Skip to main content

89 replies

Keith Olbermann Suspended!

rockyrockyPost Master
I'll go even more simple for you:

You got nailed on your stupidity and as usual are trying to rationalize your way out of it. Anyone that honestly reads this thread will see how you got served. I have TRIED to not point out the ignorance that Fox has created by the right wing posters on this forum, but **** just how much is a man to put up with? As for continuing this, I am on my laptop and missing the ballgame so I will spend no more time debating a dining room table. Big Grin
JuanHuntJuanHuntHall of Famer
Bozell of MRC is a freak, and W.F.Buckleys nephew. He tries to use the government to censor TV by making hundreds of thousnads of false claims, then going to testify before Congress, as head of the Parents Television Council(PTC), that the number of claims warrants fines and censorship.

Bozell also runs CNSNEWS and Newsbusters.

I think its fair to say that there are no unbiased news sources out there.

And this little tidbit just stinks:

quote:
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has joined Media Research Center President Brent Bozell, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) and a coalition of Catholic leaders today in an open letter to the White House demanding that President Obama fire Harry Knox, an appointed member of the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. This week Knox once again boldly and shamelessly showcased his hatred for the Catholic faith, its teachings and leader by reaffirming his belief that the Pope “is hurting people in the name of Jesus” by not promoting the use of condoms as a means to control the spread of HIV.


Boehner is now officially a partisan hack.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
Comments that triggered the reaction. If he is a hack, it occurred Feb 5, not today.
I do agree with the statement of no unbiased news.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60893
Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Pope Benedict gave a lengthy response, detailing many of the Church’s humanitarian efforts to help people with AIDS in Africa. “I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is,” he said. “If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behavior], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it.”

In response to the pope’s remarks, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) issued a statement. It quoted Harry Knox as follows: “The Pope’s statement that condoms don't help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus.”

“On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods,” said Knox in the statement. “The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further.”

Senior Harvard AIDS Prevention Researcher Edward Green, who describes himself as a liberal, says that science backs the pope’s message.

“We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV-reduction rates” in Africa, Green told the Catholic News Agency in March 2009. The news agency further reported: “According to Green, the Catholic Church should continue to ‘do what it is already doing,’ avoid ‘arguing about the diameter of viruses’ and cite scientific evidence in connection with scripture and moral theology.”
................................................

That letter was sent Feb 5, 2010. It was signed by

John Boehner
House Republican Leader
Member of Congress

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
Member of Congress

L. Brent Bozell, III
Founder and President
Media Research Center

Alfred S. Regnery
Publisher
The American Spectator

Richard Viguerie
American Target Advertising

Thomas Peters
American Papist Blog

Dr. Kevin Roberts
Executive Director
Catholic Families for America

Larry Cirignano
Faithful Catholic Citizens
b50mb50mOld Faithful
Posted 06 November 2010 05:58 PM

quote:
I do agree with the statement of no unbiased news.

I said this.


Boehner is not a hack. If science backs up the Pope, how would those who support his views be hacks?
.....................................................................................

Try again, misfit.

You do have reading problems, once you get that fixed, I'll talk to you again.

As for rumble, no, I am past acting like a 12 year old.

It made an edit instead of a quote. Arrrgggg.
Last edited by b50m
b50mb50mOld Faithful
Did you miss that in the article?


Senior Harvard AIDS Prevention Researcher Edward Green, who describes himself as a liberal, says that science backs the pope’s message.

“We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV-reduction rates” in Africa, Green told the Catholic News Agency in March 2009. The news agency further reported: “According to Green, the Catholic Church should continue to ‘do what it is already doing,’ avoid ‘arguing about the diameter of viruses’ and cite scientific evidence in connection with scripture and moral theology.”
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:
We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV-reduction rates

More from the same guy.

Harvard AIDS researcher says pope is correct on condom use
3:20 PM Sat, Mar 21, 2009
Bruce Tomaso/Editor

Catholic News Agency reports that Edward Green , the director of Harvard University's AIDS Prevention Research Project, says Pope Benedict XVI was correct when he said that condoms not only don't reduce incidences of AIDS and HIV, but can exacerbate them.

Green, the author of "Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries," said: "Theoretically, condoms ought to work, and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that's theoretically."

In 25 years of researching the spread of AIDS on the African continent, he said, "We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates."

He made similar comments in an interview with National Review's Web site.

Part of the reason, he said, may be a phenomenon known as "risk compensation." If people use a certain technology to reduce risk, this may lead them to take on greater risk. Examples: People put on sun block, then think they can stay out longer in the sun. People wear seat belts, then think they can drive faster.

