goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Kat Kid on October 19, 2010, 06:27:16 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded#!)
Apparently she didn't get the memo from Palin and Angle that you should only speak to an audience of your own choosing.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
-
And to think that she's by far the better candidate in that district is quite disturbing.
-
And to think that she's by far the better candidate in that district is quite disturbing.
Somebody that stupid is never the better candidate. You are just as bad as the people who keep voting for Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi.
-
And to think that she's by far the better candidate in that district is quite disturbing.
On what grounds?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded#!)
Apparently she didn't get the memo from Palin, Angle, Obama, Pelosi, and every other politician known to man, that you should only speak to an audience of your own choosing.
FYP
I'm actually kind of glad Obama quit having those phony "town hall" meetings. It was really embarrassing for everyone from the Pres., to the media, to the country in general. Quite insulting to the general public. But then again what do you expect from that ass clown?
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
What's funny is she is she was right.
-
And to think that she's by far the better candidate in that district is quite disturbing.
On what grounds?
Chris Coons.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
What's funny is she is she was right.
ok....
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded#!)
Apparently she didn't get the memo from Palin, Angle, Obama, Pelosi, and every other politician known to man, that you should only speak to an audience of your own choosing.
FYP
I'm actually kind of glad Obama quit having those phony "town hall" meetings. It was really embarrassing for everyone from the Pres., to the media, to the country in general. Quite insulting to the general public. But then again what do you expect from that ass clown?
something along these (http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20101018/NEWS010702/10190308/) lines, maybe?
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
What's funny is she is she was right.
ok....
You are welcome to find the specific phrase in the Constitution and post it here.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
What's funny is she is she was right.
ok....
You are welcome to find the specific phrase in the Constitution and post it here.
You really think that is what she was arguing? That it literally does not say that. She was clueless and didn't think there was anything in the constitution remotely tied to it. I mean, she didn't even know what two amendments were (not including the first).
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
What's funny is she is she was right.
ok....
You are welcome to find the specific phrase in the Constitution and post it here.
She didn't make that argument. Conceding that there is language that liberals often argue means there is a separation would be a good opener to a point about why she thinks that is wrong, or why it has been perverted by activist judges. If she did understand that, she did a horrific job of illustrating a grade school, middle school or high school level of understanding.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
What's funny is she is she was right.
ok....
You are welcome to find the specific phrase in the Constitution and post it here.
She didn't make that argument. Conceding that there is language that liberals often argue means there is a separation would be a good opener to a point about why she thinks that is wrong, or why it has been perverted by activist judges. If she did understand that, she did a horrific job of illustrating a grade school, middle school or high school level of understanding.
Since you want to guess what she was thinking, I am going to guess that the gasping, laughing audience believes it is written in black and white within the constitution. I am not apologist for her, but this is another non-story dredged up by a blogger.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
What's funny is she is she was right.
ok....
You are welcome to find the specific phrase in the Constitution and post it here.
She didn't make that argument. Conceding that there is language that liberals often argue means there is a separation would be a good opener to a point about why she thinks that is wrong, or why it has been perverted by activist judges. If she did understand that, she did a horrific job of illustrating a grade school, middle school or high school level of understanding.
Since you want to guess what she was thinking, I am going to guess that the gasping, laughing audience believes it is written in black and white within the constitution. I am not apologist for her, but this is another non-story dredged up by a blogger.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So how, exactly, do you interpret this statement?
It's also ridiculous that she belongs to a party that wants to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments, and she doesn't even know what those amendments are.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
What's funny is she is she was right.
ok....
You are welcome to find the specific phrase in the Constitution and post it here.
She didn't make that argument. Conceding that there is language that liberals often argue means there is a separation would be a good opener to a point about why she thinks that is wrong, or why it has been perverted by activist judges. If she did understand that, she did a horrific job of illustrating a grade school, middle school or high school level of understanding.
Since you want to guess what she was thinking, I am going to guess that the gasping, laughing audience believes it is written in black and white within the constitution. I am not apologist for her, but this is another non-story dredged up by a blogger.
Ok. I mean the Constitution is kind of her thing. I just would've expected her to have a better command of the Bill of Rights.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
What's funny is she is she was right.
ok....
You are welcome to find the specific phrase in the Constitution and post it here.
She didn't make that argument. Conceding that there is language that liberals often argue means there is a separation would be a good opener to a point about why she thinks that is wrong, or why it has been perverted by activist judges. If she did understand that, she did a horrific job of illustrating a grade school, middle school or high school level of understanding.
Since you want to guess what she was thinking, I am going to guess that the gasping, laughing audience believes it is written in black and white within the constitution. I am not apologist for her, but this is another non-story dredged up by a blogger.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So how, exactly, do you interpret this statement?
It's also ridiculous that she belongs to a party that wants to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments, and she doesn't even know what those amendments are.
I think I interpret it in the same way the founders did. They came to this country to escape the national church of England, and specifically included your quote to make sure there would never be a national church here. I am all for separation of church and state, by the way, and the supreme court has ruled on the issue, but it is not specifically covered in the constitution.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
What's funny is she is she was right.
ok....
You are welcome to find the specific phrase in the Constitution and post it here.
She didn't make that argument. Conceding that there is language that liberals often argue means there is a separation would be a good opener to a point about why she thinks that is wrong, or why it has been perverted by activist judges. If she did understand that, she did a horrific job of illustrating a grade school, middle school or high school level of understanding.
Since you want to guess what she was thinking, I am going to guess that the gasping, laughing audience believes it is written in black and white within the constitution. I am not apologist for her, but this is another non-story dredged up by a blogger.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So how, exactly, do you interpret this statement?
It's also ridiculous that she belongs to a party that wants to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments, and she doesn't even know what those amendments are.
I think I interpret it in the same way the founders did. They came to this country to escape the national church of England, and specifically included your quote to make sure there would never be a national church here. I am all for separation of church and state, by the way, and the supreme court has ruled on the issue, but it is not specifically covered in the constitution.
So you don't think that a state-funded school teaching religious beliefs is in any way establishing that religion?
-
I think I interpret it in the same way the founders did.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-
I think I interpret it in the same way the founders did.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
this helps John Doug
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
Still looking for the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Those people laughing are the idiots.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
Still looking for the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Those people laughing are the idiots.
Yes, Dave you won't be able to find the words "separation of church and state" in the first amendment. You can stop looking now, but thanks for checking.
To O'donnell, let's give her the benefit of the doubt and suppose that this is what she was trying to express - that congress shall make no law that would encumber the growth of religion from the government. Not to keep religion out of government as so many claim (however inartfully expressed). And she did a horrendous job - the whole scene was awkward and it is obvious to anyone that she was being laughed at by the audience, as such, it's surprising she didn't make clear her point and instead sat there grinning back at them.
Having said this, O'donnell doesn't understand the first amendment. Suggesting that the same federal standards shouldn't be applied to states, counties or cities suggests that she is ignoring subsequent amendments on the matter, or is in contempt of them.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
Still looking for the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Those people laughing are the idiots.
While the first amendment does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state", it certainly does create that separation.
-
"Still looking for the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Those people laughing are the idiots."
not sure if i should :lol: :bawl: or :goodbyecruelworld:
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
Still looking for the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Those people laughing are the idiots.
While the first amendment does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state", it certainly does create that separation.
I didn't realize the first amendment was in the Constitution. Show me where in the Constitution it has separation of church and state. Still waiting for you to educate me, otherwise you are in need of education. First person to show me that phrase in the Constitution get's $1,000,000,000.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
Still looking for the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Those people laughing are the idiots.
While the first amendment does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state", it certainly does create that separation.
I didn't realize the first amendment was in the Constitution.
What are you some sort of dumbass or something. :flush:
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
Still looking for the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Those people laughing are the idiots.
While the first amendment does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state", it certainly does create that separation.
I didn't realize the first amendment was in the Constitution.
What are you some sort of dumbass or something. :flush:
No it's an Ammendment to the Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights. Constitution was signed in 1787. Bill of Rights was 1791. Amazing how something could be in the Constitution 4-years before it was inacted.
-
wtf
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
Still looking for the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Those people laughing are the idiots.
While the first amendment does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state", it certainly does create that separation.
I didn't realize the first amendment was in the Constitution.
What are you some sort of dumbass or something. :flush:
No it's an Ammendment to the Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights. Constitution was signed in 1787. Bill of Rights was 1791. Amazing how something could be in the Constitution 4-years before it was inacted.
Maybe you should get a dictionary and look up the word "amendment".
-
wtf
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
Still looking for the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Those people laughing are the idiots.
Yes, Dave you won't be able to find the words "separation of church and state" in the first amendment. You can stop looking now, but thanks for checking.
