Juan Williams - Way to go, NPR

[heliochrome85]

i honestly cant remember when he was last on NPR as a commentator. i listen fairly regularly and i guess im not listening to the right shows. sounds like he was on the way out anyway so this just was push coming to shove.

[96Qowner]

try harder or go home. please, this is no longer fun for any of us.

I agree. Set me straight, if you would - no body language here. Are you just being sassy or are you insulting me? Just like when you hear words no one speaks, sometimes I misinterpret your words.

[AppleBonker]

try harder or go home. please, this is no longer fun for any of us.

I agree

With what? That you need to try harder? That you're not having fun? Do you agree with all of his posts? Some of them? Posts from somebody else? I apologize, I'm just trying to not read words that you haven't typed.

[heliochrome85]

im telling you that if you want to sit and play, bring FACTS, not GOP talking points. if we sat around and threw out our own bigoted ideas without any sort of justification, then this forum would have been shut down years ago. BRING FACTS. FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES.

any clearer?

[96Qowner]

im telling you that if you want to sit and play, bring FACTS, not GOP talking points. if we sat around and threw out our own bigoted ideas without any sort of justification, then this forum would have been shut down years ago. BRING FACTS. FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES.

any clearer?

Ok, that can't be sassiness. That's defintely a tude. I'm not here for the tude.

I don't really have any idea what you're talking about anymore. We can't discuss anything? It's a link contest? It's a contest about who reads what? Sheesh. You hear things no one says and then go all ballistic about it, like some Emily Litella.

If NPR wanted to sever their relationship with Juan Williams because, well for whatever reason, they could have done it respectfully and reasonably. The choice was not to. That choice was not an instant choice. It was discussed, decided, and handed down the line. He was informed with a phone call, for pete's sake.

So, why did NPR do it that particular manner? They spoke words, too. When they spoke their words, I heard "Juan Williams has gotten too cozy with FOX News. This is the final straw."

They got caught being intolerant and hopelessly deluded with a hate-FOX syndrome. It's embarrassing for them. Their affiliates are upset. It's a clown show.

[AZhitman]

This is getting tiresome. You guys aren't even trying anymore.

Spare me the feigned exasperation, Sunshine.

Just because I haven't hammered back on the points you failed to counter doesn't mean they all went in your favor.

You're acting like this was some factual, "rule-of-law" occurrence. It wasn't.

It was a subjective judgement call, based on nebulous and ill-defined criteria.

JW's comment was ignorant. Big effin' deal. I can point to a TON of ill-advised comments that don't cost people their job.

The firing was a stupid move by a stupid person. It was politically-motivated, and it was done in an unprofessional manner.

[AZhitman]

Bill O'Reilly and Juan Williams did.

Half right.

If you're so offended at what JW said, then I'll expect you to be ENRAGED at Oblahma's "back of the bus" comment today.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[AZhitman]

BRING FACTS. FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES.

In that case, we might not get anywhere.

This isn't an issue that lends itself to "empirical evidence". We KNOW what happened. We're all armchair quarterbacking it, and our positions are as varied as our beliefs.

I think the last 4 lines of 96's last post are perfectly valid. You may not agree, but you're not going to dispute any of that with facts, just as IB hasn't shot down anything I've said herein with facts. 'Tis all opinion, dawg.

[IBCoupe]

What exactly have you said with facts, Greg? Here's a fact that I'm going to use to dispute Q's last comment you agree with so much: NPR has a number of other journalists on Fox. Mara Liasson is the first I can come up with off the top of my head. She still has both jobs. Juan Williams' problem wasn't that NPR hates Fox, it was Juan Williams' mouth. The more he fit the mold of bombast and opinion that Fox wanted him to be, the less he fit the mold of quiet contemplation that NPR wanted him to be. One observer remarked, "You can't serve two masters."

If you think I haven't adequately countered your posts, please, show me what I missed.

JW's comment was ignorant. Big effin' deal. I can point to a TON of ill-advised comments that don't cost people their job.

