Juan Williams: 'I've Always Felt the Right Wing was Inflexible and Intolerant'
>Former NPR senior analyst Juan Williams told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America" Friday that his surprise termination has changed his view of which side of the political aisle is actually the tolerant one.
"I've always thought the right wing was the ones who were inflexible and intolerant, and now I'm coming to realize that the orthodoxy at NPR, if it's representing the Left, is just unbelievable" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you think the issue is here? Do you think it’s just the fact that you were working for Fox became too much trouble for NPR?
JUAN WILLIAMS: I think, you know what, this is one of the things in my life that's just such a shock to me, because I grew up basically on the left. I grew up here in New York City. You know, and I've always thought the right wing was the ones who were inflexible and intolerant, and now I'm coming to realize that the orthodoxy at NPR, if it's representing the Left, is just unbelievable. That, you know, and especially I think for me as a black man, to somehow, you know, say something that's out of the box. They find it very difficult. And I think that's right, George. I think they were looking for a reason to get rid of me, that they were uncomfortable with the idea that I was talking to the likes of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.
STEPHANOPOULOS: If they would have just come to you and said, you have to choose, it's NPR or Fox? What do you do?
WILLIAMS: You know, that would have been tough, because I was at NPR before I was at Fox. I’m sorry, I was at Fox before I was at NPR. And I -- you know, I always thought both employers signed a check to me because they found some value in my presence, that I think that the audience views me as a highly-credible, veteran reporter, someone that they could trust. And for the right wing, I think I was often a foil for their large personalities. And on the left, I think I was a point of an unusual, unpredictable view, that I could bring insight and interest to their audience. And all of a sudden, NPR and especially this last group of managers, became vindictive, and as you can see, personal in terms of their antagonism toward me.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We're out of time. One final question. Were you surprised by this, or did you see it coming?
WILLIAMS: No. I knew about their antagonism towards Fox. And I knew that they didn't like it. As I said, I've been there more than ten years. So, I've seen managers come and go and who dealt with this issue. This current crew was really getting vicious, and as I say, personal, in terms of their animus. And so I had a sense that they really, you know, were looking for something. But you know what? I'm a good journalist. I work really hard. I think the audience knows who I am, and they know exactly what they can expect from me, which is a good journalistic product.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And they can watch you on "The O’Reilly Factor" tonight.
WILLIAMS: I'll be there tonight hosting for O’Reilly, sitting in.
That's a nice, fair interview by Stephanopoulos, and a classy performance by Williams.
As readers are aware, I've had my problems with Juan from time to time, but have also praised him when he's been right on the money. Today was one of those times.
Bravo, Juan. Bravo.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Williams is the SUNSHINE
Submitted by Deskpilot on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:04pm.
that is serving as a disinfectant of the leftist idealogues.
Well played Juan! Looking forward to seeing more of you on Fox, esp since none of my electronics know how to tune in NPR/PBS/CPB.
Hopefully Juan will SEE the sunshine..
Submitted by Paul G on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:21pm.
in the days/weeks/months to come. Hopefully he'll see it's alot nicer in the light, than in the dark world that is liberalism.
Juan should have learned what he has just learned...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:21pm.
years ago. I agree with O'Reilly when he said Williams has more fans than ever before. I always groaned when he showed up on a Fox program that I DVR'd. But because I DVR'd the show, I usually treated him and other Liberals like I treat most commercials. I 'zap' right through them. I am now willing to listen to what he has to say. Since he no longer has the 'albatross' of NPR hanging around his neck, I hope he moves to the 'right' a little bit...or preferably, a 'lotta' bit.
I don't care if he moves right at all
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 11:34pm.
I have found him maddening many times, but I believe he comes by his positions honestly.
I can live with that.
Another thing
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 12:07am.
is that Williams very seldom took cheap shots. I guess you can say he wasn't Alinskitized.
The Emperor Has No Clothes!
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:09pm.
It's very much like the child blurting out the simple truth at the end of the The Emperor Has No Clothes, shocking the in-the-tank adults (and the Emperor) with fact, isn't it?
NPR - remains in the gutter of intolerance
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:11pm.
Noel.. all..
That's a nice, fair interview by Stephanopoulos, and a classy performance by Williams.
Indeed, even though it seemed that Georgie had to suddenly go in a hurry just after Juan laid out, "NPR .. became vindictive." Georgeie's immediate retort was, " We're out of time." How about.. "you 're correct, it does really seem vindictive .. antagonistic" ?