To O'donnell, let's give her the benefit of the doubt and suppose that this is what she was trying to express - that congress shall make no law that would encumber the growth of religion from the government. Not to keep religion out of government as so many claim (however inartfully expressed). And she did a horrendous job - the whole scene was awkward and it is obvious to anyone that she was being laughed at by the audience, as such, it's surprising she didn't make clear her point and instead sat there grinning back at them.
Having said this, O'donnell doesn't understand the first amendment. Suggesting that the same federal standards shouldn't be applied to states, counties or cities suggests that she is ignoring subsequent amendments on the matter, or is in contempt of them.
I agree with everything you say. Especially where this idiot can't make her own argument.
I never said she is very bright and Coons is just as big an idiot in a different direction. Unfortunate that Delaware can't put at least two canditates out there that have some inkling of intellegence.
But the observation is that the First Amendment has and can be interpreted in a different way. Because it is interpreted different than you or I think (yes I beleive that it should mean the Separation of Church and State) doesn't mean that the interpretation can't be well thought out. Interpreting towards meaning and the actual words is what I am pointing out. Groupthink can be an awful thing. And laughing at a different idea, within the realms of reality, is sad. Discussion of thought, meaning and ideas have left the political culture, which is very unfortunate.
-
I love how she thinks people are laughing with her.
Still looking for the "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Those people laughing are the idiots.
Yes, Dave you won't be able to find the words "separation of church and state" in the first amendment. You can stop looking now, but thanks for checking.
To O'donnell, let's give her the benefit of the doubt and suppose that this is what she was trying to express - that congress shall make no law that would encumber the growth of religion from the government. Not to keep religion out of government as so many claim (however inartfully expressed). And she did a horrendous job - the whole scene was awkward and it is obvious to anyone that she was being laughed at by the audience, as such, it's surprising she didn't make clear her point and instead sat there grinning back at them.
Having said this, O'donnell doesn't understand the first amendment. Suggesting that the same federal standards shouldn't be applied to states, counties or cities suggests that she is ignoring subsequent amendments on the matter, or is in contempt of them.
I agree with everything you say. Especially where this idiot can't make her own argument.
I never said she is very bright and Coons is just as big an idiot in a different direction. Unfortunate that Delaware can't put at least two canditates out there that have some inkling of intellegence.
But the observation is that the First Amendment has and can be interpreted in a different way. Because it is interpreted different than you or I think (yes I beleive that it should mean the Separation of Church and State) doesn't mean that the interpretation can't be well thought out. Interpreting towards meaning and the actual words is what I am pointing out. Groupthink can be an awful thing. And laughing at a different idea, within the realms of reality, is sad. Discussion of thought, meaning and ideas have left the political culture, which is very unfortunate.
Right. However if you acknowledge that there is a pervasive understanding that resides mostly in the American collective that has derived from the interpretation of the first amendment not the literal words then you should make a convincing argument that the interpretation is incorrect.
O'donnell's absent-minded approach and the 'show me in the constitution where is says separation of church and state' (which you have done) are both tremendously inarticulate arguments and don't contribute to any discourse. Both are deserving of mockery.
-
Not sure if this is a serious thread or not.
-
What's ridiculous are the people that think separation of church and state means a blanket ban on anything even remotely representative of religion in all public places. For example, etchings of the ten commandments in a courtroom, or saying "one nation under god" during the pledge of allegiance. When I was in middle school we had to take down the giving tree because some lib said it was offensive to people who don't celebrate Christmas (it wasn't even an evergreen tree).
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, founded on religious principles, and that religion was Christianity. Trying to mask this fact is dishonest.
-
Can't wait to see the six pillars of islam chiseled onto the Kansas capitol. Couldn't imagine that anybody would have a problem with that.
-
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, founded on religious principles, and that religion was Christianity. Trying to mask this fact is dishonest.
You can't, on one hand, praise the idea that this nation was founded on freedom of religion and then on the other hand condemn those who uphold this idea.
Making an argument to have Christianity favored above all others is a violation of the principle you espouse.
-
I think I interpret it in the same way the founders did.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
Interesting you bring up the author of the Declaration of Independence. Courts these days would never allow that religious document to be ratified.
-
What's ridiculous are the people that think separation of church and state means a blanket ban on anything even remotely representative of religion in all public places. For example, etchings of the ten commandments in a courtroom, or saying "one nation under god" during the pledge of allegiance. When I was in middle school we had to take down the giving tree because some lib said it was offensive to people who don't celebrate Christmas (it wasn't even an evergreen tree).
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, founded on religious principles, and that religion was Christianity. Trying to mask this fact is dishonest.
Equally ridiculous are people who claim that the government somehow "took prayer out of schools."
-
What's ridiculous are the people that think separation of church and state means a blanket ban on anything even remotely representative of religion in all public places. For example, etchings of the ten commandments in a courtroom, or saying "one nation under god" during the pledge of allegiance. When I was in middle school we had to take down the giving tree because some lib said it was offensive to people who don't celebrate Christmas (it wasn't even an evergreen tree).
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, founded on religious principles, and that religion was Christianity. Trying to mask this fact is dishonest.
Equally ridiculous are people who claim that the government somehow "took prayer out of schools."
Well, they did take organized prayer out of schools, and rightfully so.
-
What's ridiculous are the people that think separation of church and state means a blanket ban on anything even remotely representative of religion in all public places. For example, etchings of the ten commandments in a courtroom, or saying "one nation under god" during the pledge of allegiance. When I was in middle school we had to take down the giving tree because some lib said it was offensive to people who don't celebrate Christmas (it wasn't even an evergreen tree).
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, founded on religious principles, and that religion was Christianity. Trying to mask this fact is dishonest.
Equally ridiculous are people who claim that the government somehow "took prayer out of schools."
Well, they did take organized prayer out of schools, and rightfully so.
Even that's not true.
-
What's ridiculous are the people that think separation of church and state means a blanket ban on anything even remotely representative of religion in all public places. For example, etchings of the ten commandments in a courtroom, or saying "one nation under god" during the pledge of allegiance. When I was in middle school we had to take down the giving tree because some lib said it was offensive to people who don't celebrate Christmas (it wasn't even an evergreen tree).
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, founded on religious principles, and that religion was Christianity. Trying to mask this fact is dishonest.
Equally ridiculous are people who claim that the government somehow "took prayer out of schools."
Well, they did take organized prayer out of schools, and rightfully so.
Even that's not true.
A teacher can get into trouble if he/she leads the class in a daily prayer. This used to be common.
-
and don't require kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, it has the word God in it!!!!!!!! Oh, but you must have that foot washing station for the Muslims. :users:
-
and don't require kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, it has the word God in it!!!!!!!! Oh, but you must have that foot washing station for the Muslims. :users:
I used to get worked up about people who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words "under God" because patriotism isn't really a bad thing and I didn't want to change something that was created in the 1800's. Then I learned that the words "under God" were added as propaganda in 1954 and now I couldn't care less if the whole pledge just goes by the wayside.
-
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, founded on religious principles, and that religion was Christianity. Trying to mask this fact is dishonest.
You can't, on one hand, praise the idea that this nation was founded on freedom of religion and then on the other hand condemn those who uphold this idea.
Making an argument to have Christianity favored above all others is a violation of the principle you espouse.
Good, because I didn't
-
What's ridiculous are the people that think separation of church and state means a blanket ban on anything even remotely representative of religion in all public places. For example, etchings of the ten commandments in a courtroom, or saying "one nation under god" during the pledge of allegiance. When I was in middle school we had to take down the giving tree because some lib said it was offensive to people who don't celebrate Christmas (it wasn't even an evergreen tree).
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, founded on religious principles, and that religion was Christianity. Trying to mask this fact is dishonest.
The United States was absolutely founded on religious freedom as a core value. And it absolutely was the intent of the founders to create strong barriers between the state promoting or establishing a state religion.
I do not think any honest reading of the personal beliefs, practices or intent of the founders of the Declaration and Constitution would deserve the designation "founded on religious principles" in any meaningful way. Religion has clearly shaped the history of United States, like every civilization in recorded history. The United States remains much more religious than Europe and other states that have a history of state sponsored religion. The religious diversity and inter-faith relationships in the United States is a strength where for others it continues to be a weakness.
I think the courts and the ACLU have in many cases attempted to maintain a bright line distinction in the establishment clause to prevent the dominance of Christianity here from creating a hostile environment. "The War on Christmas" does have some unfortunate outcomes, but I think that it prevents some of the ugly happenings of other multi-ethnic/sect states with a large majority religion from dominating the minorities.
I think there is certainly room for plenty of debate on this subject, there is probably room to move the discussion toward more tolerance of currently prohibited practices. But the issue in your story about the tree was one that comes from the litigiousness of American society, not necessarily the establishment clause. And your list of pet peeves, does gloss over the incredible dominance of Christianity and the fact that "God" is on our money. I'm not saying that is in any way offensive on its face, but it speaks to the normative dominance of the Christian faith.
