An example of "tolerance"

[Grizzly]

While you may doubt the claim, I suggest you read the article linked to in order to understand the experience of someone who knows from the inside. Or ask Juan Williams: is the more tolerant organization the liberal NPR or the conservative Fox news.

Is this really a matter of tolerance? Or adhering to the standards of your employer? Fox news WANTS their newspeople to be controversial and take polarizing stances. NPR wants their correspondents to remain neutral. It's a business decision.

 

[brindisi]

Is this really a matter of tolerance? Or adhering to the standards of your employer? Fox news WANTS their newspeople to be controversial and take polarizing stances. NPR wants their correspondents to remain neutral. It's a business decision.

And it's entirely coincidental that the liberal organization has chosen a narrow minded, intolerant business model and the conservative organization has chosen the opposite?

 

[Grizzly]

And it's entirely coincidental that the liberal organization has chosen a narrow minded, intolerant business model and the conservative organization has chosen the opposite?

When did neutral become intolerant and close-minded? And how on earth are you describing Fox as the opposite? Fox has two kinds of pundits - conservatives and rabid conservatives.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And it's entirely coincidental that the liberal organization has chosen a narrow minded, intolerant business model and the conservative organization has chosen the opposite?

Yeah, Fox News' business model is hardly intolerant or narrow-minded. In fact, it's 'fair and balanced'... I mean look at all the liberals on the network.

 

[brindisi]

Yeah, Fox News' business model is hardly intolerant or narrow-minded. In fact, it's 'fair and balanced'... I mean look at all the liberals on the network.

.

 

[JustOneWay]

Yeah, Fox News' business model is hardly intolerant or narrow-minded. In fact, it's 'fair and balanced'... I mean look at all the liberals on the network.

Hey! They just picked up Juan Williams! (Never mind that it was politically motivated) Fox has been lacking since they lost their Colmes....

 

[brindisi]

When did neutral become intolerant and close-minded? And how on earth are you describing Fox as the opposite? Fox has two kinds of pundits - conservatives and rabid conservatives.

NPR neutral? You are joking, right?

 

[brindisi]

Hey! They just picked up Juan Williams! (Never mind that it was politically motivated) Fox has been lacking since they lost their Colmes....

Just picked up Juan Williams?

I miss Colmes.

 

[Grizzly]

And I suppose that in good liberal tradition your meaning here is that the liberals Fox News has among it's contributors are...'porch monkies' or 'self haters' or 'Uncle Toms',... or what exactly? Could you possibly demonstrate my point for me more clearly?

You do realize that you can't simply put words in other people's mouths and then criticize them for the words you put there? Right?

 

[Grizzly]

NPR neutral? You are joking, right?

NPR strives for its CORRESPONDENTS to be as neutral as possible. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Fox does not want its shows to be neutral - they want them to be controversial. Keeps the people watching.

 

[brindisi]

You do realize that you can't simply put words in other people's mouths and then criticize them for the words you put there? Right?

Fair enough, but I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I asked a question using my own words to which an honest answer could have been "No, that's not what I meant", if, indeed, that would be the honest answer.

So then, someone please explain to me what was meant, if it wasn't mocking denigrating sarcasm.

 

[Grizzly]

Fair enough, but I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I asked a question using my own words to which an honest answer could have been "No, that's not what I meant", if, indeed, that would be the honest answer.

So then, someone please explain to me what was meant, if it wasn't mocking denigrating sarcasm.

No worries. I think he was saying that Fox News doesn't have any liberal pundits.

 

[JustOneWay]

Just picked up Juan Williams? Have you been in a coma for the last 13 years?

I miss Colmes.

Why don't you just cut out the insults? I have not accused you of being in a coma, brain dead or just plain ignorant. So far, you have been nothing but insulting to everybody here.

 

[brindisi]

Why don't you just cut out the insults? I have not accused you of being in a coma, brain dead or just plain ignorant. So far, you have been nothing but insulting to everybody here.

I'll try to be more gentle, I really didn't expect folks here to be so sensitive.

 

[DaisyDay]

Ah...it seems Tammy has hit a nerve.

Yeah, sure, if you think finding anecdotal evidence worthless is hitting a nerve, then you must be right.

 

[DaisyDay]

Does the name Joseph Lieberman ring any bells for you?

That contradicts your point. The voters voted for someone else for the Democratic primary, then he went on to win the election as an Independent. He was allowed to continue to caucus with the Democrats in the Senate - he even kept his chairmanship, thanks to the Democrats. Compare his fate with that of Jim Jeffords.

 

[JustOneWay]

I'll try to be more gentle, I really didn't expect folks here to be so sensitive.

Sensitive? This has nothing to do with being sensitive. You commented that you wanted polite discussion (something like that) and many of your posts take cheap shots at whoever you are commenting. This is more about hypocrisy than sensitivity....

 

[DaisyDay]

Fair enough, but I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I asked a question using my own words to which an honest answer could have been "No, that's not what I meant", if, indeed, that would be the honest answer.

So then, someone please explain to me what was meant, if it wasn't mocking denigrating sarcasm.

Everyone can see what you did there. Using those phrases, then saying they proved your point about liberals is disingenuous at best.

 

[brindisi]

Sensitive? This has nothing to do with being sensitive. You commented that you wanted polite discussion (something like that) and many of your posts take cheap shots at whoever you are commenting. This is more about hypocrisy than sensitivity....

Thank you for your civl response. Perhaps cheap shots were appropriate all along.

 

[brindisi]

That contradicts your point. The voters voted for someone else for the Democratic primary, then he went on to win the election as an Independent. He was allowed to continue to caucus with the Democrats in the Senate - he even kept his chairmanship, thanks to the Democrats. Compare his fate with that of Jim Jeffords.

You've gotten these two things completely wrong.

Joe Lieberman WAS FORCED OUT of his party when the Democratic party leadership relentlessly attacked him during his campaign year. He lost the primary, ran as an Independent, won the general election, and then saying he refused to let the Democratic party change so drastically, decided to caucus with the Democrats. Since the party nedded that body in their caucus - their golden boy Ned Lamont lost - they allowed him to caucus with them. Lieberman most certainly was forced out of his party, but, being a man of integrity, he found a way to fight back.

Jim Jeffords WAS NOT FORCED OUT of his party. He voluntarily chose to switch parties for political gain when the Democrats pimped him in order to take control of the Senate. Jeffords, BTW, very publically bragged that Bush was destined to be a one term President. Less than two years after Jeffords switched parties the Republicans regained control of the Senate, he lost his committee asignments, and Bush eventually went on to become a two term president.

Poor Jim Jeffords, reached for his fifteen minutes of fame by trying to be a politically manipulative shyster, and couldn't get even that right?