As readers are aware, I've had my problems with Juan from time to time, but have also praised him when he's been right on the money. Today was one of those times
That's the thing here that I propose we all need to hang on to. Noel, you're supposed to have your problems with Juan from time to time; he's a liberal - your're a conservative - you both share different views on many important issues. What I suspect you don't have a problem with, is that Juan Williams is out there, in the open, doing his damn best to have an intelligent informative dialog, a running debate, with the other side, and conducting himself with dignity along the way.
NPR, on the other hand, continues to wallow in the gutter of intolerace of others, and maintains the elitist view that they don't need to conduct a dialog with other human beings.
(;~/ gary
I have to say that I agree
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:39pm.
I have to say that I agree with you on all points here, Gary. Very well said.
Factoid: Juan not only grew up in NY, he grew up in Bed-Sty
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:19pm.
And being an overachieving black kid in that neighborhood during the Superfly era must not have been easy.
The NPR CEO should resign. She's apparently unpaid anyway, so it shouldn't be a big deal to her personally.
Failing that, NPR's board should can her... they had no qualms canning her predecessor in 2008.
I wasn't familiar with Juan's background
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:49pm.
Until this hit the fan blades yesterday.
He was born in Panama, and his parents immigrated when Juan was 4 years old.
I posted yesterday that I thought this episode, and the staunch conservatives' defense of his position, would open his eyes. And it apparently has.
I feel for him on a personal level, he was obviously sorely wounded by his unceremonious dumping (the only thing that could have possibly been ruder would have been a post-it note), but as I'm fond of saying, things happen for a reason. And I suspect Juan Williams will turn this lemon into lemonade, in short order. And kudos to Roger Ailes, and the Fox organization, for promoting, and defending one of their own.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Mr. Williams has just started to feel the pain.
Submitted by phryingphish on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:24pm.
In the comming weeks Juan Williams will find out tht he is the son of the devil, brought here on earth to dupe the liberals in any way he can. He will find out that his past indiscretions will be examined under a microscope, and that he didn't help that illegal alien he passed at Home Depot yesterday. And he will find that he never did stop beating his wife. And George Sorros will be the driving force to bring this out.
Oh yeah, he's gonna learn all right.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 5:32pm.
In the words of the immortal Charlie Harper, "Juan, you poor, dumb bastard."
Juan is about to learn what every "non-liberal" minority already knows. As long as you mine yo manners, do what da massa tell you, an keep yo ass down on da palntation, dey puts up widchew. You go gittin' uppity wid'em and dey gonna whup yo ass.
Poor Juan isn't as lucky as some of us. He was raised in New York City, and he grew up New York Stupid. He has always lived there so he still thinks that NYC is the center of the universe.
Juan, It's not. NYC has been out of step with the rest of the USA since they fought George Washington's colonial army, siding with the British!
So welcome to the sane side, Juan. I hope the lesson takes and you have learned what an evil bunch liberals really are.
Williams will get a sustained attack from bloggers
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 9:35pm.
Juan Williams has a lot of friends in the MSM, many of whom are coming to his defense.
But the bloogers on DailyKos and MoveOn.org will pound on him for not taking his dismissal quietly and paying pennance. It doesn't matter what Williams said or wrote over the years in support of liberalism, he will be scorned viciously.
The model is John Stoessel.
When Stoessel's career took off doing exposes on corporate corruption and malfeasance, he was awarded Emmy's and the praise of "progressives" everywhere.
But when Stoessel became more liberatarian and focused his investigations on government fraud, waste, and abuse, he instantly became their enemy.
Let's see how they treat Williams.
~If liberals run true to form
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:27pm.
They're going to Palinize the man. If that doesn't open his eyes, nothing will.
Good point
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 9:40pm.
And just as NOW's silence became obvious, a failure of the NAACP to support Williams will sting them.
Juan mugged
Submitted by Demonhunter on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:36pm.
It has been said that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Perhaps Juan's eyes now will be fully opened to the evils of the left as many before him have.
This is soooo tasty. The
Submitted by mattm on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:44pm.
This is soooo tasty. The Left's bigotry hits one of their own and exposes them for the totalitarian scum they are! ya gotta love this!
It has that...
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:53pm.
I told you so ring to it doesn't it...
NPR*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:56pm.
We have also learned that liberals are in fact closet racist. Juan stated something obvious and a reality looking for honest debate. We cant have a black man with moderate views on a liberal network.
Moderate
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:02pm.
Funny, isn't it?
"Moderate" is a good thing when the liberal commentariat are talking about Republicans.