If you can point to people under similar circumstances, I'll happily hear you out. Show me a string of ill-advised comments preceding the firing. Show me a code of ethics violation - a breach of contract. Show me job descriptions that include "required to be objectively analytical." Then show me those people still in those jobs.

[IBCoupe]

Oblahma

For that, I'm not even going to bother looking for the comment.

[audtatious]

Oblahma

For that, I'm not even going to bother looking for the comment.

"He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.""

[IBCoupe]

The outrageous comment being...?

I should clarify: I have never said that I was any level of offended by Juan Williams' comment, Greg.

[mattblancarte]

Isn't it clear? Obama is endorsing government-sanctioned segregation based on party affiliation and income.

[audtatious]

Shoot the messenger. Works quite well.

[IBCoupe]

What?

[audtatious]

Matt's reply, if to my post, is akin to shooting the messenger as I simply posted what Obama said in regards to what Greg was referring since you chose to ignore it based on "Oblahma" jab.

[IBCoupe]

I don't think he was shooting the messenger. He was responding to the criticism. You performed a public service by presenting what Greg didn't, and I don't think Matt was making a comment to you so much as he was the service itself.

His comment was no more shooting the messenger than mine was when I challenged, "The outrageous comment being...?"

[audtatious]

I'm just being difficult as you just explained what I already knew.

[IBCoupe]

Ah, sorry.

[AZhitman]

The outrageous comment being...?

Nothing's "outrageous" to you when it's spoken by The Messiah.

I should clarify: I have never said that I was any level of offended by Juan Williams' comment, Greg.

I didn't say you did. I don't speak for you. I spoke for me, in saying it was a stupid comment.

Here, how's this: NPR did not exercise their given contractual right to fire Williams for violation of his contract in a professional manner, and as such, exposed themselves to warranted and valid criticism, including, but not limited to, criticism of the CEO's offensive and demeaning insinuation about mental illness (for which she has not been sanctioned).

"Quiet contemplation" my a$$.

[IBCoupe]

I'm serious, Greg. Explain to me what's offensive. He didn't say "back of the bus." He said, "You'll have to sit in the back" which is pretty consistent with the car-ditch metaphor he's been employing for the past three months. Careful, Greg, your desperation for a decent argument is showing.

Bill O'Reilly and Juan Williams did.

Half right.

If you're so offended at what JW said, then I'll expect you to be ENRAGED at Oblahma's "back of the bus" comment today.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

You didn't suggest that I was offended at what Juan Williams said? That's odd, because that's usually what's implied by "If you're so offended," suggesting that there's a level of "offended" you're noticing in me that can be measured.

You can be pissed off at the manner they fired him, sure, but that's just fluff. And it's not at all the same thing as what you've been arguing: in effect, that they had no real justification for doing so.

[96Qowner]

For a guy who's so sensitive to the proper PC-sanctioned use of the word "Muslim", it's surprising you don't know how loaded Obama's verbiage was. You actually think he didn't know what he was saying? Obama, the son of a Kenyan, prides himself on his ability to identify with American Blacks and their history of struggle. I find it hard to believe that it never occurred to him that people might finish his sentence in their minds - "back ... of the bus" har har. I find it hard to believe that the people who laughed didn't "get it".

I don't think it's a big deal at all, just as I don't think it's a big deal to say the word "Muslims" without making absolutely sure that no one might ever think you meant ALL Muslims.

In fact, I suspect (ya think?) that was the purpose in posting it.

[AppleBonker]

Wow, that's interesting. I read that quote about six times before I saw any way that it could be construed as even moderately offensive. I'm pretty much the king of making offensive statements, and that didn't come close to registering on my radar. Is there really a comparison here? Is someone actually arguing that these two are similar? I'd gladly bet a years pay that the average citizen would interpret "I am scared of Muslims" to mean ALL Muslims long before they would interpret that Obama quote to have anything to do with race. 96Q, your point still makes no sense. That is how it is interpreted. You must have the most annoying conversations if you have to explain the exact meaning of every phrase you speak.


And for the people who mentioned they wont listen to NPR anymore, is this a fair summary of the issue?:

NPR employee says something NPR doesn't like (we'll even argue this was the only mistake he ever made in their eyes)
NPR employee is fired

You think NPR employee's firing is not justified (one mistake)
You stop listening to NPR

Anyone else notice a similarity?

