Dems Refuse To Release Tape Of Hatefest

[clocker]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@16 July 2004 - 16:58


They live in another world, and because the media hates Bush, all these people are getting insane media attention at the moment. Like Richard Gere or Adam Yauch have any opinions that matter to me. Or Whoopie or Kobe or any of them. It's all entertainment anyway.

-SJ™

A bit of a sweeping generalization, I think.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+16 July 2004 - 19:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 16 July 2004 - 19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™@16 July 2004 - 16:58


They live in another world, and because the media hates Bush, all these people are getting insane media attention at the moment. Like Richard Gere or Adam Yauch have any opinions that matter to me. Or Whoopie or Kobe or any of them. It&#39;s all entertainment anyway.

-SJ™

A bit of a sweeping generalization, I think.[/b][/quote]
But one that is, nonetheless, justified.

Clocker, I could document much of that which Jude notes; if, for example, the media quotes Barney Frank 100 times, and defines him as "liberal" 5 times, then quotes Tom Tancredo 100 times, and calls him "conservative" 95 times, that is biased reporting, period.

There can be no disputing that this occurs; there is more than ample documentation to support the truth of my assertion.

A recent poll of news journalists revealed something on the order of 95% of them identify themselves as liberal.

Most college faculties are conservative-free.

You bang on about FOXNEWS and it&#39;s "bias", but do a little research before you tell me it is much more than a flea on the back of an overwhelmingly liberal national news media.

I could go on, believe me.

Vid-

If you are saying merely that you don&#39;t agree with the situation and that, in your opinion, Whoopi was treated unfairly, that&#39;s fine, and you are one compassionate fellow.

If you are saying you empathize with Whoopi, well, gee...you&#39;re only human.

If you are saying that laws ought to be written to keep it from recurring, I must respectfully disagree.

BTW-From LegalDefinitions.com:

Discrimination Definition
discrimination definition – discrimination is defined as treating one person unfairly over another according to factors unrelated to their ability or potential, such as age, disability, sex, or national origin.

Whoopi&#39;s treatment by SlimFast doesn&#39;t comport at all, does it?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2004 - 18:10
BTW-From LegalDefinitions.com:

Discrimination Definition
discrimination definition – discrimination is defined as treating one person unfairly over another according to factors unrelated to their ability or potential, such as age, disability, sex, or national origin.

Whoopi&#39;s treatment by SlimFast doesn&#39;t comport at all, does it?

those are just examples, it misses out religious beliefs for example yet it is discrimination to treat one person differently because of their religious beliefs.
In whoopi&#39;s case it is her political beliefs as her statement or whatever it was( i hear it was a joke) was unrelated to slimfast.
If she had a mind to file court proceedings she would probably come out with a satisfactory result, but then i am saying this without seeing a copy of her contract and we don&#39;t know what if any settlement they came to.
As i said i would probably not be debating this if it wasn&#39;t for outside interference.

It&#39;s funny i think that you look at free speech as

Even more to the point, this idea of "without prejudice" is not within sniffing distance of the idea.

If you make comments that are controversial or "daring", you stand to be relieved of something, be it a fat slice of income, your entire livelihood, or merely your ignorance.

That&#39;s the gamble inherent in free speech, vid: It is not without risk; never has been, and never should be.

where as i always thought of it as:

"I don&#39;t agree with what you say but i will fight to the death your right to say it"

Of course i agree with responsibility in free speech but i doubt whoopi acyually said anything that was sooooooooooo contraversial that it would shock the world.


Perhaps if she did make Kerry the subject there would be no fuss at all.... well not from the people that seem so offended by something that isn&#39;t exactly clear what she said by all accounts

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+16 July 2004 - 20:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 16 July 2004 - 20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@16 July 2004 - 18:10
BTW-From LegalDefinitions.com:

Discrimination Definition
discrimination definition – discrimination is defined as treating one person unfairly over another according to factors unrelated to their ability or potential, such as age, disability, sex, or national origin.

Whoopi&#39;s treatment by SlimFast doesn&#39;t comport at all, does it?

those are just examples, it misses out religious beliefs for example yet it is discrimination to treat one person differently because of their religious beliefs.
[/b][/quote]
You have missed many instances on this board, then, when J&#39;Pol and myself (but especially J&#39;Pol), have been discriminated against by anointed "defenders" of free speech when we have broached the subject of religion.

Anyway, I&#39;m just telling you how it is; I didn&#39;t write the Constitution or any of the amendments, but if I had....they would be just the same, but with several fewer amendments.

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by clocker+17 July 2004 - 01:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 July 2004 - 01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™@16 July 2004 - 16:58

and because the media hates Bush

-SJ™

A bit of a sweeping generalization, I think. [/b][/quote]
Perhaps I should have said "most of the media" because of that there is no doubt, and it is most assuredly not a sweeping generalization.

-SJ™

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2004 - 18:10

Clocker, I could document much of that which Jude notes; if, for example, the media quotes Barney Frank 100 times, and defines him as "liberal" 5 times, then quotes Tom Tancredo 100 times, and calls him "conservative" 95 times, that is biased reporting, period.

There can be no disputing that this occurs; there is more than ample documentation to support the truth of my assertion.

Of course your assertion can be disputed, it&#39;s pure crap.
The conservative Right howls so loudly that sheer volume has supplanted proof.

Wanna start swapping Googled surveys?
Here, I&#39;ll start.

Don&#39;t you have a better use for your hot air supply today?
Go blow out some candles...

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2004 - 19:25
You have missed many instances on this board, then, when J&#39;Pol and myself (but especially J&#39;Pol), have been discriminated against by anointed "defenders" of free speech when we have broached the subject of religion.

I have seen many post related to religion and although i have to say as you know i am a non believer, i have never denied that there is a god because i am not so arrogant as to think i am right without any doubt.
I would never argue against ones religious beliefs but i would argue against the religious moral beliefs of one being forced upon another.

However you have not been discriminated against by anyone forcing your loss of revenue because they disagree with your beliefs......or have you?

[clocker]

Originally posted by SuperJude™+16 July 2004 - 19:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SuperJude™ @ 16 July 2004 - 19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by clocker@17 July 2004 - 01:13
<!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™

@16 July 2004 - 16:58

and because the media hates Bush

-SJ™

A bit of a sweeping generalization, I think.

Perhaps I should have said "most of the media" because of that there is no doubt, and it is most assuredly not a sweeping generalization.

-SJ™ [/b][/quote]
Of course there is doubt.
Can you prove this "liberal media" generalization at all, or is this another "everyone knows" kinda thing?

[SuperJude™]

You are kidding right?

-SJ™

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by clocker@17 July 2004 - 03:08
Wanna start swapping Googled surveys?
Here, I&#39;ll start.

Come on, Don&#39;t find a liberal outlet site as your first piece of evidence.... just look at some respectable gallup polls.

I think that you will have to search long and hard for a poll to produce your opinion.

Heres a good Gallup poll