But "Moderate" becomes shocking and vile when it's a Democrat like Juan.
How messed up is that?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
And Juan will be further
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:22pm.
And Juan will be further villified for not only signing with Fox, but substituting for BOR on The Factor tonight!!
Ah, yes, the snobs at NPR will now be even more sure that they did the right thing! After all, this PROVES Williams was never a true liberal, or a real black, for that matter.
I wonder which left-winger will be the first to say publicly that Juan is now "back on the porch."
Probably Marc Lamont Hill
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:28pm.
I don't know why he still appears on Fox after having been fired for defending cop-killers and racists.
I see you batted Goldbrick over the head for that one, LOL.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Juan Williams and the Left
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 4:54pm.
He may be vilified by the Left for his expanded role and new contract with FOX, but he also has received a lot of support from liberals who strenuously disagree with NPR's decision to terminate him.
Jer
Something needs to be
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:50pm.
Something needs to be mentioned in all of this: The panty-bomber, the shoe bomber, and the 9/11 terrorists weren't dressed in traditional Muslim garb - they were dressed as normally as every other American on the planes so to fit in and NOT draw attention.
The firing of Williams was unfortunate, but I do understand why they had to do it. If Williams is ever expected to do an honest report concerning Muslims and Islam, how can we ever tell if he's honestly reporting the facts or letting his own fears preside?
Good point.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:52pm.
I had the same thought.
~Food for thought
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:55pm.
He was honest here, wasn't he? It's when people won't be honest about how they truly feel that you have to worry about slanted coverage.
How many of those reporters do you think would call themselves unbiased in their coverage of the news? Would any of them admit to being politically biased?
I don't blame him for being
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:01pm.
I don't blame him for being honest, and I don't blame him for his fears. I don't feel the same way about Muslims because frankly, I see Muslims walking around in traditional clothing all the time.
I don't have any solutions to this any more than I do in controlling who appears on TV to report the news. The thing about public figures is that they must be on their best behavior at all times. In this age of 24/7 camera coverage, what you say in public even when you're not on the job can come back to bite you in the a$$.
Ball players must follow a code of conduct, which is why the commissioner may suspend of fine any of them for misbehavior, or behavior that reflects poorly on the league. I presume NPR has a similar code of conduct policy.
~I've never seen
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:17pm.
Anyone dressed like that. A couple of women with a head scarf, but that's it. Our resident Muslim the local news interviews whenever there's anything going on with Mulims is...a red-haired white man in a little white skull cap. Seriously.
Do you really think NPR fired him solely because of what he said? Juan himself doesn't think that. Do you think he's wrong?
I really don't know, though
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:18pm.
I really don't know, though it seems suspicious that he was fired for this one reason.
It could be just one reason,
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:27pm.
It could be just one reason, since this one reason happens to be the fact that CAIR is angry.
Look what's happened to others who have publicly run athwart Muslim sensibilities.
I can't discount the
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:39pm.
I can't discount the influence of Soros here either. Looks like 1.8 million dollars has purchased him just a 'bit' more influence at NPR. I read somewhere today that the idiots at NPR are now targeting Mara Liasson - the remaining NPR personality with ties to FOX News. All of this coming down 2-3 days after Soros filled the NPR hat to overflowing. Coincidence? Nah.
A Soros-ordered purge at NPR?
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:44pm.
Hmmm....maybe Mara should start shopping her resume around.
I think Roger Ailes would
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:03pm.
I think Roger Ailes would snap her right up into the fold at FOX News also. She's hardly an unknown quantity to FOX viewers and I believe, like Juan, most folks see Mara as fair-minded and honest. She's 'good people', as we say here in God's country.
Mara is no Maddow, that's for sure
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:06pm.
Mara is no Maddow, that's for sure
Mara's no militant liberal
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:27pm.
Mara's no militant liberal flamer, however, she can be a bit on the boring side sometimes. Imagine a talk show, a la Hannity and Colmes, with Mara and Charles Krauthammer as the hosts. Great insight and witty reportiour but man, talk about a snoozer. Might as well be an NPR program..
Yeah, Mara has to be part of a panel, for sure,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:36pm.
but I still kinda like her. That wide eye thing is a little disconcerting sometimes.
I always wondered if I was
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:43pm.
I always wondered if I was the only FOX News viewer that was a little creeped out by that. It reminds me of a former co-worker. She would do that randomly in meetings and her eyes would sometimes stick like that for a few seconds. LOL!
Motherbelt/Baghdad Bob
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 3:34pm.