Claiming victimization, as a majority no less, instead of crafting an argument about why philosophically and in practice changes in interpretation of the establishment clause would be better, is on par with O'Donnell's "contribution" to this debate.
-
I do not think any honest reading of the personal beliefs, practices or intent of the founders of the Declaration and Constitution would deserve the designation "founded on religious principles" in any meaningful way. Religion has clearly shaped the history of United States, like every civilization in recorded history. The United States remains much more religious than Europe and other states that have a history of state sponsored religion. The religious diversity and inter-faith relationships in the United States is a strength where for others it continues to be a weakness.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
-
Well if Juan Williams said it, it must be true.
:flush:
-
Rule of thumb #1 in politics: if the left accuses the right of something, you can guarantee they are guilty of it themselves.
Projection deflection.
-
so much bad history in one thread :horrorsurprise:
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is human nature a bad thing? :dunno:
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is human nature a bad thing? :dunno:
Human nature is not a bad thing, but acting on everything human nature tells you to do is a bad thing.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is human nature a bad thing? :dunno:
According to your lord savior Jesus and pals it is,
Jesus
That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man”
Prophet Jeremiah...
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
Apostle Paul
The carnal [natural] mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be”
Basically, human nature is really Satan's Nature or whatever. According to these guys, not me.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is human nature a bad thing? :dunno:
Human nature is not a bad thing, but acting on everything human nature tells you to do is a bad thing.
What did he say that was acting on human nature? He described a gut reaction. You can't control a gut reaction.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6877.0
C. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he isn't breaking any laws.
He's probably loving all the attention he's getting - it would probably be best for everyone to just ignore him.
This, folks, is libocrisy in action.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6877.0
C. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he isn't breaking any laws.
He's probably loving all the attention he's getting - it would probably be best for everyone to just ignore him.
This, folks, is libocrisy in action.
LOL. Did the preacher work for NPR or Fox News? Dumbass.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is human nature a bad thing? :dunno:
Human nature is not a bad thing, but acting on everything human nature tells you to do is a bad thing.
What did he say that was acting on human nature? He described a gut reaction. You can't control a gut reaction.
Haha. Oh! I see. Let's go ahead and mislabel his reaction as one that is based on whatever the foooock a gut reaction is and definitely not human nature. For if it was human nature, I Dirty, a Christian would have to condemn his actions as sin. Luckily though it's that tricky little gut instinct of which God didn't mention anything so I can go ahead and support what he said all day. Phew.
I'd love for you to define what you think a gut reaction is vs. human nature. Then I'd love for you to tell me that you've known this difference your whole life and that you definitely haven't made it up just now.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6877.0
C. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he isn't breaking any laws.
He's probably loving all the attention he's getting - it would probably be best for everyone to just ignore him.
This, folks, is libocrisy in action.
LOL. Did the preacher work for NPR or Fox News? Dumbass.
Is npr not partially government funded? Do that government not have an obligation to protect freedom of speech?
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6877.0
C. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he isn't breaking any laws.
He's probably loving all the attention he's getting - it would probably be best for everyone to just ignore him.
This, folks, is libocrisy in action.
LOL. Did the preacher work for NPR or Fox News? Dumbass.
Is npr not partially government funded? Do that government not have an obligation to protect freedom of speech?
Protection of freedom of speech does not protect employees from being fired for saying something stupid. For example, you have every right to tell your shift manager at Cabela's to f*ck off, but the government does not have an obligation to protect you from being fired.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6877.0
C. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he isn't breaking any laws.
He's probably loving all the attention he's getting - it would probably be best for everyone to just ignore him.
This, folks, is libocrisy in action.
LOL. Did the preacher work for NPR or Fox News? Dumbass.
Is npr not partially government funded? Do that government not have an obligation to protect freedom of speech?
Protection of freedom of speech does not protect employees from being fired for saying something stupid. For example, you have every right to tell your shift manager at Cabela's to f*ck off, but the government does not have an obligation to protect you from being fired.
Yeah.... go ahead, DS.... Tell your Cabela's manager off.
-
Video of Juan Williams walking onto an airplane?
http://www.youtube.com/v/3Envv3UgAOc?fs=1&hl=en_US
-
Video of Juan Williams walking onto an airplane?
http://www.youtube.com/v/3Envv3UgAOc?fs=1&hl=en_US
I wouldn't expect you to be smart enough to know that this scene is satirizing the generalized and irrational fear whites have of blacks and the poor.
-
Juan Williams compares GOP to Taliban?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bill-moyers-still-working-pbs-even-after-comparing-gop-taliban_511463.html
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6877.0
C. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he isn't breaking any laws.
He's probably loving all the attention he's getting - it would probably be best for everyone to just ignore him.
This, folks, is libocrisy in action.
LOL. Did the preacher work for NPR or Fox News? Dumbass.
Is npr not partially government funded? Do that government not have an obligation to protect freedom of speech?
Protection of freedom of speech does not protect employees from being fired for saying something stupid. For example, you have every right to tell your shift manager at Cabela's to f*ck off, but the government does not have an obligation to protect you from being fired.
Yeah.... go ahead, DS.... Tell your Cabela's manager off.
Oh, I'll go ahead and do that. Let me apply for a job there again first.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6877.0
C. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he isn't breaking any laws.
He's probably loving all the attention he's getting - it would probably be best for everyone to just ignore him.
This, folks, is libocrisy in action.
LOL. Did the preacher work for NPR or Fox News? Dumbass.
Is npr not partially government funded? Do that government not have an obligation to protect freedom of speech?
Protection of freedom of speech does not protect employees from being fired for saying something stupid. For example, you have every right to tell your shift manager at Cabela's to f*ck off, but the government does not have an obligation to protect you from being fired.
Apples. Oranges.
The closer equivalent would be getting fired for talking about my neighbor to my boss at another job.
And this isn't completely about freedom of speech. It is also about freedom of the press. Its his job on Fox to provide commentary. He said nothing inflammatory, just an explanation of his personal feelings.
Compared to how npr handles white commentators and journalists, they are looking pretty :opcat: right now, but that's hardly surprising. Afterall, remember rule of thumb number 1 of politics: if the left accuses it of the other side, its a guarantee that they are guilty of it themselves.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6877.0
C. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he isn't breaking any laws.
He's probably loving all the attention he's getting - it would probably be best for everyone to just ignore him.
This, folks, is libocrisy in action.
LOL. Did the preacher work for NPR or Fox News? Dumbass.
Is npr not partially government funded? Do that government not have an obligation to protect freedom of speech?
Protection of freedom of speech does not protect employees from being fired for saying something stupid. For example, you have every right to tell your shift manager at Cabela's to f*ck off, but the government does not have an obligation to protect you from being fired.
Apples. Oranges.
The closer equivalent would be getting fired for talking about my neighbor to my boss at another job.
And this isn't completely about freedom of speech. It is also about freedom of the press. Its his job on Fox to provide commentary. He said nothing inflammatory, just an explanation of his personal feelings.
Compared to how npr handles white commentators and journalists, they are looking pretty :opcat: right now, but that's hardly surprising. Afterall, remember rule of thumb number 1 of politics: if the left accuses it of the other side, its a guarantee that they are guilty of it themselves.
What did you have to say about Rick Sanchez getting fired?
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6877.0
C. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he isn't breaking any laws.
He's probably loving all the attention he's getting - it would probably be best for everyone to just ignore him.
This, folks, is libocrisy in action.
LOL. Did the preacher work for NPR or Fox News? Dumbass.
Is npr not partially government funded? Do that government not have an obligation to protect freedom of speech?
Protection of freedom of speech does not protect employees from being fired for saying something stupid. For example, you have every right to tell your shift manager at Cabela's to f*ck off, but the government does not have an obligation to protect you from being fired.
Apples. Oranges.
The closer equivalent would be getting fired for talking about my neighbor to my boss at another job.
And this isn't completely about freedom of speech. It is also about freedom of the press. Its his job on Fox to provide commentary. He said nothing inflammatory, just an explanation of his personal feelings.
Compared to how npr handles white commentators and journalists, they are looking pretty :opcat: right now, but that's hardly surprising. Afterall, remember rule of thumb number 1 of politics: if the left accuses it of the other side, its a guarantee that they are guilty of it themselves.
What did you have to say about Rick Sanchez getting fired?
I was sad to see him go. He was a great source of comedy.
-
Just when you think the right wing can't get any more ignorant....
:facepalm:
"This is one of the things in my life that is just so shocking," Williams said. "I grew up basically on the left, I grew up here in New York City. And I always thought the right wing were the ones that were inflexible, intolerant.
Is intolerance of bigotry a bad thing? :dunno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6877.0
C. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as he isn't breaking any laws.
He's probably loving all the attention he's getting - it would probably be best for everyone to just ignore him.
This, folks, is libocrisy in action.
LOL. Did the preacher work for NPR or Fox News? Dumbass.
Is npr not partially government funded? Do that government not have an obligation to protect freedom of speech?