In sex, too, he said, people may be willing to engage in more risky behaviors because of the availability of condoms. This can "disproportionally erase" the benefits of condom use.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
All I can find about Bruce Tomaso is he is a contributor to a blog on the Dallas Morning News. He is listed as an editor but this appears to be the only topic and one of only 3 articles he is credited with on google. Is this opinion content b50m?


What are you referring to?
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:
Harvard AIDS researcher says pope is correct on condom use



The article was quoting Edward Green,the director of Harvard University's AIDS Prevention Research Project.

The editor name is the guy who pulled the article and put it up at a religious blog. If you prefer, I can site other news media where the article is.


http://www.catholicnewsagency....n_condoms_in_africa/

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ld...09/mar/09031906.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Green

http://www.nationalreview.com/...e/kathryn-jean-lopez
rockyrockyPost Master
From b50m: Comments that triggered the reaction. If he is a hack, it occurred Feb 5, not today.

I just caught this: so you are really saying b50m that because John Boehner made statements on Feb. 5 (some year) and was a hack by your own speculation,then through some time portal cleansing of positions he would not be a hack today? Talk about a river named DENIAL!
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
So basically this is just religious views attributed to the pope. Wouldn't this fit better in the religious forum and what does this have to do with the suspension of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC? Or is this a page from the Fox playbook, switch the topic and confuse the viewer (or reader)???


Rock, can you read the name of Edward Green,director of Harvard University's AIDS Prevention Research Project?
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
From b50m: Comments that triggered the reaction. If he is a hack, it occurred Feb 5, not today.

I just caught this: so you are really saying b50m that because John Boehner made statements on Feb. 5 (some year) and was a hack by your own speculation,then through some time portal cleansing of positions he would not be a hack today? Talk about a river named DENIAL!


Talk about spin!

Juan put up a statement from Feb 5, claiming Boehner just made it. I showed the actual date and the events leading to the statement. I said Boehner was not a hack as science agreed witht the Pope.
Edward Green was the man who stated the evidence for why the Pope was correct.

Do you have a reading COMPREHENSION PROBLEM?
b50mb50mOld Faithful
Posted 06 November 2010 05:58 PM

quote:
I do agree with the statement of no unbiased news.

I said this.


Boehner is not a hack. If science backs up the Pope, how would those who support his views be hacks?
.....................................................................................

Try again, misfit.

You do have reading problems, once you get that fixed, I'll talk to you again.

As for rumble, no, I am past acting like a 12 year old.
rockyrockyPost Master
And this was all posted from Juan showing the right wing leanings of the Media Research Council who YOU used as provenance for all the earlier postings claiming that Dan Gainor was not a Fox employee in defense of my response about your original source being Fox and you took it from there! Man, b50m do I have to recap all of your postings to prove your (let me look for a nice word here) well I will just use confusion???????? Roll Eyes
rockyrockyPost Master
[QUOTE]Originally posted by b50m:
From b50m: Comments that triggered the reaction. If he is a hack, it occurred Feb 5, not today.

No I am not going to let you get away with this one b50m! Was this not your post? Rationalize all you want, you have been proven an idiot and get all your right wing tea bag buddys you want to bash me. I have the satisfaction of showing to the cyber world that reads this forum that you are a fool! So much for the kinder and gentlier Rocky! Mad
Last edited by rocky
b50mb50mOld Faithful
Yes, rock, I posted that in reply to Juan saying Boehner was a hack.
Notice the word "IF" in that statement. Then when Juan tried to claim I said Boehner was a hack as you have done as well, I posted this:
quote:
posted 06 November 2010 05:58 PM


Boehner is not a hack. If science backs up the Pope, how would those who support his views be hacks?


Now if the two of you collectively can't see where I said "Boehner is not a hack.", you both need to go back to Remedial Reading classes.

As for you proving someone a fool, yes you did, but it's not me.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
http://www.thespoof.com/news/s...fm?headline=s2i85897

Topics: Politics, Democrats, Keith Olbermann

Saturday, 6 November 2010

Washington--Keith Olbermann was suspended by MSNBC because he donated campaign money to Democrats.

"I was shocked to find out that Mr. Olbermann donated money to a Democrat. We hired him to be unbiased." A NBC spokesman said in press release given to reporters.

The press release also mentioned that "...even if Mr. Olbermann tends to side with Democrats, it doesn't mean that he has the freedom to give money to Democrats running for political office. He is allowed to voice his opinion on his show, but he can't backup his opinions in his private life."

Mr. Olbermann loves to bash Republicans, and these latest revelations won't do anything to stop people from watching his show.

"People like me because I am the anti-Bill O'Reilly. They want to see me bash the GOP." Mr. Olbermann said on his blog today.