There are strings attached to the money Soros is giving to NPR. All 100 newly hired reporters must attend and graduate from a 12 week course taught by Baghdad Bob.
Mara's getting the heat already
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:46pm.
Figures...
All this, courtesy of that
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:49pm.
All this, courtesy of that socialist troll, George Soros. Welcome to the new reality of the "watchdog media". He who has the most money dictates the narrative and controls the cast of characters...
Really?
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:54pm.
"...The thing about public figures is that they must be on their best behavior at all times..."
....................................
How in the world can you imply that Juan was not being on his "..best behavior.."? Let me get this straight. According to this, um...logic, if someone expresses an opinion or personal feeling that runs counter to the what a liberal feels is 'right', then that person is somehow 'misbehaving'? Wow. Very telling indeed.
*
Submitted by Chaitealover on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 4:22pm.
Nina Tottenberg has made dispicable comments about Christians, yet she's still employed by NPR. Their code of conduct rules are non-existent. Juan was fired because CAIR makes the decisions about who to silence. How long are we going to give our tax money to unamerican propagandists like NPR?
Chai
Herein lies one of the main
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:15pm.
Herein lies one of the main basic differences between conservatism and liberalism, choselife4x. Conservatives are, by and large, intellectually and verbally honest. Liberals, not so much.
Is there a relevant point to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:30pm.
Is there a relevant point to your comments, or are you calling liberals unintelligent and dishonest because it makes you feel better about your own biases?
No bias here, DK. Just my
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:35pm.
No bias here, DK. Just my well-informed opinion. You want to talk bias? Ask Juan Williams about liberal 'biases', kind sir.
So then you just wanted to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:44pm.
So then you just wanted to call me stupid?
Got it.
Duplicate Deleted
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:37pm.
Duplicate Deleted
~Hold your fire
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:47pm.
He didn't say that. Intellectually dishonest doesn't equal 'unintelligent'. Most people are intellectually dishonest on some level about some things; it's how we live with ourselves and justify the actions we're less than proud of.
And me?
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:49pm.
And me?
~What do you mean?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:06pm.
Are you asking if he thinks you're intellectually dishonest?
He made a general statement about political ideology. As he says below, it wasn't an insult aimed at you, personally.
I'll take this opportunity to say that in my view, one has to be intellectually dishonest with oneself in order to hold a liberal worldview. Now, before you get mad, hear me out.
You've said that politicians can't be trusted and that you, personally, don't trust them. You've also said that you have no problem paying more in taxes so the government can help poor people. Problem is, the government is run by politicians..who can't be trusted. Why give people you can't and don't trust more money and more power?
How do you reconcile not trusting the people running the government with trusting the government?
Being intellectually dishonest doesn't mean you're stupid, or even that you're a liar. It means that you hold opposing thoughts and accept them both. We all do that, to varying degrees about different things. Human nature. *shrug*
Don't we all struggle with
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:20pm.
Don't we all struggle with opposing thoughts? Take evolution for example - you either believe Creationism or evolution. The 2 don't mix. You either adhere to the theory that we were created by the supernatural and man has only been on earth for 10,000 years or so, or you believe homo-sapiens have inhabited the earth for 200,000 years as believed by naturalists.
It doesn't mean you're intellectually dishonest if you believe both - it means you either remain undecided, or you have the personal need to believe both.
Just the same, I find politics to be intellectually dishonest for one reason: choosing sides. No one believes everything that either party stands for, but as illustrated daily on NB, conservatives tend to defend anything and everything (liberals too) that their party stands for.
Without revealing personal information about other members, I will say this: there is no doubt that while many conservatives are fighting against socialism, they're collecting unemployment or social security or medicare, but would never release that publicly due to the firestorm of abuse by liberal trolls. Isn't that intellectual dishonesty?
No, DK, I think I would call
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:35pm.
No, DK, I think I would call that self-preservation and/or feeding one's family; deriving some benefit from programs paid into for many years. I drive down city streets, county roads and interstate highways and enjoy walks in city parks and national forests. Do these things make me intellectually dishonest or a closet socialist?
But there's nothing honest
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:46pm.
But there's nothing honest about taking unemployment extensions while bashing the congress for extending such programs, especially as some people spend their entire days blogging. If that's not intellectually dishonest, I don't know what is.
Self-preservation is of course important, but you can't argue against socialism when you're actually benefitting from government assistance.
Shut up lying retread guttermouth troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 1:32am.
Accepting government services, especially government services in which you have paid into your entire life, such as Social Security, Unemployment, and Medicare is NOT socialism.