Protection of freedom of speech does not protect employees from being fired for saying something stupid. For example, you have every right to tell your shift manager at Cabela's to f*ck off, but the government does not have an obligation to protect you from being fired.
Apples. Oranges.
The closer equivalent would be getting fired for talking about my neighbor to my boss at another job.
And this isn't completely about freedom of speech. It is also about freedom of the press. Its his job on Fox to provide commentary. He said nothing inflammatory, just an explanation of his personal feelings.
Compared to how npr handles white commentators and journalists, they are looking pretty :opcat: right now, but that's hardly surprising. Afterall, remember rule of thumb number 1 of politics: if the left accuses it of the other side, its a guarantee that they are guilty of it themselves.
What did you have to say about Rick Sanchez getting fired?
I don't believe I said anything about it that I recall. Didn't see much of anything he should have been fired for.
-
Just to be clear, why are Jeffy and Dirty Sanchez upset that Juan Williams was fired? Do you guys understand what freedom of speech really is? If Juan Williams were put in jail for his comments, you would have a point. I don't care if Juan Williams has a job, and the government shouldn't either.
-
Just to be clear, why are Jeffy and Dirty Sanchez upset that Juan Williams was fired? Do you guys understand what freedom of speech really is? If Juan Williams were put in jail for his comments, you would have a point. I don't care if Juan Williams has a job, and the government shouldn't either.
:facepalm:
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
His voice is not silenced. He is free to broadcast his bigotry via any venue that will have him. An institution receiving government funding has no bearing on an individual's right to work for that institution. Maybe you should move to France.
-
All Mormon's are racist.
:rolleyes:
Is this what a libocrite is?
-
This thread is still going on :flush:
Mods! Anyway to just block threads or AzCat shrugged altogether
-
I was on a long car ride a few months back. It was right after the NAACP came out and said that the Tea Party was racist. They had two people on NPR (I normally don't listen because I find it painfully boring, but came across this and thought I'd continue to tune in, when I realized what a joke it was I turned it off) "debating" whether or not the Tea Party was racist. Well, this wasn't really a debate, but two people agreeing that the whole group of people were either overtly or intrinsically racist. I do not know if either were fired, but based on recent NPR policy decisions, I think they probably should be, ya know to be fair.
Juan Williams should sue NPR for wrongful termination (assuming his contract allows it) and hire some shyster to drag out the legal process and cause NPR to lose thousands of dollars in Litigation expenses. Of course the whole thing would be covered closely by the highest rated cable news channel (and completely ignored elsewhere) and create a lot of negative PR for NPR. Horrible business decision for a not-for-profit that prides itself on its "integrity".
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job. Even though I'd be rightfully fired for volunteering for a political campaign on the weekend.
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job. Even though I'd be rightfully fired for volunteering for a political campaign on the weekend.
Hint:
<-------Not Sugar Dick
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job. Even though I'd be rightfully fired for volunteering for a political campaign on the weekend.
Hint:
<-------Not Sugar Dick
Oops, sorry. My apologies to you both. But just so we're clear, you believe it's totally OK for me to volunteer for a political campaign, and then go to work on Monday as an objective journalist. And my employer can't fire me because it receives funding from the government.
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job.
Why do the libs on this board insist on pulling everything out of context :facepalm:
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job.
Why do the libs on this board insist on pulling everything out of context :facepalm:
Juan Williams was employed by NPR as a news analyst to provide objective comment on various topics. Juan Williams, through being honest, compromised any objectivity he could have on a pretty important topic that is covered almost daily in the media. This is why most news organizations have strict policies about personal conduct outside the office.
Look, I applaud Williams for speaking the truth about his own knee-jerk fears and how he admitted they were wrong. That's a brave thing to do. But he is also well aware that NPR wasn't exactly pleased that he was going on other shows and providing those shows with the same analysis he was supposed to be doing for NPR, or providing his personal views thus giving him less and less credibility as an objective voice for NPR.
That factored in with a terrible soundbite led to his dismissal.
To say that NPR doesn't have the right to fire an employee for personal conduct on personal time when it compromises one of his chief duties -- being objective -- simply because NPR receives about 2 percent of its funding from the government is asinine.
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job.
Why do the libs on this board insist on pulling everything out of context :facepalm:
Juan Williams was employed by NPR as a news analyst to provide objective comment on various topics. Juan Williams, through being honest, compromised any objectivity he could have on a pretty important topic that is covered almost daily in the media. This is why most news organizations have strict policies about personal conduct outside the office.
Look, I applaud Williams for speaking the truth about his own knee-jerk fears and how he admitted they were wrong. That's a brave thing to do. But he is also well aware that NPR wasn't exactly pleased that he was going on other shows and providing those shows with the same analysis he was supposed to be doing for NPR, or providing his personal views thus giving him less and less credibility as an objective voice for NPR.
That factored in with a terrible soundbite led to his dismissal.
To say that NPR doesn't have the right to fire an employee for personal conduct on personal time when it compromises one of his chief duties -- being objective -- simply because NPR receives about 2 percent of its funding from the government is asinine.
He was fired because he doesn't fit in with Soros' vision of NPR.
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job.
Why do the libs on this board insist on pulling everything out of context :facepalm:
Juan Williams was employed by NPR as a news analyst to provide objective comment on various topics. Juan Williams, through being honest, compromised any objectivity he could have on a pretty important topic that is covered almost daily in the media. This is why most news organizations have strict policies about personal conduct outside the office.
Look, I applaud Williams for speaking the truth about his own knee-jerk fears and how he admitted they were wrong. That's a brave thing to do. But he is also well aware that NPR wasn't exactly pleased that he was going on other shows and providing those shows with the same analysis he was supposed to be doing for NPR, or providing his personal views thus giving him less and less credibility as an objective voice for NPR.
That factored in with a terrible soundbite led to his dismissal.
To say that NPR doesn't have the right to fire an employee for personal conduct on personal time when it compromises one of his chief duties -- being objective -- simply because NPR receives about 2 percent of its funding from the government is asinine.
All I said was that I heard people who work for NPR expressing bigoted (and unproven claims as if they were fact) remarks and they weren't fired. However, JW does it once and gets canned (obviously b/c they didn't like this type of so-called bigotry). Therefore, in my opinion, it's not fair to hold JW to a different standard than lib bigots and he should take legal action if possible.
I personally think anybody should be allowed to hire/fire/work-with/work-for/contract/sub-contract anybody they damn well please without any outside involvement or criticism. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Just like it's unfortunate that people get nervous when they sit next to a guy that looks like the guy that flew a 757 into the twin towers.
It's called the real world.
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
:cheers:
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.
:deep:
I see a thin mustache on a white guy wearing a stained undershirt with greasy hair driving an el camino near a playground. Who do I see?
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
I don't think people stereotype as a survival mechanism. Perhaps they do, and unless there's been a study done I can't point to anything that would prove you wrong. But, let's assume that this is what we are doing though for arguments sake. One difference between us and apes is that we have developed brains capable of critical thinking. We are creatures of logic. This allows us to discern threats that are well-founded from threats that are benign. And logic tells you that any one muslim you encounter chances of being a terrorist couldn't even be described as miniscule. It is truly not worth even considering.
Checked homework:
1.3 billion muslims in the world with a generous estimation of 25,000 with the desire and means of carrying out a terrorist attack in the United States Leaving a .000019% chance that any one muslim you encounter as a terrorist.
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.
:deep:
I see a thin mustache on a white guy wearing a stained undershirt with greasy hair driving an el camino near a playground. Who do I see?
ok_cat!
What do I win?
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job.
Why do the libs on this board insist on pulling everything out of context :facepalm:
Juan Williams was employed by NPR as a news analyst to provide objective comment on various topics. Juan Williams, through being honest, compromised any objectivity he could have on a pretty important topic that is covered almost daily in the media. This is why most news organizations have strict policies about personal conduct outside the office.
Look, I applaud Williams for speaking the truth about his own knee-jerk fears and how he admitted they were wrong. That's a brave thing to do. But he is also well aware that NPR wasn't exactly pleased that he was going on other shows and providing those shows with the same analysis he was supposed to be doing for NPR, or providing his personal views thus giving him less and less credibility as an objective voice for NPR.
That factored in with a terrible soundbite led to his dismissal.
To say that NPR doesn't have the right to fire an employee for personal conduct on personal time when it compromises one of his chief duties -- being objective -- simply because NPR receives about 2 percent of its funding from the government is asinine.
All I said was that I heard people who work for NPR expressing bigoted (and unproven claims as if they were fact) remarks and they weren't fired. However, JW does it once and gets canned (obviously b/c they didn't like this type of so-called bigotry). Therefore, in my opinion, it's not fair to hold JW to a different standard than lib bigots and he should take legal action if possible.
