"What Fox News Channel Would Have Done To Rosa Parks"

[AlbqOwl]

Richard Reid didn't have an Arab name.

Uh... yeah. Cnredd's joke has provoked a bigger public reaction than 9/11 did. Definitely.

Terrorists and terrorism are beyond evil. That goes without saying. You shouldn't have to say "Bin Laden is a bastard!" every 20 seconds without people jumping down your throat about how you don't condemn them enough. Is there some competition to prove who hates them the most, or something? :roll: The terrorists will never defeat us. I don't know why people are acting as if they can.

The topic wasn't about Richard Reid and he is one of many other hundreds who do have Arab names. And it wasn't CNRedd's joke--it was from the mainstream media--but he (as I did) saw the appropriate humor in it.

And no you don't have to say Bin Laden is a bastard every 20 seconds to show you don't like him. But think how it looks to the outside world when he is generally (erroneously by the Left) mentioned only as the one George Bush let get away while all the public anger and hate rhetoric is aimed at George W. Bush and almost none at the terrorists?

I know there are military personnel who are critical of just about everything and I have no problems with them. I have huge problems when they go public and give aid and comfort to the enemy and fortunately there are only a tiny handful of idiots who do that despite the huge press coverage given to that tiny handful of idiots. Meanwhile, the thousands upon thousands of our military who do believe in our mission and who are proud of what we are doing and who have every confidence we will win if allowed to do so have almost no voice in the mainstream media. I think that's obscene.

I have no problem with a mother's grief or even how she feels or what she thinks. But I think it is shameful, anti-American, and borderline treasonous for a Cindy Sheehan to be given the press coverage she has received while hundreds of other parents who have lost sons in the war and 100% oppose what she is doing have almost no voice.

 

[cnredd]

The topic wasn't about Richard Reid and he is one of many other hundreds who do have Arab names. And it wasn't CNRedd's joke--it was from the mainstream media--but he (as I did) saw the appropriate humor in it.

And no you don't have to say Bin Laden is a bastard every 20 seconds to show you don't like him. But think how it looks to the outside world when he is generally (erroneously by the Left) mentioned only as the one George Bush let get away while all the public anger and hate rhetoric is aimed at George W. Bush and almost none at the terrorists?

I know there are military personnel who are critical of just about everything and I have no problems with them. I have huge problems when they go public and give aid and comfort to the enemy and fortunately there are only a tiny handful of idiots who do that despite the huge press coverage given to that tiny handful of idiots. Meanwhile, the thousands upon thousands of our military who do believe in our mission and who are proud of what we are doing and who have every confidence we will win if allowed to do so have almost no voice in the mainstream media. I think that's obscene.

I have no problem with a mother's grief or even how she feels or what she thinks. But I think it is shameful, anti-American, and borderline treasonous for a Cindy Sheehan to be given the press coverage she has received while hundreds of other parents who have lost sons in the war and 100% oppose what she is doing have almost no voice.

On St. Patrick's Day, I change my name to "Crappy McGiggles"....My Muslim name is "Tupac Zaday"...That doesn't get as much attention as "Cindy Al-Sheehani".

If anyone is dumb enough to equate that with all of the Ummah, then I pity you more than I disagree.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If there is no liberal bias in the media I just want to know the answer to one question: Why is it that we don't know any of the names of the fathers and mothers of fallen soldiers in Iraq who support the war?

 

[freethought6t9]

Because a strong pro-war movement would be in extremely bad taste?

 

[AllAmericanRageJunky]

If there is no liberal bias in the media I just want to know the answer to one question: Why is it that we don't know any of the names of the fathers and mothers of fallen soldiers in Iraq who support the war?

There are three different major forms of media, there is a leftwing media (Air America radio) which isn't that powerful or influential, there is the rightwing media (Fox News, Rush, most a.m. radio talk shows), and there is the mainstream media. Obviously the first two have political agendas (which in my opinion is fine as long as the don't claim to be nonbiased...ahem...Fox News). The third doesn't really have a political agenda towards either side, the main priority of the mainstream media is to make cash, and the fastest way to do that is with "shock stories" or nightly news segments like "can Skittles give you cancer? Find out at 11:00". The thing about it is that since the right wing media is so good at building up stories, theirs are typically the ones which will be picked up by the mainstream media.

and I would point out that this Cindy Sheehan thing isn't exactly a sparsely mentioned topic in the right wing media. There is a reason why the wont let that story go, because it's too good at stirring up political tension.