++++++++++
Definition of SOCIALISM 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done+++++++++++
GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP
GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION
NO PRIVATE PROPERTY
LIAR LIAR LIAR
~Here's the thing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:47pm.
We all choose sides. Even the people who claim to be 'in the middle' are choosing a side. They're choosing the "I'm above the fray" side. LOL
That said, there's nothing wrong with choosing sides, we all do it. When you grocery shop you're choosing between brands. When you watch sports you're choosing a side. When you go to church you pick one denomination over the others and one church in particular over the others. When you don't go to church you're picking a side. When you buy a car you "discriminate" between them and pick one.
Of course we're not all going to agree with everything in a particular political platform, we go with the one that most closely represents what we believe to be right. You're a liberal because you believe liberalism is more "right" than conservatism. I'm the opposite.
Opposing thoughts is a different matter than picking sides, though. What Stovall was saying above is that liberalism's basic tenets oppose each other.
Pro-abortion/anti-death penalty
Liberals say they're pro-freedom, but they support big government. The more powerful government is, the less freedom it's citizens have. This is the core reasoning behind the Constitution.
Okay, my oldest son needs my attention so I'm stopping here. I think you can get my drift from what I've said so far, anyway.
(oh, and as far as what you're saying about government bennies and conservatives, that does not indicate intellectual dishonesty on the part of conservatism as an ideology, it indicates how difficult it is to turn down money when it's offered to you. Human nature, as I was saying.)
chose
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:53pm.
They're choosing the "I'm above the fray" side.
When someone pulls this, you can rest assured it's a liberal.
- Shy Shakes
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
~Which is what I've pointed out
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 3:02pm.
To many a "moderate" on FB. Right before being 'blocked'. LOL
- Once Burned, Twice Shy
Can I ask which liberal
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 3:18pm.
Can I ask which liberal positions you take?
As a liberal, I side with conservatives on the death penalty, illegal immigration, and affirmative action.
I'm not an independent because I'm above the fray, but because I don't follow or adhere to a strict code of set beliefs. I refuse to fall in lockstep with the Democrat party, liberals, or any other group I can't be a part of if I don't go along with their platform.
~Let's meet up at the bottom
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 4:29pm.
Before this disappears entirely.
Thank you, choselife4x. No,
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:52pm.
Thank you, choselife4x. No, DK, I was not calling you stupid. As choselife4x explained, intellectual dishonesty is basically being dishonest with one's self. I apologize if that read as condescention; I meant no offense.
No worries. As my views are
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:01pm.
No worries. As my views are often disrespected here I'm always on guard when I see a potential insult or am accused of being dishonest. We all come from different backgrounds, and if we all thought the same we'd have no need for places like Newsbusters to share our opinions.
Very true. An echo chamber
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:06pm.
Very true. An echo chamber isn't really my idea of a good time.
ML... While appreciative of
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 5:20pm.
ML...
While appreciative of the reasonable tone of your comments, I still find a couple of your [and as amplified by choselife] points troubling: 1. The notion that conservatives--except for occasional lapses--are generally and instinctively "intellectually honest", but liberals are precisely the opposite; and, 2. Your assertion that liberals also tend to be "verbally dishonest". That latter accusation, it seems to me, is entirely outside the purview of choselife's explanation of intellectual dishonesty, and frankly, appears to be a charge that liberals are habitual liars. Maybe I'm reading too much into the statement.
What exactly DID you mean by those words?
Jer
If you saw the entire context
Submitted by ML Stovall on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:00pm.
If you saw the entire context of Juan's comments, he explained that, although he knew that the large majority of Muslims in the world were NOT terrorists, even he, a proven and well known champion of civil rights, experienced a sense of fear when traditionally dressed Muslims boarded a plane he was on. He acknowledged that this was an irrational fear but that was the was the wasy he felt, just like millions of other Americans after 9/11. He was simply qualifying the his assertion that just because we may fear something or someone, however rational or irrational, that doesn't make it right to demagogue an entire religion. He was expressign his personal feelings - not an opinion.
Mention this*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:10pm.
Ok Deddy, you mentioned the shoe bomber, how about the guy that left a car loaded with explosives at Times Square? Do you realize both of those men were CAUGHT before anyone died because nervous people were alert and aware?
Lots of red flages were easily seen, complaints made about the Fort Hood shooter that was IGNORED because of fear of bigotry. 14 people died because of political correctness.
How many people are alive today because of caution and nervousness around "muslims"?
Focus here. We are
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:21pm.
