NPR Fires Juan Williams

[PLAYER57832]

I wonder why Woody and Player don't end up arguing more?

We disagree a lot, but we are both moderate and generally are able to listen to opposing viewpoints. I slightly more liberal, he slightly more conservative on some issues, and reverse on other issues. (my religious views are pretty conservative, his are not).

[bradleybadly]

Ok, let me say what I THINK you were trying to say, and you can correct me where I'm wrong. You were saying that you were talking about the PUBLIC'S reaction to NPRs decision to fire Juan Williams. Am I wrong here?

You THINK you understand what I was saying, but left out a key element. This shows a lack of logic on your part when analyzing the posts of other people. If you follow carefully what greekdog's original assertion was that I was responding to, then you will see the one critical element that you skipped over. In order to accomplish this though, you will have to read both of my first 2 posts on this subject. Do you THINK you can do it or will you actually do it?

[PLAYER57832]

^^^
--Their bigotry accusation came when he had a conversation with the executive as she was firing him.

--Bigotry def: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Bigotry is not based on being 'insensitive.' Actually the definition of bigotry is so stringent that a person can be called a bigot for staunchly taking any position (especially when it regards race). For this reason, I've seen the increased calls of bigotry against people when it's truly not fair. I think we all know that the connotative meaning of a bigot is someone that justifies hate based on race and that is not at all what JW was doing here and it is completely disrespectful of NPR to try and label him a bigot even as he advocated the Constitutional rights of the group he was supposedly bigoted towards.

Sorry, no. You failed to prove your point. His words were bigoted.
I do/have respected JW, but saying you worry when folks in Muslim dress board a plane is a bigoted statement.

[ViperOverLord]

^^^
--Their bigotry accusation came when he had a conversation with the executive as she was firing him.

--Bigotry def: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Bigotry is not based on being 'insensitive.' Actually the definition of bigotry is so stringent that a person can be called a bigot for staunchly taking any position (especially when it regards race). For this reason, I've seen the increased calls of bigotry against people when it's truly not fair. I think we all know that the connotative meaning of a bigot is someone that justifies hate based on race and that is not at all what JW was doing here and it is completely disrespectful of NPR to try and label him a bigot even as he advocated the Constitutional rights of the group he was supposedly bigoted towards.

Sorry, no. You failed to prove your point. His words were bigoted.
I do/have respected JW, but saying you worry when folks in Muslim dress board a plane is a bigoted statement.

No it's not. He was addressing a legitimate fear that he had. That is being human, that is not being a bigot. Anybody that strives to protect the rights of all people should not be labeled with that label and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to cast that label on him. If you can call him a bigot for this then you'll effectively end any real race discussion and that is ultimately destructive behavior.

[Metsfanmax]

"But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," Williams said.

If you can call him a bigot for this then you'll effectively end any real race discussion and that is ultimately destructive behavior.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Bigot makes discriminatory comment, you say PLAYER is ending race discussion. Lulz.

[ViperOverLord]

"But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," Williams said.

If you can call him a bigot for this then you'll effectively end any real race discussion and that is ultimately destructive behavior.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Bigot makes discriminatory comment, you say PLAYER is ending race discussion. Lulz.

He didn't make a discriminatory statement LULZ and yes there is no use in having real race discussion if a person is going to get labeled a bigot for expressing legitimate thoughts.

[Woodruff]

Ok, let me say what I THINK you were trying to say, and you can correct me where I'm wrong. You were saying that you were talking about the PUBLIC'S reaction to NPRs decision to fire Juan Williams. Am I wrong here?

You THINK you understand what I was saying, but left out a key element. This shows a lack of logic on your part when analyzing the posts of other people.

Dude, I SAID that's what I THINK you were trying to say, and asked you to correct me. So you take this as an opportunity to berate me for a lack of logic? I'd have to say that's an extremely unreasonable (at best) position for you to take.

