What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

5mn_Major said:
The problem is not that he's giving deficiencies of the left...the problem is that he's positioned to be a counterbalance to the right (which he's not) as the right is positioned on Fox as having no deficiencies. But the main problem is that he shifted from analyzing news to primarily giving his opinion...and that's what got him fired.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's entitled to say whatever he wants, providing what he says is what you want him to say. What a putz. Here's an idea: why don't you stop watching Fox?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

5mn_Major said:
Absolutley nothing to do with the first amendment...if you don't understand the Constitution, don't expect to get much cred when you talk about it.
Click to expand...

Did you really just draw someone else's credibility into question?

At some point here you're going to cross the line from being a knucklehead to just being flat out shameless.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

5mn_Major said:
The problem is not that he's giving deficiencies of the left...the problem is that he's positioned to be a counterbalance to the right (which he's not) as the right is positioned on Fox as having no deficiencies. But the main problem is that he shifted from analyzing news to primarily giving his opinion...and that's what got him fired.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying but this isn't a new concept. Especially with <strike>partisan</strike> news sources. Look at CNN, they pulled the same crap with Tucker Whatshisface. He would get his *** kicked (and it was NEVER close) by James Carville on Crossfire. Or how ab0ut MSNBC? Pat Buchanon? Really? Sure he's a conservative, I don't mind him but you could have a stronger presence as well. I do like Joe Scarborough. He seems to have his head on pretty straight. He's a moderate conservative. Sort of like a mirror of Juan Williams.

At least Fox puts reasonable Liberals on their primetime schedule. Bob Beckel is the first that comes to mind. There's a few more, but I can't think of them right now. MSNBC's primetime shows only invite conservatives that make sarah palin and that witch from out east look like members of Mensa. They are invited simply as court jesters for the host of the show to eviscerate on national television only to scream, "SEE! SEE!! ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE NUTS!!!"

I don't listen to NPR but I know some of the names. I think Mara Liason is the only conservative on NPR that I can think of off the top of my head. Although I readily admit to speaking from ignorance on that subject so feel free to correct me on this. The door really swings both ways.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

I love how 5mn managed to work social conservatives into his ramblings. It's like they're bogeymen hiding around every corner.

Also, Joe Barton (of BP apology fame) wants to look into NPR's funding.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

I'm sure he was being shot at by the people with permits to carry guns in MN while he posted that.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

And, inevitably, the thread becomes a circle jerk of wahmbulance wails and accusations of secret motives.

Politics makes sensible people stupid.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Old Pio said:
You want to lecture me about the First Amendment, but I'll bet you're a true blue believer in the "separation of church and state," which somehow isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Maybe it "emanates from a penumbra" or something.
Click to expand...

No it never says seperation. But it sure makes it clear that the government cannot show any kind of preference of one religion over another, or non-religion. But it was Thomas Jefferson who said there would be a "wall of seperation between church and state" in a letter to a baptist group.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State.

James Madison, a primary author of the Bill of Rights, stated something quite similar: practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States

President John Tyler would later write: The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent-that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgement. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions . . . . The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid . . . . and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have cried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it."

I agree with you the exact phrase of "serparation of church and state" is not in the Constitution but you can see where it does come from.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

First of all, I tend to disagree with his firing and think what he said wasn't all that bad, but I can see where NPR is coming from. In another recent directive from management, NPR has banned their employees from attending any marches or rallies such as the Stewart/Colbert one that is coming up. They essentially stated that they don't want their anchors/hosts to be publicly expressing their personal political opinions in the hopes of remaining as neutral as possible (even when not on "company time"). Williams has frequently appeared on Fox News and made his opinions clear, which runs counter to this idea. Secondly, I think if you consider replacing muslim with black in what he said, tons of people would have been more outraged. If he said "whenever I get on a bus in a poor neighborhood and theres a black man wearing baggy pants I get nervous" I don't think too many people would have been upset with his firing. Thirdly, this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. A radio station that has its employees out in public has every right to expect their radio personalities to uphold certain standards, and are free to fire them for not upholding those standards. No one said Williams couldn't say what he did, they just said he didn't uphold NPR's standards in doing it. (and I also don't think this was the result of the isolated incident, I think it was them continuing to be upset about his appearances on fox news and expressing political opinions)
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

pardonme said:
They essentially stated that they don't want their anchors/hosts to be publicly expressing their personal political opinions in the hopes of remaining as neutral as possible (even when not on "company time").\
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahaha. That's a good one. NPR Neutral. What a laugh.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