"I just can't wait to get back to work and put this all behind me. This is what I get for being honest and a Democrat--screwed." Mr. Olberman added.

Big Grin
gbrkgbrkOld Faithful
Not going to last long as MSNBC is going to suspend the suspension. If this had been FOX and any one of their commentators you would hear it as if there was an Attack on the United States itself. Note at least that FOX calls their commentators just that whereas MSNBC puts their opinion people in the position of reporters and has totally one sided biased reporters.

At Fox you at least get both sides and they, as they say, let the listener make the decision.

What I find funny is how all these Fox detractors never watch FOX or see if what they are saying is true. They take other people's word for it and run with it. They take Media Matters word for it and condemn Fox without really listening to see if it's true or not. Frankly they don't care one way or another.

FOX IS the only true source to get most all the stories. MSNBC and the other outlets cover up news and try and effect the end result. ONLY Fox reported on the New Black Panther dismissal by the Justice Department where the others tried their best to cover it over and make it a non-issue.

TRUST has to be earned and frankly CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC have prostituted themselves as they attempt to gain favor with the Democratic party and the Obama administration. Fox is the only major news outlet that you actually get both sides reported and people who actually watch all news outlets realize that and this is why FOX is cleaning house in the ratings. This is why Fox not only wins hands down in the news audience and the election coverage. People as intelligent enough, when they watch, to recognize coverups and bias. Most detractors never watch Fox but listen instead to what other news outlets report about Fox and what the Democrat party says.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
Olbermann needs to ascend to the CEO position at MSNBC. Then he could follow the model of Rupert Murdoch, owner of "fair and balanced" Fox News, and give $1,000,000 to the political party of his choice with impunity, as Murdoch did. This matter of contributions by NBC staffers was illuminated by Fairness and Accuracy in Media with their release, reproduced below:



Action Alert

If Olbermann's Donations Are Bad, What About GE's?

11/5/10

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's standards barring employees from making political contributions.

A journalist donating money to a political candidate raises obvious conflict of interest questions; at a minimum, such contributions should be disclosed on air. But if supporting politicians with money is a threat to journalistic independence, what are the standards for Olbermann's bosses at NBC, and at NBC's parent company General Electric?

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GE made over $2 million in political contributions in the 2010 election cycle (most coming from the company's political action committee). The top recipient was Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman from Ohio. The company has also spent $32 million on lobbying this year, and contributed over $1 million to the successful "No on 24" campaign against a California ballot initiative aimed at eliminating tax loopholes for major corporations (New York Times, 11/1/10).

Comcast, the cable company currently looking to buy NBC, has dramatically increased its political giving, much of it to lawmakers who support the proposed merger (Bloomberg, 10/19/10). And while Fox News parent News Corp's $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association caused a stir, GE had "given $245,000 to the Democratic governors and $205,000 to the Republican governors since last year," reported the Washington Post (8/18/10).

Olbermann's donations are in some ways comparable to fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough's $4,200 contribution to Republican candidate Derrick Kitts in 2006 (MSNBC.com, 7/15/07). When that was uncovered, though, NBC dismissed this as a problem, since Scarborough "hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter." Olbermann, of course, is also an opinion journalist--but MSNBC seems to hold him to a different standard.

Two years earlier, the Washington Post reported (1/18/04):


NBC chief executive Robert Wright has contributed $8,000 since 1999, including $3,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $1,000 to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Andrew Lack, a former NBC News chief, gave $1,000 to Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) while NBC president, and Wright contributed $1,500--after the House committee Tauzin chairs held hearings on the networks' election night failures. NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said the network allows its executives to make contributions and that Wright "does not make any decisions specific to news coverage."


Wright, however, was reported in a recent New York magazine piece (10/3/10) to have told then-NBC News chief Neal Shapiro to move to the right of Fox News in response to the September 11 attacks: "We have to be more conservative then they are," the magazine quoted Wright.

MSNBC's treatment of Olbermann is also in sharp contrast to Fox News' handling of Sean Hannity, who was revealed by Salon (9/23/10) to have given $5,000 to the campaign of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.), a Tea Party favorite--without Fox expressing any public disapproval. Hannity has allowed Republican candidates to use his Fox program for fundraising (Mediaite, 10/17/10); as Salon noted, Hannity was this year's keynote speaker at the National Republican Congressional Committee's annual fundraising dinner.

If the concern is about how giving money to politicians threatens journalistic independence, then companies like NBC should explain why their parent companies can lavish so much money on political candidates or causes with no concern about conflicts of interest or the need to disclose these donations to viewers. The lesson here would seem to be that some of the workers shouldn't make political donations, but the bosses are free to give as much as they'd like. Anyone who watches Olbermann's show knows what his political views are. So what do the far larger contributions from GE tell us?