If you follow carefully what greekdog's original assertion was that I was responding to, then you will see the one critical element that you skipped over. In order to accomplish this though, you will have to read both of my first 2 posts on this subject. Do you THINK you can do it or will you actually do it?

In other words, you're going to chastise me for a lack of logic and for leaving out a key element, but you're not going to satisfy my very reasonable request to simply TELL ME WHAT THE f*ck YOU MEANT? I guess you're really more interested in being a jackass than in having a discussion.

[Night Strike]

So, I think I found the real reason Juan was fired: George Soros donated $1.8 million to NPR this week. Of course he's going to make sure they remove anyone who dissents with someone who makes that large of a donation. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.soros.org/initiatives/usprograms/focus/transparency/news/npr-grant-20101018)

I wonder why Woody and Player don't end up arguing more?

We disagree a lot, but we are both moderate and generally are able to listen to opposing viewpoints. I slightly more liberal, he slightly more conservative on some issues, and reverse on other issues. (my religious views are pretty conservative, his are not).

Woodruff is, but not you. I can't recall any conservative position you have put forward as all I can remember reading is you repeating democratic talking points or thinking they didn't go far enough.

[bradleybadly]

Dude, I SAID that's what I THINK you were trying to say, and asked you to correct me. So you take this as an opportunity to berate me for a lack of logic? I'd have to say that's an extremely unreasonable (at best) position for you to take.

First of all, I am a well-dressed male. So in that you are correct, but you err in assuming that I have never been to the west coast or been outside the big city. I'm not part of the surfer cultuer either. I've never visited a ranch in an attempt to experience western life either - another incorrect application by yourself. Also, I've never worked for any railroad company. You should really think about the terms you use before posting. Since you constantly strive to point out the lack of logic or reading comprehension skills in others, I took it upon myself to use that same tone with you. It is indeed sad that you have not taken the opportunity to correct your lack of critical thinking skills in regards to the subject at hand. I guess you are incapable of properly comprehending the meaning of my original posts.

In other words, you're going to chastise me for a lack of logic and for leaving out a key element, but you're not going to satisfy my very reasonable request to simply TELL ME WHAT THE f*ck YOU MEANT? I guess you're really more interested in being a jackass than in having a discussion.

They are not other words, they are the words that I used in my original 2 posts. This shows more lack of reading comprehension on your part. I thought that you cherished comprehension skills, but you have instead chose to engage in nasty talk. Please refrain from any more cursing as it is not very nice.

[Woodruff]

Dude, I SAID that's what I THINK you were trying to say, and asked you to correct me. So you take this as an opportunity to berate me for a lack of logic? I'd have to say that's an extremely unreasonable (at best) position for you to take.

First of all, I am a well-dressed male. So in that you are correct, but you err in assuming that I have never been to the west coast or been outside the big city. I'm not part of the surfer cultuer either. I've never visited a ranch in an attempt to experience western life either - another incorrect application by yourself. Also, I've never worked for any railroad company. You should really think about the terms you use before posting. Since you constantly strive to point out the lack of logic or reading comprehension skills in others, I took it upon myself to use that same tone with you. It is indeed sad that you have not taken the opportunity to correct your lack of critical thinking skills in regards to the subject at hand. I guess you are incapable of properly comprehending the meaning of my original posts.

Is there a reason you're trolling me? Just doing your darned best to get me removed from the fora? Can't stand having to deal with someone you disagree with? What is it?

In other words, you're going to chastise me for a lack of logic and for leaving out a key element, but you're not going to satisfy my very reasonable request to simply TELL ME WHAT THE f*ck YOU MEANT? I guess you're really more interested in being a jackass than in having a discussion.

They are not other words, they are the words that I used in my original 2 posts. This shows more lack of reading comprehension on your part. I thought that you cherished comprehension skills, but you have instead chose to engage in nasty talk. Please refrain from any more cursing as it is not very nice.

I sincerely hope your vacation will be a long one.

