give people "The Right to Free Speech"? I don't recall seeing those EXACT WORDS anywhere... (/snark)" You have no problem blasting Chrisine O'donnel for pointing out that the constitution does not say a seperation of church and state....really?
Thursday, October 21, 2010 4:56 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kaneman: I am full of joy that a tax-payer funded entity canned this nigger. I am not even sure he is black. With a name like "Juan" he is most likely a spic. I just hope they replace him with a white guy...GO NPR....GO NPR.....GO NPR NPR...NO PUERTO RICANS
Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:57 PM
Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:59 PM
Quote:Originally posted by TheHappyTrader: Quote:Originally posted by kaneman: I am full of joy that a tax-payer funded entity canned this nigger. I am not even sure he is black. With a name like "Juan" he is most likely a spic. I just hope they replace him with a white guy...GO NPR....GO NPR.....GO NPR NPR...NO PUERTO RICANS What the shit? lol Yeah, FOX may have done the same were the positions reversed, I was mostly disappointed because I thought NPR was better than that, even with the blatant liberal bias.
Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:26 PM
Quote:I'm not sure whether to be disappointed that you blame NPR's "liberal bias", or whether to feel vindicated that you think a "liberal bias" makes them better than Fox. :)
Friday, October 22, 2010 12:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by TheHappyTrader: Quote:I'm not sure whether to be disappointed that you blame NPR's "liberal bias", or whether to feel vindicated that you think a "liberal bias" makes them better than Fox. :) lol, no, but NPR's liberal bias is not as bad as FOX's conservative bias...I think. I'd love to find an unbiased news source, but I don't think one exists.
Friday, October 22, 2010 3:51 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Friday, October 22, 2010 4:57 AM
CANTTAKESKY
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: For what it's worth, firing the dude over his opinion was an over-reaction.
Friday, October 22, 2010 7:30 AM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: There is a word to describe this kind of generalization and stereotype: bigotry. If NPR has a policy to fire bigots who publically embarrasses them, you won't get a tear from me.
Friday, October 22, 2010 7:34 AM
Quote:Are you sure about that? Has FOX canned anyone for merely being on NPR ? And why should there be much/ any or a bias at all w/ NPR ? Being partially funded w/ Federal $$, shouldn't NPR strive to be as down the middle as anyone ?
Friday, October 22, 2010 7:43 AM
Friday, October 22, 2010 7:45 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL