Conquer Club

NPR Fires Juan Williams

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:19 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Give me a fricking break!!!!!! If I road a bus to work and next to me sat a bunch of Satanist devil worshipers. Then I went to work and said, "I felt uncomfortable sitting next to those people seeing I'm a Christian." then got fired for saying such, I'd sue the crap out of my employer!

We have the right to "feel" however we want in any situation. And to be punished for vocalizing it is absurd!!!!!!!!

As a private citizen making a comment that cannot be construed as in any way representing your employer. Sure.

As a reporter, who's very job depends on the appearance of objectivity and considerations of facts with as much objectivity as possible AND making that statement publically (not in private, even at the office) where millions of listeners might hear.. no, you do not.
jay_a2j wrote:Ya know if every person who ever said a derogatory thing about another person were fired we would have 100% unemployment! And in Juan's case it wasn't a derogatory statement about those Muslims, he was merely stating how it made him feel IN LIGHT OF 911!
No, but you have already shown you like to make non-logical leaps in thought.
jay_a2j wrote:Here I am defending a person who I mostly disagreed with, but Juan was unjustly fired.
I can virtually gaurantee there were clauses in his contract limiting what he could say in public. As a reporter, he is not just "any other citizen". He did not have to take that job. Having taken that job, he was obligated to abide by the terms.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby ViperOverLord on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:23 pm

Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I read this and I agree with the firing. What if he had said, "Honestly Bill, it frightens me when black people sit next to me on the plane." He would be fired. Because it's racist.


If he was basing it on some historical or legitimate personal experience than he would not be racist. He would simply be saying how he felt. JW said his legitimate feelings based on legitimate facts and he got fired for it. This is EXACTLY HOW THE MEDIA HAS BEEN FILTERING OUT CONSERVATIVES FOR YEARS (And in this case Juan is actually a liberal who just did not tow the liberal line to their satisfaction). He needs to sue NPR for unjust termination and we Americans need to stop paying our tax dollars for another liberal indoctrination system.


You don't believe that employees should have a contractual obligation not to embarrass or give the business reason to believe their actions will cause financial hardship to the business?

Heck, even I believe they should. As both a military member and a teacher, I have been under exactly that sort of an obligation.


1. There's no financial hardship created.
2. That is not the reason they gave for his firing anyways.
3. NPR is a publicly funded operation that does not operate under the same parameters as normal profit businesses either.
User avatar
Major ViperOverLord
 
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: California

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:24 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote: I can virtually gaurantee there were clauses in his contract limiting what he could say in public. As a reporter, he is not just "any other citizen". He did not have to take that job. Having taken that job, he was obligated to abide by the terms.


You are virtually guaranteed to destroy the NPR's prestigious credibility of it's "reporters"
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby ViperOverLord on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:26 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I can virtually gaurantee there were clauses in his contract limiting what he could say in public. As a reporter, he is not just "any other citizen". He did not have to take that job. Having taken that job, he was obligated to abide by the terms.


You are virtually guaranteed to destroy the NPR's prestigious credibility of it's "reporters"


He was actually fired for not adhering to NPR's 'editorial slant.' So in other words, for thinking for himself.
User avatar
Major ViperOverLord
 
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: California

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby Woodruff on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:27 pm

ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I read this and I agree with the firing. What if he had said, "Honestly Bill, it frightens me when black people sit next to me on the plane." He would be fired. Because it's racist.


If he was basing it on some historical or legitimate personal experience than he would not be racist. He would simply be saying how he felt. JW said his legitimate feelings based on legitimate facts and he got fired for it. This is EXACTLY HOW THE MEDIA HAS BEEN FILTERING OUT CONSERVATIVES FOR YEARS (And in this case Juan is actually a liberal who just did not tow the liberal line to their satisfaction). He needs to sue NPR for unjust termination and we Americans need to stop paying our tax dollars for another liberal indoctrination system.


You don't believe that employees should have a contractual obligation not to embarrass or give the business reason to believe their actions will cause financial hardship to the business?

Heck, even I believe they should. As both a military member and a teacher, I have been under exactly that sort of an obligation.


1. There's no financial hardship created.


How do you know that? They can certainly base their decision on whatever financial repercussions they are EXPECTING, not that have necessarily materialized already at this point.

ViperOverLord wrote:2. That is not the reason they gave for his firing anyways.


What was the reason they gave for his firing, ViperOverLord?

ViperOverLord wrote:3. NPR is a publicly funded operation that does not operate under the same parameters as normal profit businesses either.


You business freedom guys are so cute.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby Woodruff on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:29 pm

ViperOverLord wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I can virtually gaurantee there were clauses in his contract limiting what he could say in public. As a reporter, he is not just "any other citizen". He did not have to take that job. Having taken that job, he was obligated to abide by the terms.


You are virtually guaranteed to destroy the NPR's prestigious credibility of it's "reporters"


He was actually fired for not adhering to NPR's 'editorial slant.' So in other words, for thinking for himself.


If that is true (I haven't seen it, but I'm willing to take your word for it), you don't believe that is a business decision? You don't believe they should be trying to give their customers what they believe their customers want?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby jay_a2j on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:31 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:please rephrase the actual point.

The point was that Conservatives, through the Republican party, do more to damage to individual rights than liberals do.
Conservatives target specific groups of people who don't look or think like they do. I'm not arguing with you, or anything, I suspected that you missed my point. :P




I like you JB but I have to fully disagree with this statement. Which can only seem legit through the eyes of a bias person. :-s
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:40 pm

jay_a2j wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:please rephrase the actual point.

The point was that Conservatives, through the Republican party, do more to damage to individual rights than liberals do.
Conservatives target specific groups of people who don't look or think like they do. I'm not arguing with you, or anything, I suspected that you missed my point. :P




I like you JB but I have to fully disagree with this statement. Which can only seem legit through the eyes of a bias person. :-s

The truth is that extremists on either side are equally biased, equally damaging to individual rights, just in different directions. However, nowadays, the conservatives are the ones far more vocal and in greater numbers, so their bias is far more evident.

The trouble comes in today because so many people labeled "liberal" are really moderate conservatives. So, about all we see standing with the "conservative" label is really the far right, not truly conservative. The exception is race where what used to be truly liberal is now firmly into all but the extreme right conservative mindset. (gender is still somewhat devisive. The whole "promise keeper" deal had a pretty big and wide impact, though the majority view is accepting for pure practical reasons if nothing else).
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby ViperOverLord on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:41 pm

Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I can virtually gaurantee there were clauses in his contract limiting what he could say in public. As a reporter, he is not just "any other citizen". He did not have to take that job. Having taken that job, he was obligated to abide by the terms.


You are virtually guaranteed to destroy the NPR's prestigious credibility of it's "reporters"


He was actually fired for not adhering to NPR's 'editorial slant.' So in other words, for thinking for himself.


If that is true (I haven't seen it, but I'm willing to take your word for it), you don't believe that is a business decision? You don't believe they should be trying to give their customers what they believe their customers want?


I misremembered. The term 'editorial slant' was not used. I was thinking of virtually the same thing though. "His remarks on 'The O'Reilly Factor' this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

He did not violate any editorial standards or practices and he did not do thing 1 to undermine NPR's credibility. They called him a bigot when in fact it is clearly they who are the bigots when they cannot even respect a person's feelings. Also despite his personal feelings which he relayed, he was an advocate for all human's Constitutional rights during the discussion in which he was fired for. So the message from NPR here is that you cannot interject human emotion into a debate on real issues. You simply have regurgitate their group think and that is bushwah.

And as for giving the customers what they want? Well personally I respect news organizations that strive for diversity of thought (which NPR clearly does not do). But if they aren't going to do that then that's fine, but I don't want my taxes subsidizing them.
User avatar
Major ViperOverLord
 
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: California

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby ViperOverLord on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:47 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:please rephrase the actual point.

The point was that Conservatives, through the Republican party, do more to damage to individual rights than liberals do.
Conservatives target specific groups of people who don't look or think like they do. I'm not arguing with you, or anything, I suspected that you missed my point. :P




I like you JB but I have to fully disagree with this statement. Which can only seem legit through the eyes of a bias person. :-s

The truth is that extremists on either side are equally biased, equally damaging to individual rights, just in different directions. However, nowadays, the conservatives are the ones far more vocal and in greater numbers, so their bias is far more evident.

The trouble comes in today because so many people labeled "liberal" are really moderate conservatives. So, about all we see standing with the "conservative" label is really the far right, not truly conservative. The exception is race where what used to be truly liberal is now firmly into all but the extreme right conservative mindset. (gender is still somewhat devisive. The whole "promise keeper" deal had a pretty big and wide impact, though the majority view is accepting for pure practical reasons if nothing else).


I'm very familiar with your liberal vs. conservative positions, which is basically what your writing is about here. What I want to know is do you agree with the decision to fire JW and why?
High Score: #76 3053
User avatar
Major ViperOverLord
 
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: California

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby Woodruff on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:48 pm

ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I can virtually gaurantee there were clauses in his contract limiting what he could say in public. As a reporter, he is not just "any other citizen". He did not have to take that job. Having taken that job, he was obligated to abide by the terms.


You are virtually guaranteed to destroy the NPR's prestigious credibility of it's "reporters"


He was actually fired for not adhering to NPR's 'editorial slant.' So in other words, for thinking for himself.


If that is true (I haven't seen it, but I'm willing to take your word for it), you don't believe that is a business decision? You don't believe they should be trying to give their customers what they believe their customers want?


I misremembered. The term 'editorial slant' was not used. I was thinking of virtually the same thing though. "His remarks on 'The O'Reilly Factor' this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

He did not violate any editorial standards or practices and he did not do thing 1 to undermine NPR's credibility.


That is YOUR opinion, ok. But they clearly disagree and feel that he DID violate their editorial standards and undermined his own credibility...otherwise they wouldn't have said that he did. In this situation, it really is THEIR position that matters, not your opinion of it, since they are much more closely tied to what their editorial standards and practices actually are.

ViperOverLord wrote:They called him a bigot


They called him a bigot? I haven't seen this...could you point me to it?

ViperOverLord wrote:when in fact it is clearly they who are the bigots when they cannot even respect a person's feelings.


Not respecting an individual's feelings is not really bigotry, you realize.

ViperOverLord wrote:And as for giving the customers what they want? Well personally I respect news organizations that strive for diversity of thought (which NPR clearly does not do).


And as I've stated several times, that is the risk that NPR runs in making this decision. Then again, were you a frequent customer of NPRs? As a followup, do you honestly believe that Fox News strives for diversity of thought?

ViperOverLord wrote:But if they aren't going to do that then that's fine, but I don't want my taxes subsidizing them.


There are MANY, MANY things that I don't want my taxes subsidizing, so I certainly sympathize with this.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:50 pm

I wonder why Woody and Player don't end up arguing more?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby Woodruff on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:53 pm

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


More than what? We disagree pretty frequently.

I wonder why this is relevant to the thread? I know...implicate me as not being moderate. Been tried, and failed, too many times before.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:54 pm

ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I can virtually gaurantee there were clauses in his contract limiting what he could say in public. As a reporter, he is not just "any other citizen". He did not have to take that job. Having taken that job, he was obligated to abide by the terms.


You are virtually guaranteed to destroy the NPR's prestigious credibility of it's "reporters"


He was actually fired for not adhering to NPR's 'editorial slant.' So in other words, for thinking for himself.


If that is true (I haven't seen it, but I'm willing to take your word for it), you don't believe that is a business decision? You don't believe they should be trying to give their customers what they believe their customers want?


I misremembered. The term 'editorial slant' was not used. I was thinking of virtually the same thing though. "His remarks on 'The O'Reilly Factor' this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

NOT the same thing at all. The term "editorial slant" means that you expect a certain bias. the words "inconsistant with our editorial standards and practices..." generally means they expect the reporters to refrain from taking hard positions in any specific direction, but to try as much as possible to remain unbiased in public (no matter what their personnal positions are).

ViperOverLord wrote:He did not violate any editorial standards or practices and he did not do thing 1 to undermine NPR's credibility.

I have not seen his contract, but the standard he violated was to take a position in public.

ViperOverLord wrote:They called him a bigot when in fact it is clearly they who are the bigots when they cannot even respect a person's feelings.
I believe you misunderstand the term "bigot". See, it is not about respecting or not respecting feelings, it is about how one judges people. Bigots try to justify classifying large groups of people based on the bad actions of a few. Deciding that its OK to be afraid of Muslims becuase the hijackers claimed to be Muslim is being bigoted, particularly when recent evidence shows how wrong that idea is.

ViperOverLord wrote:Also despite his personal feelings which he relayed, he was an advocate for all human's Constitutional rights during the discussion in which he was fired for. So the message from NPR here is that you cannot interject human emotion into a debate on real issues. You simply have regurgitate their group think and that is bushwah.
Their position is that their REPORTERS should not take strong stands on issues in PUBLIC, yes.

ViperOverLord wrote:And as for giving the customers what they want? Well personally I respect news organizations that strive for diversity of thought (which NPR clearly does not do).

I see, and who do you believe does a better job? Because I can tell you I heard pretty well what ALL the candidates were saying, what various ideas about big bills and such were from NPR. On the main media, I never got that full perspective.
ViperOverLord wrote:But if they aren't going to do that then that's fine, but I don't want my taxes subsidizing them.
But you want your taxes subsidizing other media outlets that don't even pretend to be unbiased?

And... you got your wish. NPRs funding has already been heavily slashed. BEFORE this happened.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby ViperOverLord on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:55 pm

^^^
--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

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.

--"Their position is that their REPORTERS should not take strong stands on issues in PUBLIC, yes." -- The CEO did say in the aftermath that she did not think an editorial analyst should give opinions on 'divisive issues.' That's crazy! That's censorship and this decision says way more about NPR than it could ever say about JW.
Last edited by ViperOverLord on Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.
High Score: #76 3053
User avatar
Major ViperOverLord
 
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: California

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:56 pm

Phatscotty wrote: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).
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby bradleybadly on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:58 pm

Woodruff wrote: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?
Lootifer wrote:I earn well above average income for my area, i'm educated and I support left wing politics.


jbrettlip wrote:You live in New Zealand. We will call you when we need to make another Hobbit movie.
User avatar
Corporal bradleybadly
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:53 pm
Location: Yes

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:59 pm

ViperOverLord wrote:^^^
--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.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby ViperOverLord on Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:17 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:^^^
--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.
User avatar
Major ViperOverLord
 
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: California

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:31 pm

"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.


ViperOverLord wrote: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.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby ViperOverLord on Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:44 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
"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.


ViperOverLord wrote: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.
User avatar
Major ViperOverLord
 
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: California

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby Woodruff on Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:48 pm

bradleybadly wrote:
Woodruff wrote: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.

bradleybadly wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby Night Strike on Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:25 pm

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)

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: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).


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 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.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby bradleybadly on Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:36 pm

Woodruff wrote: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.

Woodruff wrote: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.
Lootifer wrote:I earn well above average income for my area, i'm educated and I support left wing politics.


jbrettlip wrote:You live in New Zealand. We will call you when we need to make another Hobbit movie.
User avatar
Corporal bradleybadly
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:53 pm
Location: Yes

Re: NPR Fires Juan Williams

Postby Woodruff on Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:51 pm

bradleybadly wrote:
Woodruff wrote: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?

bradleybadly wrote:
Woodruff wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users