I personally think anybody should be allowed to hire/fire/work-with/work-for/contract/sub-contract anybody they damn well please without any outside involvement or criticism. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Just like it's unfortunate that people get nervous when they sit next to a guy that looks like the guy that flew a 757 into the twin towers.
It's called the real world.
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
:cheers:
So do you crap your pants when you see a white guy driving a U-Haul?
Also, please provide some links for all of the bigots working at NPR. Maybe a podcast or something. Might really bolster your cause here.
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job.
Why do the libs on this board insist on pulling everything out of context :facepalm:
Juan Williams was employed by NPR as a news analyst to provide objective comment on various topics. Juan Williams, through being honest, compromised any objectivity he could have on a pretty important topic that is covered almost daily in the media. This is why most news organizations have strict policies about personal conduct outside the office.
Look, I applaud Williams for speaking the truth about his own knee-jerk fears and how he admitted they were wrong. That's a brave thing to do. But he is also well aware that NPR wasn't exactly pleased that he was going on other shows and providing those shows with the same analysis he was supposed to be doing for NPR, or providing his personal views thus giving him less and less credibility as an objective voice for NPR.
That factored in with a terrible soundbite led to his dismissal.
To say that NPR doesn't have the right to fire an employee for personal conduct on personal time when it compromises one of his chief duties -- being objective -- simply because NPR receives about 2 percent of its funding from the government is asinine.
All I said was that I heard people who work for NPR expressing bigoted (and unproven claims as if they were fact) remarks and they weren't fired. However, JW does it once and gets canned (obviously b/c they didn't like this type of so-called bigotry). Therefore, in my opinion, it's not fair to hold JW to a different standard than lib bigots and he should take legal action if possible.
I personally think anybody should be allowed to hire/fire/work-with/work-for/contract/sub-contract anybody they damn well please without any outside involvement or criticism. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Just like it's unfortunate that people get nervous when they sit next to a guy that looks like the guy that flew a 757 into the twin towers.
It's called the real world.
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
:cheers:
So do you crap your pants when you see a white guy driving a U-Haul?
Also, please provide some links for all of the bigots working at NPR. Maybe a podcast or something. Might really bolster your cause here.
It was a Ryder truck, dumbass.
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
I don't think people stereotype as a survival mechanism. Perhaps they do, and unless there's been a study done I can't point to anything that would prove you wrong. But, let's assume that this is what we are doing though for arguments sake. One difference between us and apes is that we have developed brains capable of critical thinking. We are creatures of logic. This allows us to discern threats that are well-founded from threats that are benign. And logic tells you that any one muslim you encounter chances of being a terrorist couldn't even be described as miniscule. It is truly not worth even considering.
Checked homework:
1.3 billion muslims in the world with a generous estimation of 25,000 with the desire and means of carrying out a terrorist attack in the United States Leaving a .000019% chance that any one muslim you encounter as a terrorist.
people are more afraid to fly than drive
I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job.
Why do the libs on this board insist on pulling everything out of context :facepalm:
Juan Williams was employed by NPR as a news analyst to provide objective comment on various topics. Juan Williams, through being honest, compromised any objectivity he could have on a pretty important topic that is covered almost daily in the media. This is why most news organizations have strict policies about personal conduct outside the office.
Look, I applaud Williams for speaking the truth about his own knee-jerk fears and how he admitted they were wrong. That's a brave thing to do. But he is also well aware that NPR wasn't exactly pleased that he was going on other shows and providing those shows with the same analysis he was supposed to be doing for NPR, or providing his personal views thus giving him less and less credibility as an objective voice for NPR.
That factored in with a terrible soundbite led to his dismissal.
To say that NPR doesn't have the right to fire an employee for personal conduct on personal time when it compromises one of his chief duties -- being objective -- simply because NPR receives about 2 percent of its funding from the government is asinine.
All I said was that I heard people who work for NPR expressing bigoted (and unproven claims as if they were fact) remarks and they weren't fired. However, JW does it once and gets canned (obviously b/c they didn't like this type of so-called bigotry). Therefore, in my opinion, it's not fair to hold JW to a different standard than lib bigots and he should take legal action if possible.
I personally think anybody should be allowed to hire/fire/work-with/work-for/contract/sub-contract anybody they damn well please without any outside involvement or criticism. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Just like it's unfortunate that people get nervous when they sit next to a guy that looks like the guy that flew a 757 into the twin towers.
It's called the real world.
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
:cheers:
So do you cac your pants when you see a white guy driving a U-Haul?
Also, please provide some links for all of the bigots working at NPR. Maybe a podcast or something. Might really bolster your cause here.
Is the U-Haul parked illegally in front of a federal building? Is the guy walking/fleeing from the U-Haul? Does he have a crew cut?
I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.
:deep:
I see a thin mustache on a white guy wearing a stained undershirt with greasy hair driving an el camino near a playground. Who do I see?
ok_cat!
What do I win?
NPR premium subscription
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? :dunno:
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job.
Why do the libs on this board insist on pulling everything out of context :facepalm:
Juan Williams was employed by NPR as a news analyst to provide objective comment on various topics. Juan Williams, through being honest, compromised any objectivity he could have on a pretty important topic that is covered almost daily in the media. This is why most news organizations have strict policies about personal conduct outside the office.
Look, I applaud Williams for speaking the truth about his own knee-jerk fears and how he admitted they were wrong. That's a brave thing to do. But he is also well aware that NPR wasn't exactly pleased that he was going on other shows and providing those shows with the same analysis he was supposed to be doing for NPR, or providing his personal views thus giving him less and less credibility as an objective voice for NPR.
That factored in with a terrible soundbite led to his dismissal.
To say that NPR doesn't have the right to fire an employee for personal conduct on personal time when it compromises one of his chief duties -- being objective -- simply because NPR receives about 2 percent of its funding from the government is asinine.
All I said was that I heard people who work for NPR expressing bigoted (and unproven claims as if they were fact) remarks and they weren't fired. However, JW does it once and gets canned (obviously b/c they didn't like this type of so-called bigotry). Therefore, in my opinion, it's not fair to hold JW to a different standard than lib bigots and he should take legal action if possible.
I personally think anybody should be allowed to hire/fire/work-with/work-for/contract/sub-contract anybody they damn well please without any outside involvement or criticism. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Just like it's unfortunate that people get nervous when they sit next to a guy that looks like the guy that flew a 757 into the twin towers.
It's called the real world.
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
:cheers:
So do you crap your pants when you see a white guy driving a U-Haul?
Also, please provide some links for all of the bigots working at NPR. Maybe a podcast or something. Might really bolster your cause here.
It was a Ryder truck, dumbass.
True, branding makes all the difference. I shouldn't have to worry about being hijacked on a Southwest flight. Might as well no even have security measures for those flights.
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
I don't think people stereotype as a survival mechanism. Perhaps they do, and unless there's been a study done I can't point to anything that would prove you wrong. But, let's assume that this is what we are doing though for arguments sake. One difference between us and apes is that we have developed brains capable of critical thinking. We are creatures of logic. This allows us to discern threats that are well-founded from threats that are benign. And logic tells you that any one muslim you encounter chances of being a terrorist couldn't even be described as miniscule. It is truly not worth even considering.
Checked homework:
1.3 billion muslims in the world with a generous estimation of 25,000 with the desire and means of carrying out a terrorist attack in the United States Leaving a .000019% chance that any one muslim you encounter as a terrorist.
people are more afraid to fly than drive
If you can acknowledge this then certainly my above example is no stretch. Why don't you admit that those who see a muslim on an airplane and think terrorist are attaching nebulous fear to what is undoubtedly a harmless and benign situation?
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
I don't think people stereotype as a survival mechanism. Perhaps they do, and unless there's been a study done I can't point to anything that would prove you wrong. But, let's assume that this is what we are doing though for arguments sake. One difference between us and apes is that we have developed brains capable of critical thinking. We are creatures of logic. This allows us to discern threats that are well-founded from threats that are benign. And logic tells you that any one muslim you encounter chances of being a terrorist couldn't even be described as miniscule. It is truly not worth even considering.
Checked homework:
1.3 billion muslims in the world with a generous estimation of 25,000 with the desire and means of carrying out a terrorist attack in the United States Leaving a .000019% chance that any one muslim you encounter as a terrorist.
people are more afraid to fly than drive
If you can acknowledge this then certainly my above example is no stretch. Why don't you admit that those who see a muslim on an airplane and think terrorist are attaching nebulous fear to what is undoubtedly a harmless and benign situation?
I admit the risk is low.
But, I don't fault people for being concerned for their own safety. Maybe a .000019% chance of sitting next to a terrorist is more than most people are comfortable with. Just like flying v. driving, people feel safer when they think they're in control of the situation.
Not to be nitpicky, but all 1.3 billion muslims aren't flying out of US terminals, so your argument is false. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but Muslim (not an appearance, a religion not a race) is not 1/5 1/6 of the US population like it is world-wide.
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
I don't think people stereotype as a survival mechanism. Perhaps they do, and unless there's been a study done I can't point to anything that would prove you wrong. But, let's assume that this is what we are doing though for arguments sake. One difference between us and apes is that we have developed brains capable of critical thinking. We are creatures of logic. This allows us to discern threats that are well-founded from threats that are benign. And logic tells you that any one muslim you encounter chances of being a terrorist couldn't even be described as miniscule. It is truly not worth even considering.
Checked homework:
1.3 billion muslims in the world with a generous estimation of 25,000 with the desire and means of carrying out a terrorist attack in the United States Leaving a .000019% chance that any one muslim you encounter as a terrorist.
people are more afraid to fly than drive
If you can acknowledge this then certainly my above example is no stretch. Why don't you admit that those who see a muslim on an airplane and think terrorist are attaching nebulous fear to what is undoubtedly a harmless and benign situation?
I admit the risk is low.
But, I don't fault people for being concerned for their own safety. Maybe a .000019% chance of sitting next to a terrorist is more than most people are comfortable with. Just like flying v. driving, people feel safer when they think they're in control of the situation.
Not to be nitpicky, but all 1.3 billion muslims aren't flying out of US terminals, so your argument is false. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but Muslim (not an appearance, a religion not a race) is not 1/5 1/6 of the US population like it is world-wide.
Great, that's all I wanted was an agreement on that.
And concerning the argument, I estimated high intentionally. The number of terrorists could have been 20 - the total amount of radicals who have actually used terrorism as a tactic in the US (19 hijackers + original WTC bomber). 20 known terrorists out of the nearly 2.5 million Muslims in the United States is an even lower probability, .000008 %.
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
I don't think people stereotype as a survival mechanism. Perhaps they do, and unless there's been a study done I can't point to anything that would prove you wrong. But, let's assume that this is what we are doing though for arguments sake. One difference between us and apes is that we have developed brains capable of critical thinking. We are creatures of logic. This allows us to discern threats that are well-founded from threats that are benign. And logic tells you that any one muslim you encounter chances of being a terrorist couldn't even be described as miniscule. It is truly not worth even considering.
Checked homework:
1.3 billion muslims in the world with a generous estimation of 25,000 with the desire and means of carrying out a terrorist attack in the United States Leaving a .000019% chance that any one muslim you encounter as a terrorist.
people are more afraid to fly than drive
If you can acknowledge this then certainly my above example is no stretch. Why don't you admit that those who see a muslim on an airplane and think terrorist are attaching nebulous fear to what is undoubtedly a harmless and benign situation?
I admit the risk is low.
But, I don't fault people for being concerned for their own safety. Maybe a .000019% chance of sitting next to a terrorist is more than most people are comfortable with. Just like flying v. driving, people feel safer when they think they're in control of the situation.
Not to be nitpicky, but all 1.3 billion muslims aren't flying out of US terminals, so your argument is false. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but Muslim (not an appearance, a religion not a race) is not 1/5 1/6 of the US population like it is world-wide.
Great, that's all I wanted was an agreement on that.
And concerning the argument, I estimated high intentionally. The number of terrorists could have been 20 - the total amount of radicals who have actually used terrorism as a tactic in the US (19 hijackers + original WTC bomber). 20 known terrorists out of the nearly 2.5 million Muslims in the United States is an even lower probability, .000008 %.
Never mind the Times Square bomber, the Ft Hood shooter, those guys that tried raiding the front gate of a military base a few years ago, and numerous others that have been caught before doing anything, including the one that was just convicted last week for trying to set one off in Dallas, only to realize too late that it was a fake bomb provided by the FBI.
-
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
I don't think people stereotype as a survival mechanism. Perhaps they do, and unless there's been a study done I can't point to anything that would prove you wrong. But, let's assume that this is what we are doing though for arguments sake. One difference between us and apes is that we have developed brains capable of critical thinking. We are creatures of logic. This allows us to discern threats that are well-founded from threats that are benign. And logic tells you that any one muslim you encounter chances of being a terrorist couldn't even be described as miniscule. It is truly not worth even considering.
Checked homework:
1.3 billion muslims in the world with a generous estimation of 25,000 with the desire and means of carrying out a terrorist attack in the United States Leaving a .000019% chance that any one muslim you encounter as a terrorist.
people are more afraid to fly than drive
If you can acknowledge this then certainly my above example is no stretch. Why don't you admit that those who see a muslim on an airplane and think terrorist are attaching nebulous fear to what is undoubtedly a harmless and benign situation?
I admit the risk is low.
But, I don't fault people for being concerned for their own safety. Maybe a .000019% chance of sitting next to a terrorist is more than most people are comfortable with. Just like flying v. driving, people feel safer when they think they're in control of the situation.
Not to be nitpicky, but all 1.3 billion muslims aren't flying out of US terminals, so your argument is false. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but Muslim (not an appearance, a religion not a race) is not 1/5 1/6 of the US population like it is world-wide.
Great, that's all I wanted was an agreement on that.
And concerning the argument, I estimated high intentionally. The number of terrorists could have been 20 - the total amount of radicals who have actually used terrorism as a tactic in the US (19 hijackers + original WTC bomber). 20 known terrorists out of the nearly 2.5 million Muslims in the United States is an even lower probability, .000008 %.
Never mind the Times Square bomber, the Ft Hood shooter, those guys that tried raiding the front gate of a military base a few years ago, and numerous others that have been caught before doing anything, including the one that was just convicted last week for trying to set one off in Dallas, only to realize too late that it was a fake bomb provided by the FBI.
This is part of my point. While the amount of persons willing to attack the United States has probably increased since 9/11 (a separate discussion, yet not really disputed by those whose opinions are respected) there has not been a successful attack since. The likelihood of a person planning and obtaining the means are incredibly small. Even unlikelier than that, obviously, is the actual execution - a percentage approaching immeasurable. We are talking a number that is hard for the human brain to even conceptualize. Yet we have this inflated fear? Why?
If you want to add the Fort Hood shooter's actions as terrorism (Al-Qaeda surely wants to make him into a hero and model) and not a mass murder (the pentagon mentioned nothing of Jihad in their report) then fine.
21 out of 2.5 million .000008%
-
I'm still waiting to see mass demonstrations condemning extremist Islamic activity... :users:
-
I'm still waiting to see mass demonstrations condemning extremist Islamic activity... :users:
About as absurd as me demanding your participation in mass demonstrations condemning the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Church.
When the Klan committed terrorist acts across the United States, particularly in the 60's, no one identified them as Christian Fundamentalists although they identified themselves as a Christian movement. Although they insisted upon their Christianity no one asked for Christians to march against them because terrorism was regarded as a basic violation of Christian principles. Are you telling me that Muslims aren't worthy of the same respect?
I shouldn't do this either but here you go,
From September 12, 2001
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Muslim-World-Condemns-Attacks-On-U-S.aspx (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Muslim-World-Condemns-Attacks-On-U-S.aspx)
57 Muslim States, represented by the most influential Muslim Clerics in the world who make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference have denounced 9/11 and all subsequent terrorist acts across the world since.
-
I'm still waiting to see mass demonstrations condemning extremist Islamic activity... :users:
About as absurd as me demanding your participation in mass demonstrations condemning the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Church.
When the Klan committed terrorist acts across the United States, particularly in the 60's, no one identified them as Christian Fundamentalists although they identified themselves as a Christian movement. Although they insisted upon their Christianity no one asked for Christians to march against them because terrorism was regarded as a basic violation of Christian principles. Are you telling me that Muslims aren't worthy of the same respect?
I shouldn't do this either but here you go,
From September 12, 2001
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Muslim-World-Condemns-Attacks-On-U-S.aspx (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Muslim-World-Condemns-Attacks-On-U-S.aspx)
57 Muslim States, represented by the most influential Muslim Clerics in the world who make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference have denounced 9/11 and all subsequent terrorist acts across the world since.
57 Muslim states? Ohhhhh..... So that's where Obama got it!! Hmmmmmm.
-
I'm still waiting to see mass demonstrations condemning extremist Islamic activity... :users:
About as absurd as me demanding your participation in mass demonstrations condemning the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Church.
When the Klan committed terrorist acts across the United States, particularly in the 60's, no one identified them as Christian Fundamentalists although they identified themselves as a Christian movement. Although they insisted upon their Christianity no one asked for Christians to march against them because terrorism was regarded as a basic violation of Christian principles. Are you telling me that Muslims aren't worthy of the same respect?
I shouldn't do this either but here you go,
From September 12, 2001
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Muslim-World-Condemns-Attacks-On-U-S.aspx (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Muslim-World-Condemns-Attacks-On-U-S.aspx)
57 Muslim States, represented by the most influential Muslim Clerics in the world who make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference have denounced 9/11 and all subsequent terrorist acts across the world since.
57 Muslim states? Ohhhhh..... So that's where Obama got it!! Hmmmmmm.
I thought the exact same thing.....Freudian slip.
-
I don't get why the whole Dallas bomb thing got buried in the news (essentially unreported outside of Dallas). That was a serious sting, and if the guy hadn't been buying from the FBI would have killed thousands of people.
-
I don't get why the whole Dallas bomb thing got buried in the news (essentially unreported outside of Dallas). That was a serious sting, and if the guy hadn't been buying from the FBI would have killed thousands of people.
We ran a few stories on it at our small daily paper, always inside and usually the first third of the AP article. Part of it is there wasn't any blood (as much as readers claim to want to see positive news, they don't) and the other thing is that no one really wants to read a long article on the FBI doing its job. If the 9/11 hijackers had been busted by the FBI in August, with Congress on recess, the entire story might have lasted 72 hours. Then a year or two later the trials might get an additional 24 hours total.
-
I'm still waiting to see mass demonstrations condemning extremist Islamic activity... :users:
About as absurd as me demanding your participation in mass demonstrations condemning the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Church.
When the Klan committed terrorist acts across the United States, particularly in the 60's, no one identified them as Christian Fundamentalists although they identified themselves as a Christian movement. Although they insisted upon their Christianity no one asked for Christians to march against them because terrorism was regarded as a basic violation of Christian principles. Are you telling me that Muslims aren't worthy of the same respect?
I shouldn't do this either but here you go,
From September 12, 2001
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Muslim-World-Condemns-Attacks-On-U-S.aspx (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Muslim-World-Condemns-Attacks-On-U-S.aspx)
57 Muslim States, represented by the most influential Muslim Clerics in the world who make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference have denounced 9/11 and all subsequent terrorist acts across the world since.
3:05 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nq-uSKG9nM) is a direct dispute to your guesstamations. The whole thing is a fabulous source to what is closer to reality than most like to admit!
-
So, that Christine O'Donnell sure is stupid, huh guys? :flush:
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/odonnell-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/?iref=allsearch
damn that amendment anyway
-
and for good measure this isn't very ladylike
http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/odonnell-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/?iref=allsearch
damn that amendment anyway
Unlike lefties, she called and apologized.
BTW... Why do they have a pic of Monica Lewinsky on that page?
And are you demanding that our politicians be held to a high moral standard? That's not very liberal-like.
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/odonnell-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/?iref=allsearch
damn that amendment anyway
Unlike lefties, she called and apologized.
BTW... Why do they have a pic of Monica Lewinsky on that page?
And are you demanding that our politicians be held to a high moral standard? That's not very liberal-like.
When you run on morals, you should be held to a higher moral standard.
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/odonnell-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/?iref=allsearch
damn that amendment anyway
Unlike lefties, she called and apologized.
BTW... Why do they have a pic of Monica Lewinsky on that page?
And are you demanding that our politicians be held to a high moral standard? That's not very liberal-like.
When you run on morals, you should be held to a higher moral standard.
if you have no morals, then isn't the regular non-higher moral standard still not met?
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/odonnell-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/?iref=allsearch
damn that amendment anyway
Unlike lefties, she called and apologized.
BTW... Why do they have a pic of Monica Lewinsky on that page?
And are you demanding that our politicians be held to a high moral standard? That's not very liberal-like.
When you run on morals, you should be held to a higher moral standard.
if you have no morals, then isn't the regular non-higher moral standard still not met?
Who are you referring to here?
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/odonnell-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/?iref=allsearch
damn that amendment anyway
Unlike lefties, she called and apologized.
BTW... Why do they have a pic of Monica Lewinsky on that page?
And are you demanding that our politicians be held to a high moral standard? That's not very liberal-like.
When you run on morals, you should be held to a higher moral standard.
if you have no morals, then isn't the regular non-higher moral standard still not met?
Who are you referring to here?
Just trying to figure this out. If you run on morals, then you should be held to a higher moral standard --> presume than: If you don't run on morals, your are held to a simple/regular moral standard --> begs the question: If you have no morals, then how can you meet either standard?
Regardless, does anyone on here actually live in f*cking Delaware, or wherever this race is being contested? I'm sure some of the libtards have mailed a handful of absentee ballots over there, but I'm talking about someone who is LEGALLY allowed to vote there.
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/odonnell-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/?iref=allsearch
damn that amendment anyway
Unlike lefties, she called and apologized.
BTW... Why do they have a pic of Monica Lewinsky on that page?
And are you demanding that our politicians be held to a high moral standard? That's not very liberal-like.
When you run on morals, you should be held to a higher moral standard.
if you have no morals, then isn't the regular non-higher moral standard still not met?
Who are you referring to here?
Just trying to figure this out. If you run on morals, then you should be held to a higher moral standard --> presume than: If you don't run on morals, your are held to a simple/regular moral standard --> begs the question: If you have no morals, then how can you meet either standard?
Regardless, does anyone on here actually live in f*cking Delaware, or wherever this race is being contested? I'm sure some of the libtards have mailed a handful of absentee ballots over there, but I'm talking about someone who is LEGALLY allowed to vote there.
I doubt anybody on this board lives in Delaware, but it is never a bad idea to be familiar with big-name candidates because they could eventually be a presidential/vice-presidential candidate. Regardless of the outcome, I do hope that Christine O'Donnell stays in the news because her clips are absolute gems.
-
I'm still waiting to see mass demonstrations condemning extremist Islamic activity... :users:
About as absurd as me demanding your participation in mass demonstrations condemning the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Church.
When the Klan committed terrorist acts across the United States, particularly in the 60's, no one identified them as Christian Fundamentalists although they identified themselves as a Christian movement. Although they insisted upon their Christianity no one asked for Christians to march against them because terrorism was regarded as a basic violation of Christian principles. Are you telling me that Muslims aren't worthy of the same respect?
I shouldn't do this either but here you go,
From September 12, 2001
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Muslim-World-Condemns-Attacks-On-U-S.aspx (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Muslim-World-Condemns-Attacks-On-U-S.aspx)
57 Muslim States, represented by the most influential Muslim Clerics in the world who make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference have denounced 9/11 and all subsequent terrorist acts across the world since.
3:05 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nq-uSKG9nM) is a direct dispute to your guesstamations. The whole thing is a fabulous source to what is closer to reality than most like to admit!
Wow just watched that. "Estimate of 10-15% of muslims worldwide support terrorist organizations. . . . Many more hate americans and zionists."
10-15% would be over half the U.S. population.
I would have guessed several hundred thousand, not 200 million
:surprised:
-
You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Do you think Fred Phelps would still have a job if he was an elementary school teacher?
-
When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.
OMG LOL
-
When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.
OMG LOL
Yes, that was amazing. We should be calling her Sasquatch O'Donnell.
-
and for good measure this isn't very ladylike
http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i
I bet this actually ends up helping her chances.
-
and for good measure this isn't very ladylike
http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i
I bet this actually ends up helping her chances.
The stories like that in Penthouse are waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy better :lol:
-
If she does any more debates every talking point should begin and end with a jab about that. "Well, Christine, it appears you've spent about as much time researching supreme court decisions as you've spent KEEPING YOU BUSINESS CLEAN! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
-
Christine and Crystal Ball should make a softcore. Christine will have to come up with a porno name, Crystal's got it covered
-
Must be nice to be a liberal and not have any morals or expectations to live up to.
-
Must be nice to be a liberal and not have any morals or expectations to live up to.
Must be nice to be able to say that you have better morals than your opponent and that you have strong Christian values while you go whore yourself out on Halloween with some dude you don't even know.
-
Must be nice to be a liberal and not have any morals or expectations to live up to.
Must be nice to be able to say that you have better morals than your opponent and that you have strong Christian values while you go whore yourself out on Halloween with some dude you don't even know.
BOOM, ROASTED!
:facepalm:
-
What does consensual sex have to do with morals? Answer: Almost nothing.
-
Must be nice to be a liberal and not have any morals or expectations to live up to.
Must be nice to be able to say that you have better morals than your opponent and that you have strong Christian values while you go whore yourself out on Halloween with some dude you don't even know.
I don't know enough about C O'D to know if she'd be a good "leader", but do you seriously believe that story is true?
-
What does consensual sex have to do with morals? Answer: Almost nothing.
It's not having consensual sex that is immoral. It is condemning others for having consensual sex while you participate in the activity yourself.
-
Guys, her verjyna sounds gross. Just a fwiw here.
-
Guys, her verjyna sounds gross. Just a fwiw here.
Somebody should send her this (http://www.amazon.com/Jenna-Jamesons-Trimmer-Bikini-Removal/dp/B000NIGU30/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&qid=1288368412&sr=1-6) for Christmas.
-
What does consensual sex have to do with morals? Answer: Almost nothing.
Would you go out and have consensual sex with someone other than your wife?
-
What does consensual sex have to do with morals? Answer: Almost nothing.
Would you go out and have consensual sex with someone other than your wife?