I want to know what brilliant Dem strategist thought it was a good idea to have an Obama rally on the U of MN campus during the home football game. I know the Gophers don't draw well compared to real Big11 teams, but there'll still be nearly 50K there for the game. There are about 5K parking spaces on campus and it's a mess anyway on game day. Adding the rally will guarantee a massive cluster****.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

I just saw the headline where NPR's CEO said "Juan William's feelings about Islam should stay between him and his shrink". This isn't being silly, this is genuine (and common) leftist hatred for someone who apparently holds opposing political views. While I wonder what else may have led up to the firing, nobody with a conscience can defend it on these grounds. I've always enjoyed listening to NPR. But this is really sick. Think about where this could lead (it is, after all, a US taxpayer-funded media outlet). If NPR wants to purge the airwaves of the "undesirables", they need to have their funding completely cut off yesterday.
I don't care what the idiots on The View say about the 911 terrorists not being Muslims; withholding my support for them isn't a federal crime. NPR is a different story, and should hold standards.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Proud2baLaker said:
No it never says seperation. But it sure makes it clear that the government cannot show any kind of preference of one religion over another, or non-religion. But it was Thomas Jefferson who said there would be a "wall of seperation between church and state" in a letter to a baptist group.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State.

James Madison, a primary author of the Bill of Rights, stated something quite similar: practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States

President John Tyler would later write: The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent-that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgement. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions . . . . The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid . . . . and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have cried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it."

I agree with you the exact phrase of "serparation of church and state" is not in the Constitution but you can see where it does come from.
Click to expand...

That is one of the most thoughtful posts I'ver encountered. Unfortunately it rebuts an argument I wasn't making. The person whose name shall not pass my lips, had criticized me for conflating "freedom of speech" with the First Amendment. An accurate but technical objection, since most people tend to use the phrases interchangeably. Obviously Juan Williams has no First Amendment right to be an employee of NPR. In my post I was clumsily pointing out that in Williams' case, that person appeared to be a "strict constructionalist," whereas in the matter of "the separation of church and state," well, the constitution is a living document, etc. etc.

Frequently those who advance the notion of "separation of church and state" are absolutist on the concept. They are the manger police, making sure no kid anywhere utters the word "Christmas" in a school. Preferring instead "winter holiday" or some other PC locution. This anti-religious totalitarianism is not what the founders had in mind with the First Amendment.

Frequently people who make the "separation of church and state doesn't appear in the Constitution" argument are social conservatives, which I am not.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

dxmnkd316 said:
I get what you're saying but this isn't a new concept. Especially with <strike>partisan</strike> news sources. Look at CNN, they pulled the same crap with Tucker Whatshisface. He would get his *** kicked (and it was NEVER close) by James Carville on Crossfire. Or how ab0ut MSNBC? Pat Buchanon? Really? Sure he's a conservative, I don't mind him but you could have a stronger presence as well. I do like Joe Scarborough. He seems to have his head on pretty straight. He's a moderate conservative. Sort of like a mirror of Juan Williams.

At least Fox puts reasonable Liberals on their primetime schedule. Bob Beckel is the first that comes to mind. There's a few more, but I can't think of them right now. MSNBC's primetime shows only invite conservatives that make sarah palin and that witch from out east look like members of Mensa. They are invited simply as court jesters for the host of the show to eviscerate on national television only to scream, "SEE! SEE!! ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE NUTS!!!"

I don't listen to NPR but I know some of the names. I think Mara Liason is the only conservative on NPR that I can think of off the top of my head. Although I readily admit to speaking from ignorance on that subject so feel free to correct me on this. The door really swings both ways.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with your line of thought - you're equating voice with reasonableness. All of the cable TV stations fall into this trap - that we must present both sides (or at least appear to present both sides) as if both sides were somehow equal and/or even relevant.

What NPR and Public TV do is present a far more nuanced analysis. There's critical thinking, no yelling, and news hosts ask tough, pointed questions. It's not the kind of 'gotcha' questions that Tim Russert would go after, trying to catch someone in a trap - nor are their analysts free from bias. But they present a much more rational and sensible product.

The distinction that NPR makes between analysis (which encompasses one's personal views) and opinion is a useful one, and one that's been unfortunately lost in today's media. There, apparently, isn't any room for critical thinking amongst journalists - calling out politicians for half truths - without being labeled as biased. Likewise, opinion journalists have their analysis dismissed as biased, too. That middle ground of critical thinking is missing - between blind reporting of facts or soundbytes and brazen advocacy and opinion.

moe24 said:
hahahahahahahaha. That's a good one. NPR Neutral. What a laugh.
Click to expand...