 

[freethought6t9]

There are three different major forms of media, there is a leftwing media (Air America radio) which isn't that powerful or influential, there is the rightwing media (Fox News, Rush, most a.m. radio talk shows), and there is the mainstream media. Obviously the first two have political agendas (which in my opinion is fine as long as the don't claim to be nonbiased...ahem...Fox News). The third doesn't really have a political agenda towards either side, the main priority of the mainstream media is to make cash, and the fastest way to do that is with "shock stories" or nightly news segments like "can Skittles give you cancer? Find out at 11:00". The thing about it is that since the right wing media is so good at building up stories, theirs are typically the ones which will be picked up by the mainstream media.

and I would point out that this Cindy Sheehan thing isn't exactly a sparsely mentioned topic in the right wing media. There is a reason why the wont let that story go, because it's too good at stirring up political tension.

Yeah, the 'right-wing echo chamber', and Chomsky gets more media coverage in Britain and Japan than in the 'liberal' media. It's also worth mentioning that he is constantly referred to as the most important dissident in America, sounds like he would be in the 'liberal' media all the time. Truth is, he has so many facts the only way to win an argument against him is to lie or constantly shout him down.

 

[AlbqOwl]

But a fair number of us think he has his facts wrong or draws entirely the wrong conclusion from them.

 

[AllAmericanRageJunky]

But a fair number of us think he has his facts wrong or draws entirely the wrong conclusion from them.

no more so than Bill O'riely (however his name is spelled) or any of the other talking heads.

 

[vergiss]

Yeah, the 'right-wing echo chamber', and Chomsky gets more media coverage in Britain and Japan than in the 'liberal' media. It's also worth mentioning that he is constantly referred to as the most important dissident in America, sounds like he would be in the 'liberal' media all the time. Truth is, he has so many facts the only way to win an argument against him is to lie or constantly shout him down.

I'm not just saying this to prove you right - who's Chomsky? :lol:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Those who joked with the al-Sheehan line have been criticized in this forum far more than the terrorists have been criticized.

BULLSHIT! Are you insane? This comment, this post that you made is what needs to be criticized for it's incredible stupidity.

Are you smart enough to realize that you wrote that people in this forum condone terrorism? I can't think of 3 people in this forum (or two even) that support terrorism. I can think of lots of people who stupidly write posts accusing people who they disagree with as being Un-American, Pro-Terrorism, Pro-Insurgency etc.

I think it's time that all of you so-called "patriots" get your brain out of your ass and stop accusing your fellow countrymen of treason. Anyone who thinks that liberals are pro-terrorist anti-Americans is a complete and utter fool. Please do not throw out Ward Churchill, Michael Moore etc. as examples! That is bullshit. If Michael Moore is the spokesmen for all Liberals then Pat Robertson is the spokesmen for all Conservatives. How fuc&ing stupid are you, exactly?

 

[AllAmericanRageJunky]

I'm not just saying this to prove you right - who's Chomsky? :lol:

he's an liberal intellectual, talks allot about U.S. foreign policy and how it's effected by private interest...at least that's what he has talked about in the pieces I have read.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And answer me this:
If there's no conservative bias in the news, how come Pat Robertson's contraverial opinions is newsworthy, but Noam Chomsky's aren't? Why do they discuss this idiot nut bag's opinions, and not the opinions of an extremely intelligent, well informed, and paranoid man who actually has **** to say?

Robertson's an idiot of that there is no doubt a call to assasinate a foriegn leader is unjustified especially in the context which he made it, however, I would rather here from that idiot than from Chomsky a man who justifies and rationalizes acts of terrorism against the U.S. he's a f****n piece of s**t take a look at this link:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20010912.htm

 

[AlbqOwl]

BULLSHIT! Are you insane? This comment, this post that you made is what needs to be criticized for it's incredible stupidity.

Are you smart enough to realize that you wrote that people in this forum condone terrorism? I can't think of 3 people in this forum (or two even) that support terrorism. I can think of lots of people who stupidly write posts accusing people who they disagree with as being Un-American, Pro-Terrorism, Pro-Insurgency etc.

I think it's time that all of you so-called "patriots" get your brain out of your ass and stop accusing your fellow countrymen of treason. Anyone who thinks that liberals are pro-terrorist anti-Americans is a complete and utter fool. Please do not throw out Ward Churchill, Michael Moore etc. as examples! That is bullshit. If Michael Moore is the spokesmen for all Liberals then Pat Robertson is the spokesmen for all Conservatives. How fuc&ing stupid are you, exactly?

I have not said you (or anyone else) support terrorism. If you read my posts carefully you will see that. And I haven't thrown out any examples using any of the names you mentioned. And I should have clarified that I was referring to the Cindy Sheehan threads.

Now if you go back and look at the posts, you will find precious few comments that are uncomplimentary re the terrorists other than from those who thought al-Sheehan was funny. You will find many who support what Cindy Sheehan has been doing and you will find a fair number of posts complaining about using the "al-Sheehan" euphemism. Hence my comment that there is more criticism about saying 'al-Sheehan' than there is criticism of the terrorists who prompted the euphenism.

Personally, I think there is a disparity of priorities there.

 

[ElGringo17]

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!