Cheating is the morals part.
-
So what is a sexless one-night stand?
-
What does consensual sex have to do with morals? Answer: Almost nothing.
Would you go out and have consensual sex with someone other than your wife?
Since I'm not married, sure. Unless there' O'Donnell bush :horrorsurprise:
-
What does consensual sex have to do with morals? Answer: Almost nothing.
Almost nothing?
I love you self-defeating posts. This was one of my favorites
I do not think any honest reading of the personal beliefs, practices or intent of the founders of the Declaration and Constitution would deserve the designation "founded on religious principles" in any meaningful way. Religion has clearly shaped the history of United States, like every civilization in recorded history. The United States remains much more religious than Europe and other states that have a history of state sponsored religion. The religious diversity and inter-faith relationships in the United States is a strength where for others it continues to be a weakness.
:lol:
-
No idea what you are trying to do there. Really no clue.
-
No idea what you are trying to do there. Really no clue. I'm probably definitely sure I don't know exactly what you're saying.
this better suits you
-
she should try selling pictures of her hairy bush to pay rent rather than using campaign contributions..... just a thought
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/10/29/business-financial-impact-us-delaware-senate-poll_8057939.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews
-
No idea what you are trying to do there. Really no clue. I'm probably definitely sure I don't know exactly what you're saying.
this better suits you
What was incompatiable? I can't believe both things?
-
No idea what you are trying to do there. Really no clue. I'm probably definitely sure I don't know exactly what you're saying.
this better suits you
What was incompatiable? I can't believe both things?
Not when you start by saying one isn't true. Unless you believe the untruth of the matter to be true :horrorsurprise: perception is reality
-
She sounds like a tease that likes a few drinks. :users:
-
Me: You know that uppity running for congress lady who hates abortions and sex and doesn't know about the supreme court?
Mrs. dave: Yeah
Me: She doesn't handle her landscaping and it's all jungley and gross
Mrs. dave: No wonder she hates sex and abortions
:surprised:
-
You read it on the internet, so it must be true.
-
Do all witches have thick hairy bushes, or is it just O'Donnell? (http://abcnews.go.com/News/christine-odonnell-dabbled-witchcraft/story?id=11671277)
-
my favorite part about her is that she didn't understand that the first amendmant prevented her from being burned at the stake for being a witch.
-
my favorite part about her is that she didn't understand that the first amendmant prevented her from being burned at the stake for being a witch.
Talk about a singed minge.
-
Christine O'Donnell, ex-Senate candidate, subject of federal campaign funds probe
Discussion Policy
By Jerry Markon and Sandhya Somashekhar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 29, 2010; 10:36 PM
The Justice Department is investigating whether former U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell violated federal law by diverting campaign funds for personal use, law enforcement sources said Wednesday.
THIS STORY
Christine O'Donnell, ex-Senate candidate, subject of federal campaign funds probe
Despite record spending, politicians still have $400 million in campaign funds
In 2012, Democrats plan to fight cash with cash
View All Items in This Story
The probe of the Delaware Republican arose in response to a complaint from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The watchdog group alleged in September that O'Donnell had used campaign funds for rent, meals and other personal expenses.
O'Donnell stunned the political world that month by riding a wave of tea party support to defeat veteran Rep. Michael N. Castle in the Republican primary. But her campaign was dogged by questions about her personal and campaign finances, and a trail of controversial statements arose, including her 1999 acknowledgment that she had "dabbled" in witchcraft. She lost the general election to Democrat Chris Coons.
The federal inquiry by the U.S. attorney's office in Delaware and the FBI was first reported by the Associated Press. But law enforcement sources said it is very preliminary and has not progressed to a full-fledged criminal investigation, as the AP reported. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe is ongoing.
O'Donnell called the allegations politically motivated and suggested Wednesday that the Obama administration - particularly Vice President Biden, who represented Delaware in the Senate for decades - was behind them.
"Given that the king of the Delaware political establishment just so happens to be the vice president of the most liberal presidential administration in U.S. history, it is no surprise that misuse and abuse of the FBI would not be off the table," she said in a statement.
O'Donnell added: "If anything does materialize from this rumor, we will continue to fully cooperate, as we have made every attempt to ensure we are in compliance with all rules and regulations."
O'Donnell's run was her third attempt for the Senate, and questions persisted this fall about whether, during her 2008 race against Biden, she had used campaign funds to pay for personal expenditures.
Jon Moseley, who ran her primary campaign in 2008 and briefly served as treasurer, said Wednesday that the candidate was "honest to a fault" about her campaign finances and "very cautious about doing the right thing."
But Kristin Murray, a former O'Donnell campaign manager, recorded a robocall to Delaware voters this year alleging that O'Donnell was "living on campaign donations . . . while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt." Murray declined to comment Wednesday.
O'Donnell, who has acknowledged having financial problems, has said she used campaign funds to pay part of the rent on her townhouse because it doubled as her campaign headquarters.
The CREW complaint to federal prosecutors cited an affidavit signed by David Keegan, a former aide to O'Donnell. He said that in 2009, O'Donnell paid two months rent out of her campaign funds, and also used the funds for meals, gas and a bowling outing.
It is unclear if the federal inquiry is examining O'Donnell's 2010 Senate run, earlier campaigns or both.
O'Donnell raised $7.3 million for her campaign this year. She spent $6.4 million and had $925,000 left in the bank in the middle of November, federal reports show.
Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said Wednesday that she welcomed the inquiry. "It's quite clear that O'Donnell was misappropriating money for personal expenses," Sloan said. "My understanding is that she treated the whole thing like her piggy bank."
-
Well, to her defense, she probably didn't know she couldn't do that.
Merge with the O'Donnell Bush Master Thread?
-
Is this the same CREW that spent months drumming up phony ethics violations against Palin???
As long as the ends justify the means, regardless of whether the ends are justified.
-
well, maybe if she took a little time to landscape the back 40 these things wouldn't happen
:emawkid: (< celebrating my hilarious boom-roast not this political thing which I couldn't give two shits about)
-
Don't you mean South forty?
-
Don't you mean South forty?
WHOOOP-WHOOOP! :emawkid:
-
The constitution doesn't say you can't keep a hairy bush!!!
-
The constitution doesn't say you can't keep a hairy bush!!!
It doesn't say you can either :runaway: :runaway: :runaway:
-
I bet she's against the BUSH taxCUTS ;)
:emawkid:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiQ1DBhNe_4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiQ1DBhNe_4&feature=related)
-
ODonnell is Palin-lite. They both give lefties a tremendous boner. The more the two of them stick around, the crazier the lefties will become.
-
ODonnell is Palin-lite. They both give lefties a tremendous boner. The more the two of them stick around, the crazier the lefties will become.
O'Donnell makes Palin look like she belongs in Mensa.
-
ODonnell is Palin-lite. They both give lefties a tremendous boner. The more the two of them stick around, the crazier the lefties will become.
O'Donnell makes Palin look like she belongs in Mensa.
And they forces the collective lefty IQ to drop from 48 to 32 whenever they talk about either one of them.
-
There should be a constitutional amendment on keeping your poon shaven.
-
And they forces the collective lefty IQ to drop from 48 to 32 whenever they talk about either one of them.
That's some quality sentence structure, Mr. IQ.
-
And they forces the collective lefty IQ to drop from 48 to 32 whenever they talk about either one of them.
That's some quality sentence structure, Mr. IQ.
Thanks, Mr. Alinsky. Glad I cood drop yur IQ anuther 20 poyntz.
-
ODonnell is Palin-lite. They both give lefties a tremendous boner. The more the two of them stick around, the crazier the lefties will become.
O'Donnell makes Palin look like she belongs in Mensa.
I would be willing to wager that Palin's IQ > Nuts Kicked IQ.
-
ODonnell is Palin-lite. They both give lefties a tremendous boner. The more the two of them stick around, the crazier the lefties will become.
O'Donnell makes Palin look like she belongs in Mensa.
I would be willing to wager that Palin's IQ > Nuts Kicked IQ.
Even if her IQ is higher than mine (not likely), I would never be stupid enough to place crosshairs over political districts, and I sure as hell would make sure I knew what the term "blood libel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel)" meant before using it in a speech.
-
ODonnell is Palin-lite. They both give lefties a tremendous boner. The more the two of them stick around, the crazier the lefties will become.
O'Donnell makes Palin look like she belongs in Mensa.
I would be willing to wager that Palin's IQ > Nuts Kicked IQ.
Even if her IQ is higher than mine (not likely), I would never be stupid enough to place crosshairs over political districts, and I sure as hell would make sure I knew what the term "blood libel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel)" meant before using it in a speech.
I didn't claim she was very bright.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft3.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSdLzng5v5uiKiE2muiYN0hnMRdQBSREWzbvUQzmKQ31izoQqut&hash=daaf3f3e44c347a726bb2e6ba0510ef675146a9b)