[bradleybadly]

Is there a reason you're trolling me? Just doing your darned best to get me removed from the fora? Can't stand having to deal with someone you disagree with? What is it?

I am not trolling you. You illogically made an assumption on my original post and concluded something which I never talked about. You quoted me first in this thread concerning this topic. Go back and look again. I'm trying to get you to see my original point, and you're avoiding it by talking about the free market.

I sincerely hope your vacation will be a long one.

If you'd like to try again in addressing my original point then feel free to do so. If you can't do so, then just own up to it. If anyone needs a vacation it would be you because you started this argument by quoting me. I haven't responded to most of your posts when you quote me in other threads. I did this to avoid conflict. Now that I do respond, asking you to properly comprehend my original thought, you behave like an enraged animal.

[Woodruff]

Is there a reason you're trolling me? Just doing your darned best to get me removed from the fora? Can't stand having to deal with someone you disagree with? What is it?

I am not trolling you. You illogically made an assumption on my original post and concluded something which I never talked about. You quoted me first in this thread concerning this topic. Go back and look again. I'm trying to get you to see my original point, and you're avoiding it by talking about the free market.

I sincerely hope your vacation will be a long one.

If you'd like to try again in addressing my original point then feel free to do so. If you can't do so, then just own up to it. If anyone needs a vacation it would be you because you started this argument by quoting me. I haven't responded to most of your posts when you quote me. Now that I do, you behave like an enraged animal.

No, I behave like someone who is trying to understand what you're saying I do not understand. You are irrationally making every attempt possible not to help me to understand it, which is particularly odd given that you could just tell me what I'm misunderstanding straight-up. But you see, that would not give you the opportunity to troll me...thus, you're not interested in furthering the discussion in that easy-to-manage way. I have attempted to deal with you honestly here, and you have chosen the opposite tack.

That you believe I deserve a vacation for <gasp> quoting you merely goes to show the depth of your hope and intent.

[bradleybadly]

No, I behave like someone who is trying to understand what you're saying I do not understand. You are irrationally making every attempt possible not to help me to understand it, which is particularly odd given that you could just tell me what I'm misunderstanding straight-up. But you see, that would not give you the opportunity to troll me...thus, you're not interested in furthering the discussion in that easy-to-manage way. I have attempted to deal with you honestly here, and you have chosen the opposite tack.

If you were behaving like someone who is trying to understand what I'm saying then you would look at my first post as it related to greekdog's comments. The point is clearly made, but you chose to try to troll me with talk about the free market no longer being a good thing. Go back and read that again and try to make an attempt to use good reading comprehension skills. If you do that, you'll clearly see that it had nothing to do with the free market in my post. Stop avoiding this and just go back and read it.

[Woodruff]

No, I behave like someone who is trying to understand what you're saying I do not understand. You are irrationally making every attempt possible not to help me to understand it, which is particularly odd given that you could just tell me what I'm misunderstanding straight-up. But you see, that would not give you the opportunity to troll me...thus, you're not interested in furthering the discussion in that easy-to-manage way. I have attempted to deal with you honestly here, and you have chosen the opposite tack.

If you were behaving like someone who is trying to understand what I'm saying then you would look at my first post as it related to greekdog's comments. The point is clearly made, but you chose to try to troll me with talk about the free market no longer being a good thing. Go back and read that again and try to make an attempt to use good reading comprehension skills. If you do that, you'll clearly see that it had nothing to do with the free market in my post. Stop avoiding this and just go back and read it.

You're claiming that I'm doing the avoiding? How richly ironic.

[bradleybadly]

You're claiming that I'm doing the avoiding? How richly ironic.

Yes, I'm claiming it - and you're demonstrating it. You won't go back to the original post I made and address the point as I wrote it. Writing the words "richly ironic" does nothing for your credibility. Why will you not go back and address the original post? Are you afraid that you might see that you missed my point in front of everyone?