Yeah, I guess her parents and most of her relatives are part of that VAST Right Wing Conspiracy that jerk Hillary Clinton spoke of when her idiot war criminal quano husband was so falsely accused of lying under oath when he was wrongly accused of having sex with Lewinsky.

 

[vergiss]

Now if you go back and look at the posts, you will find precious few comments that are uncomplimentary re the terrorists other than from those who thought al-Sheehan was funny. You will find many who support what Cindy Sheehan has been doing and you will find a fair number of posts complaining about using the "al-Sheehan" euphemism. Hence my comment that there is more criticism about saying 'al-Sheehan' than there is criticism of the terrorists who prompted the euphenism.

Personally, I think there is a disparity of priorities there.

I assume you mean this thread specifically. Perhaps, if you were to use an ounce of logic, you'd realise it's due to this thread being about Sheehan, rather than being a thread intended to denounce terrorists. We're keeping with the topic at hand, rather than randomly throwing in "Terrorists suck!" every other sentence too keep your paranoia at bay.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I assume you mean this thread specifically. Perhaps, if you were to use an ounce of logic, you'd realise it's due to this thread being about Sheehan, rather than being a thread intended to denounce terrorists. We're keeping with the topic at hand, rather than randomly throwing in "Terrorists suck!" every other sentence too keep your paranoia at bay.

I haven't said terrorists suck. I haven't said anybody sucks. I certainly haven't thrown it in every other sentence, speaking of using an 'ounce of logic'. If you will go back and reread, you will see that the primary objection to Cindy Sheehan's diatribe is that 1) It is insulting to the troops and 2) it gives aid and comfort to the enemy aka the terrorists. It is #2 that gave rise to the Cindy al-Sheehan euphemism, and it was the disproportionate outcries of 'foul' from those on the left to which I addressed my remarks.

As to whatever paranoia I possess, I think it is fear that some on the Left will never be able to think clearly and objectively on these issues and not twist them into something that they never were, and we will be having these less than useful discussions for years more down the road.

 

[freethought6t9]

I'm not just saying this to prove you right - who's Chomsky? :lol:

He is a Professor of Linguistics and Philosphy at MIT, responsible for the theory that the structure of language is directly related to the structure of the brain.

He is also widely regarded as one of the world leading intellectual dissidents, he is certainly one of the most important critics within the U.S. He has written over 50 or 60 books on this subject, as well as the domestic policies enacted by big business, or simply put class war. Basically, if the U.S. media were actually liberal, conservatives would be so sick of Chomsky it wouldn't even funny.

Funnily enough though, the only people who ever mention him, at least on this site, are those of a left leaning persuasion. Hmmm.

 

[vergiss]

I haven't said terrorists suck. I haven't said anybody sucks. I certainly haven't thrown it in every other sentence, speaking of using an 'ounce of logic'. If you will go back and reread, you will see that the primary objection to Cindy Sheehan's diatribe is that 1) It is insulting to the troops and 2) it gives aid and comfort to the enemy aka the terrorists. It is #2 that gave rise to the Cindy al-Sheehan euphemism, and it was the disproportionate outcries of 'foul' from those on the left to which I addressed my remarks.

So, what - terrorists are the be-all and end-all of things to take issue with in this world? :lol:

As to whatever paranoia I possess, I think it is fear that some on the Left will never be able to think clearly and objectively on these issues and not twist them into something that they never were...

What, such as giving "aid and comfort to the enemy"?

 

[AlbqOwl]

He is a Professor of Linguistics and Philosphy at MIT, responsible for the theory that the structure of language is directly related to the structure of the brain.

He is also widely regarded as one of the world leading intellectual dissidents, he is certainly one of the most important critics within the U.S. He has written over 50 or 60 books on this subject, as well as the domestic policies enacted by big business, or simply put class war. Basically, if the U.S. media were actually liberal, conservatives would be so sick of Chomsky it wouldn't even funny.

Funnily enough though, the only people who ever mention him, at least on this site, are those of a left leaning persuasion. Hmmm.

Correction. In my opinion "he is also widely regarded as one of the world leading intellectual dissidents' by the radical LEFT. Those who are more balanced find him using intellectual language to project far less than intellectual philosophy.

 

[freethought6t9]

Robertson's an idiot of that there is no doubt a call to assasinate a foriegn leader is unjustified especially in the context which he made it, however, I would rather here from that idiot than from Chomsky a man who justifies and rationalizes acts of terrorism against the U.S. he's a f****n piece of s**t take a look at this link:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20010912.htm

To try and say that Chomsky tries to justify terrorism is a statement of high ignorance. To try to understand why the attack, or any act of violence occurs, is not a justification. As to rationalisation, I have heard few people, and even fewer intellectuals talk of the human impact of violence in a more than Chomsky.

And to call one of the most respected intellectuals on the planet an idiot, well let's just say that the insult can certainly be applied to somebody.