Focus here. We are discussing airplane bombers and their choice of attire. I can't change the fears of others, I can just hope to understand them.
focus here*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:36pm.
We are talking about the hypocrisy of liberal media. The Fort Hood shooter was wearing a military uniform. The shoe bomber wearing ordinary street clothes. There have dozens of attempted bombings inside the US since 911 and only one successful because people, like Juan, are nervous around Muslims. Christianne Ammonpour had on her show an Imam who says that one day a muslim flag will fly over the White House. The times square bomber warns us that 911 was only the "first drop of blood".
Why woud Juan get fired for admitting being nervous when we are in your face threatened every day? That is the focus here. Hypocrisy, lying media, and the consequences of political correctness.
cajun what was for
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 3:39pm.
cajun what was for lunch?
LOL
No meals today Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 6:32pm.
Someone drove into my driveway early this morning and stole my littlte dachshund. Not really hungry today..;-(
If you
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:16pm.
"understand" that, doyou "understand" why Nina Totenberg still has a job at NPR, after her comments about Jesse Helms, and AIDS? If Totenberg is ever expected to do an honest report on conservatives, or Republicans, or Independents, how can we ever tell if she's being honest? Other than we know she's lying because her lips are moving?
Interesting
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 3:34pm.
A guy who was fired for being completely honest can't be trusted to be honest. Ironic.
The point Williams was making
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 5:40pm.
The point Williams was making in that interview was that although he felt a certain way, it wasn't fair of him to feel that way, and acting on his fears would be wrong. I think it's a better person who admits to fears, and recognizes how legitimate they may or may not be.
If Williams said people in muslim garb shouldn't fly because it makes him nervous that would be a statement which would justify firing him.
Bogus argument, ADK
Submitted by ThisnThat on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 9:06pm.
"If Williams is ever expected to do an honest report concerning Muslims and Islam..."
You're trying to convince us that Juan's statements concerning muslims and islam disqualify him from honest reporting -- and that's why NPR had to let him go. Please prove this bogus statement. That's simply PC bull--it.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
I know, Juan. I know.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:51pm.
People used to tell me they were "concerned about" my drinking for years. Only after I got out of the grips of alcohol could I understand what they saw and what they were trying to tell me.
Now that Juan is "out of the grips" of the Progressives he can see what those whom he argued against were trying to tell him.
OBTW - once I got sober I left the Democratic Party. Funny what a clear head can do.
Juan. Let me be first to
Submitted by ninerdog on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:04pm.
Juan.
Let me be first to welcome you to the right side. Breath the free air my friend.
I'm glad to know that Juan
Submitted by marpel on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:04pm.
I'm glad to know that Juan will be getting from Fox around the equivalent of what that rat, Soros, donated to NPR. What a bunch of smug jackasses on NPR...Juan, I may not have agreed with you on 99% of your comments, but I do admire your honesty. And you're much better off without NPR...you don't want to be associated with a Soros organization anyway. That's exactly what it is now.
"Deep within my heart lies a memory. A song of ol' San Antone..."
Well Juan, welcome to the
Submitted by WarEagle66 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:33pm.
Well Juan, welcome to the real world of America.
Get out of NYC once in a while and it's amazing what you will find.
Not so free speech
Submitted by cestes on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 2:38pm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVsr-_-v2sI
Welcome to our world Juan. You've been Palinized. Oh, the tolerance of the left if you agree with them. This is rich, it's fund raising week at NPR and a totally good time to expose their bent.
Juan's eyes are opened
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 3:28pm.
Sometimesa person has to be hit in the headto ss
sss
I've always thought the right wing was the ones who were inflexible and intolerant,The msm is always complaining
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 3:42pm.
The msm is always complaining that Fox News is an arm of the GOP and a publicity machine. Why are they so determined then to limit liberals from voicing opinions on FNC? Could it possibly be because they want to make it become the truth?
I very seldom watch O'Reily
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 3:55pm.
I very seldom watch O'Reily but I did last night. The football game didn't start until 9 and knew I couldn't stomach an hour of Lou Holtz. The show was very good. I learned a lot about the upper management of NPR and the POS they are. That woman, can't remember her name, needs to be fire for talking that crap about Juan Williams. After the years he gave them and they don't have the guts to face him and tell him why they are firing him.
As long as Obama is the messiah we can not get NPR and the parent organization CPB defunded no how many conservatives are in Congress. It ain't going to happen. I am glad that Sen, Demint is trying to do something but it is all for nothing.
~Ted
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 4:44pm.