[IBCoupe]

For a guy who's so sensitive to the proper PC-sanctioned use of the word "Muslim", it's surprising you don't know how loaded Obama's verbiage was. You actually think he didn't know what he was saying? Obama, the son of a Kenyan, prides himself on his ability to identify with American Blacks and their history of struggle. I find it hard to believe that it never occurred to him that people might finish his sentence in their minds - "back ... of the bus" har har. I find it hard to believe that the people who laughed didn't "get it".

I don't think it's a big deal at all, just as I don't think it's a big deal to say the word "Muslims" without making absolutely sure that no one might ever think you meant ALL Muslims.

In fact, I suspect (ya think?) that was the purpose in posting it.

Really? Are you seriously arguing this? That you're retarded enough to assign him an imaginary racism doesn't meant the rest of us are, pal. How many buses do you ride on that have a seat for you to sit shotgun in?

"He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, 'we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.' "

Please stop being so retarded. Or at least go be retarded somewhere else. You're obnoxious.

[96Qowner]

96Q, your point still makes no sense. That is how it is interpreted. You must have the most annoying conversations if you have to explain the exact meaning of every phrase you speak.

Huh? I've been suggesting that it's absurd to have to apologize for words that were never spoken. But yes, I find it highly annoying to have to tediously explain to people that no, I did NOT mean to say ALL Muslims. If I had meant to say ALL Muslims, I would have said ALL Muslims. And anyone who meant ALL Muslims is a nutcase - there's no point in even acknowledging such a fool.

[96Qowner]

Please stop being so retarded. Or at least go be retarded somewhere else. You're obnoxious.

LOL, ... really ... ?

Are you sure you're not just projecting again? You didn't hear back "of the bus", I didn't hear "ALL" Muslims.

[AppleBonker]

there's no point in even acknowledging such a fool.

Acknowledging when? With the interpretation of that specific comment about Muslims? Or no point ever?

You see, once again, words that aren't there. If you're going to complain that people are interpreting something wrong based on common assumptions, you need to be absolutely sure you explain everything in extreme detail. Or else I have no choice to read words that you haven't written...

And like my previous comment mentioned, if I were to say I hate women, you would honestly respond with "which ones?"? That is not a normal conversation. For anyone.

[IBCoupe]

I didn't say he said "all Muslims." You obviously have trouble reading. In Bill O'Reilly's case, here's what you do to find "all Muslims:"

"Muslims killed us on 9/11."
"Okay. And?"
There is no response to that question that he could possibly give that does not lead us to a categorical statement. There's no reason to make the statement that some Muslims killed us on 9/11.

In Juan Williams' case:
"Whenever I'm on an airplane and I see a person in Muslim garb, I get nervous."
"Why?"
"Because Muslims killed us on 9/11."
"Okay. And?"

See what I'm getting at? The flaw in your comparison is that, to get what I got out of what they said, one must logically extract the reasons for saying it. To get what you're suggesting we can get out of President Obama's statements, one must change what President Obama said altogether. One's a logical exploration, and the other's a complete fabrication. One's speculative analysis, and the other's dishonest.

EDIT: I'd like to suggest that Juan Williams wasn't even fired for categorically saying anything about Muslims. He was fired for publicly revealing his personal biases on a controversial topic.

[96Qowner]

Sorry, IB, I really don't see what you're getting at.

If you say you hate women, naturally I wonder what the hell you mean, because it's obviously an imbecilic statement. I immediately assume some woman has made you angry, hence, "which women?" It would be idiotic to actually believe that you hate ALL women.

No? Would you assume it meant ALL women? Really?

[IBCoupe]

Let me repeat it, then:
"There is no response to that question that he could possibly give that does not lead us to a categorical statement. There's no reason to make the statement that some Muslims killed us on 9/11."

If you don't believe me, try to come up with such an answer. If you say, "Muslims killed us on 9/11," and I ask you "What is the significance of that fact?" go ahead and try to answer the question.