Neutral in terms of political views? Maybe not - but it is by far the most open, intellectually honest, and well-crafted news source around. I'll lump PBS in there as well - the PBS News Hour is the most thoughtful and in-depth reporting you'll find on the TV. And if people sit down and watch it, they might just notice that the guests they have on aren't liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

pardonme said:
...NPR has banned their employees from attending any marches or rallies such as the Stewart/Colbert one that is coming up. They essentially stated that they don't want their anchors/hosts to be publicly expressing their personal political opinions in the hopes of remaining as neutral as possible (even when not on "company time"). ... Thirdly, this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. A radio station that has its employees out in public has every right to expect their radio personalities to uphold certain standards, and are free to fire them for not upholding those standards. No one said Williams couldn't say what he did, they just said he didn't uphold NPR's standards in doing it.
Click to expand...
You're right - and I don't think anyone has accused NPR of violating his civil rights. It's not a freedom of speech issue, just as the ground-zero mosque was not a freedom of religion issue.

They're both "reasonableness" issues. It's pretty unreasonable for a group purporting to stand for unity and inclusiveness to build a building which is so clearly divisive. It's pretty unreasonable for a company to fire people for expressing their feelings (barely even opinions) outside of the workplace. They both have the right to do it - but they shouldn't be surprised if people criticize them for it.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

blockski said:
Neutral in terms of political views? Maybe not - but it is by far the most open, intellectually honest, and well-crafted news source around. I'll lump PBS in there as well - the PBS News Hour is the most thoughtful and in-depth reporting you'll find on the TV. And if people sit down and watch it, they might just notice that the guests they have on aren't liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...
Oh I completely agree. I listen to NPR news all the time. I love it. My only point was the laughable idea that they are somehow politically neutral. The have greatly nuanced reporting, but when it comes to politics they almost always present it in a pro-liberal context.
 
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

pardonme said:
First of all, I tend to disagree with his firing and think what he said wasn't all that bad, but I can see where NPR is coming from. In another recent directive from management, NPR has banned their employees from attending any marches or rallies such as the Stewart/Colbert one that is coming up. They essentially stated that they don't want their anchors/hosts to be publicly expressing their personal political opinions in the hopes of remaining as neutral as possible (even when not on "company time"). Williams has frequently appeared on Fox News and made his opinions clear, which runs counter to this idea. Secondly, I think if you consider replacing muslim with black in what he said, tons of people would have been more outraged. If he said "whenever I get on a bus in a poor neighborhood and theres a black man wearing baggy pants I get nervous" I don't think too many people would have been upset with his firing. Thirdly, this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. A radio station that has its employees out in public has every right to expect their radio personalities to uphold certain standards, and are free to fire them for not upholding those standards. No one said Williams couldn't say what he did, they just said he didn't uphold NPR's standards in doing it. (and I also don't think this was the result of the isolated incident, I think it was them continuing to be upset about his appearances on fox news and expressing political opinions)
Click to expand...

Actually a very prominent figure did replace "Muslim" with "black" a few years ago. His name is Jesse Jackson. You say you "tend" to disagree with the firing" then offer several spurious arguments defending NPR. By far the least thoughtful of these arguments is NPR's alleged policy prohibiting staff members from attending political functions. You're comparing an apple to an orange. What Williams did, in stating his personal reaction to seeing Muslim passengers in an airport, isn't remotely the same as attending a political rally. Besides, he wasn't offering an opinion that others should react the way he does. Williams has been appearing on Fox for years but somehow NPR became fastidiously concerned about him expressing his opinions when it offended a Muslim special interest group. Move on, nothing to see here.

Thank you for the First Amendment exegesis, I'll make sure future posts are up to your didactic standards. I shudder to think what you'd write if you "tended to agree with the firing." It's pretty simple to me, you either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. NPR obviously doesn't. I do, that's why I don't support firing media people for departing from anybody's orthodoxy. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about NPR's legal rights to sack an employee. But please don't kid yourself or try to kid me that this was anything but a reprisal. Ask yourself: if Williams said exactly the same thing on the "News Hour," would NPR have fired him?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

LynahFan said:
You're right - and I don't think anyone has accused NPR of violating his civil rights. It's not a freedom of speech issue, just as the ground-zero mosque was not a freedom of religion issue.

They're both "reasonableness" issues. It's pretty unreasonable for a group purporting to stand for unity and inclusiveness to build a building which is so clearly divisive. It's pretty unreasonable for a company to fire people for expressing their feelings (barely even opinions) outside of the workplace. They both have the right to do it - but they shouldn't be surprised if people criticize them for it.
Click to expand...

Again, I generally agree with your feelings on the issue. I just wanted to take a step back and look at the reasoning from NPR's perspective instead of just going zOMG they are so wrong!!!1!1!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top