Can I ask which liberal positions you take?
Yikes, what a way to phrase it! As you know, I didn't want us to invade Iraq. Not because I thought, like liberals, that Bush was going after oil, but because of the principle "You break it, you buy it."
Traditionally in war, each side tries to demolish each other's armed forces while keeping the other side's basic government intact so there's someone around to officially surrender. In this case, the point was to utterly destroy the ruling government, which left us responsible for running the country. I saw it being a decades long nightmare from which there was no honorable withdrawal unless the Iraqi people stepped up to govern themselves responsibly. Frankly, I didn't think they'd do it. I figured that in that particular culture, the deposal of one dictator would only leave a vacuum for another. We'll see.
(I'm also not a fan of the DHS or the Patriot Act. Could those names be any more Orwellian? *shudder*)
As a liberal, I side with conservatives on the death penalty, illegal immigration, and affirmative action.
How far you've come, darling. LOL
I'm not an independent because I'm above the fray, but because I don't follow or adhere to a strict code of set beliefs. I refuse to fall in lockstep with the Democrat party, liberals, or any other group I can't be a part of if I don't go along with their platform.
I switched my affiliation to Independent a few years into the first Bush term. The GOP was veering too far from conservatism and I found it embarrassing to call myself a Republican. I am, however, always proud to call myself a conservative. I'm a conservative first and foremost, regardless of the positon of any politician or political party.
Anyone who has seen how those
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 4:51pm.
Anyone who has seen how those 'open minded' 'tolerant' 'liberals' 'progressives' treat conservative speakers on their campuses, know that the left/liberal axis is the most intolerant faction of mainstream politics.
A conservative is a liberal whos'
Submitted by johnsonl on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 5:16pm.
been mugged.
Welcome to the dark side, Mr. Williams. We have cookies.
Oops! Sorry cl4x, I'm down here...
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 5:23pm.
This is exactly what I wanted to hear. I refuse to believe that any of us truly align 100% with any political philosophy, let alone the 2 party system with which we've become accustomed.
This is why I can't call myself a Democrat - I find them strong in talk and weak in performance. While most of my beliefs fall on the side with the Democrats, I reject their way of governing and am left a cynic.
~Let me put it this way
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 5:43pm.
I found nothing in the proposed invasion of Iraq that had anything to do with conservatism. I was against it for reasons of common sense more than anything else.
I found the expansion of government and government power exemplified in the DHS and the Patriot Act to be against the principles of conservatism. I feel the same way about the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, etc. etc.
I agree with the political philosophy of conservatism wholeheartedly, I just don't always agree with how other people who claim to be conservative act.
(Conservatism basically just means strictly upholding the Constitution. That's it. Liberals reflexively think that conservatives are for establishing a theocracy (I've been called a Christo-fascist on Kos) and forcing their morality on people. Ain't so.)
But for the same reason
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 5:58pm.
But for the same reason conservatives feel homosexuality is constantly being shoved in your faces, as a non-religious person I am constantly reminded that, as are many non-religious liberals, we are lesser-citizens than those who follow Christianity.
Often conservative views stem from the Bible, which is irrelevant to me as a basis for an argument. But each and every time it's used to defend a position, we are once again reminded that because we don't believe in your God (or any God for that matter), we are not equals.
I don't expect you to necessarily understand being in my position any more than I am to understand yours. Conservatives feel Christianity is always under attack, when at the same time those on the left are on religion-overdose.
So my point? I forget. I guess we all just annoy each other.
I think there are three
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 6:39pm.
I think there are three threads of conservatism with many degree of overlap. I suppose the same could be true of liberalism
Fiscal, Defense, Social
Fiscal and defense conservatives may or may not be religious, but social conservatives almost allways are.
Likewise Fiscal and defense liberals may or may not be religious, but social liberals almost never are.
I doubt there are any two people on the planet that would agree 100% with each other if enough issues were examined and discussed.
Personally I consider the fiscal and social liberals as well as the social conservatives to be statists and the defense liberals to be out and out fools. But that's just my opinion.
Interesting perspective.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 7:01pm.
Interesting perspective. Thanks for posting this - it gives me a different perspective as well.
aDK
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 9:45pm.
From a previous conversation we have had, I think you are a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal. Unfortunately your social liberalism outweighs your fiscal conservatism when it comes to politics. This election is a mandate on fiscal conservatism. The problem is that the Democrats are trying to change it into a debate about social issues.
The TEA parties are not about social issues. They are about fiscal responsibility. Period. Are a lot of TEA party members social conservatives? Yes, but they aren't out there protesting social issues.
FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
I like your posts, Toney.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 11:37pm.
I like your posts, Toney. I'd like to give this more time but I'm closing down soon for the weekend. Let's chat soon.
~Just Al covered some of this
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 11:02am.
So I'll just elaborate on a couple of points.
Conservatism is not based on the Bible. Conservatism is based on the Constitution. The reason that many Christians are conservatives is because it is a political philosophy that does not conflict with Christianity, not because there is anything inherently religious about conservatism. There isn't, it's religion-neutral.
Conservatism is not defined by what we consider to be "social conservative" issues. I think the problem here is that you and I mean different things when we say or think "conservative". You think "religious person who wants to legislate his/her morality" and I think "person who wants to preserve and defend the Constitution". (Which is the actual definition, by the way.)
I am constantly reminded that, as are many non-religious liberals, we are lesser-citizens than those who follow Christianity. By whom? Where are you getting this message from? I can't imagine what source in your life would give you that impression.Aside from a very few NBers
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:41pm.
Aside from a very few NBers who know me personally, and liberalism aside, I am generally seen as less moral (despite the excellent forum on which we discussed this topic with candance) for not having Christ in my life.
~If you ever see this..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 9:36pm.
I really hate how difficult it is to keep up a conversation without the track button. *SNARL*
I'm taking it that you mean you feel that the plurality of NB members think you're less moral than they are. Your previous post gave me the impression that you're bombarded by this message 24/7 in everyday life. If this is the only source of it, that seems pretty minor. I've been called a terrorist and a Christo-fascist on Kos, but that certainly doesn't make me feel anything other than amused. LOL
Think about this for a second. There's simply no way anyone feels marginalized by popular culture by not being a Christian. There isn't any pressure to be Christian or to follow Christian principles. You know where the pressure is, 24/7 in everyday life? Be green. Re-use, recycle, consume less, drive less, buy the store bags and re-use them rather than using paper or plastic, etc..
Who hasn't been pressured to conform to that? Stupid little PSA announcements by celebrities on network TV, comments by news personalities, politicians, musicians, and on and on and on and on. No one's trying to force you to be a Christian, but the entire freakin' world and his half brother-in-law is trying to make you be GREEN.
But that's cool, cuz it's for a good cause........
Not denying that you make a
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 5:12pm.
Not denying that you make a valid point, but...
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/erin-brown/2010/10/26/cnn-anchor-claims...
3 attacks all within minutes. Plenty of others on the thread who could speak up, but unfortunately we both know how Newsbuster-Christians respect those with different beliefs.
"Do you think the fact you
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 6:00pm.
"Do you think the fact you were working for Fox News just became too much trouble for NPR?"
"Too much trouble for NPR"? What kind of trouble was that? With viewers? Who? What? What the hell exactly did Stephanopololopoulopolus mean by that?
Very Odd
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 6:31pm.
I've always thought the right was too flexible and too tollerant. Too easily bent to compromise with the left, too tollerant of the leftist BS.
Addy?
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 8:04pm.
Anyone have Juan's addy? I'd love to send him an e-mail.
Go Juan!!!
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 8:21pm.
He just went off on O'Reilly! You go Juan!
Rukus: Can you explain what you mean?
Submitted by Chaitealover on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 12:28am.
I know Juan was subbing for O'Reilly tonight, but didn't watch.
To me, using the term "went off on O'Reilly" would mean that Juan was angry with O'Reilly and loudly told him just what he thought of him. But, as O'Reilly has been very supportive of him, that wouldn't make sense. I'd appreciate a clarification, as the next re-run of the show here in CA is at 2:00 AM & I hope to be asleep by then. What did I miss?
Badly written
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 11:20pm.
I meant on O'Reily's show, The Factor. Sorry 'bout that.
Is Juan making the Bernie Goldberg journey?
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 11:57pm.
When Goldberg wrote his book Bias, his political sympathies were still on the left. Even a years or two after, he still presented himself as bascially a lefty that saw a press slanted against the right. Now, Media Matters and others find something to get huffy about in most of his appearances on O'Rellly.
Burt Prelutsky tells of his journey from left to right, and his feeling that their politics is their main social bond. Once you break that bond, you're the butt of jokes, you're the person everybody gets to dump on and blame for political outcomes they don't like.
Prelutsky said that the left basically don't like each other, the only thing that they have in common is their hatred of the right. If that comeraderie fails, the social fabric tears.
We'll have to see if this sequence of events plays out again.