ACTION:
Ask NBC and MSNBC to explain their inconsistent standards regarding political donations.

CONTACT:

MSNBC President
Phil Griffin
phil.griffin@nbcuni.com

NBC News President
Steve Capus
steve.capus@nbcuni.com

Phone: (212) 664-4444




TAKE ACTION!

Action:

Ask NBC and MSNBC to explain their inconsistent standards regarding political donations.

CONTACT:
MSNBC President
Phil Griffin
phil.griffin@nbcuni.com

NBC News President
Steve Capus
steve.capus@nbcuni.com

Phone: (212) 664-4444
Please post copies of your letters in the comments section on the FAIR Blog


Bitternu, who does Murdoch work for? According to the article YOU posted Olbermann works FOR MSNBC. MSNBC has a POLICY that their staff CANNOT contribute to a political party. Therefore Olbermann violated company policy. It has nothing to do with anything Murdoch does. Your attempt to deflect attention alsewhere (a favorite liberal ploy) fails once again.



Click here to unsubscribe
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
Qoute from b50m: Where was all this self-righteous indignation when NPR fired Juan Williams for a trumped up charge?

Mainly over at Fox who immediately invited him into the fold with a 2 million dollar contract. That was a serious mistake by NPR and even admitted as such by commentators like Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I am not defending Keith Olbermann, but I think it is very illuminating on the ethics of the two broadcasting networks that MSNBC suspends a commentator for political contributions while Sean Hannity did the same thing over at Fox. Shows the ethics or lack their of in comparison of MSNBC to Fox.


Rocky, you're missing the point. There's nothing wrong with a news person making a plitical donation. However MSNBC has a policy prohibiting donations. How or why I don't know and don't care but they do and Olbermann violated it. Fox does not have that policy so anyone at Fox that contributes is not breaking any rules. Don't blame Fox blame MSNBC.
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
Note at least that FOX calls their commentators just that whereas MSNBC puts their opinion people in the position of reporters and has totally one sided biased reporters.


quote:
FOX IS the only true source to get most all the stories.


quote:
What I find funny is how all these Fox detractors never watch FOX or see if what they are saying is true.


First, let me say that I haven't watched daytime cable news in quite a while, so what I recall could be an incorrect representation. From what I remember of it, all the big networks do a pretty balanced job of reporting the straight news. Where we all start to argue about who is biased and who isn't is when we discuss their primetime shows. These are the timeslots the produce the highest ratings and highest ad revenue. There is no way any rational person could watch an evening of both Fox and MSNBC and not conclude that Fox is a right-wing network and MSNBC is a left-wing network. Both networks pander to political ideologies when it counts. As for Fox's personalities claim that they are "commentators" and not journalists, that means nothing. No rational person could watch Fox, or MSNBC for that matter, and interpret their shows as anything other than opinion.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:
No rational person could watch Fox, or MSNBC for that matter, and interpret their shows as anything other than opinion.


I disagree that Fox leans hard right. They do put both reps and dems on their opinion shows.
I have not seen MSNBC do the same.
The ironic part is only MSNBC put Olbermann as a 'journalist', which is what got him suspended in the first place. Had they just conceded he is a liberal opinion talking head, there would not have been a violation in the first place.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
If any one thought Keith was ever neutral, (there may be one or two), here's this:


quote:
Liberal groups had taken on Olbermann's suspension as a cause. An online petition calling for his reinstatement, run by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, had exceeded 300,000 signatures Sunday, and Michael Moore had tweeted his support. The committee's Adam Green said Griffin was repeatedly e-mailed updates on the petition drives.

"Progressives proved that when one of our own are targeted, we will have their backs," he said.
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
I disagree that Fox leans hard right. They do put both reps and dems on their opinion shows.
I have not seen MSNBC do the same.


Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly are far-right, and that's what Fox has chosen to for the most crucial time slots.

MSNBC has Joe Scarborough, and has Pat Buchanan as a contributor. Still, I actually don't care if either side has guests to present a counter opinion, nor do I think it balances a show. The show's content and tone are dictated by it's host. Having the occasional dissenting opinion on for disagreement doesn't really change that. Rachel Maddow had Rand Paul on a few times. He even announced his candidacy on her show. Does that mean she has a balanced show, or is it still left-wing?
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
I disagree that Fox leans hard right. They do put both reps and dems on their opinion shows.
I have not seen MSNBC do the same.


Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly are far-right, and that's what Fox has chosen to for the most crucial time slots.

MSNBC has Joe Scarborough, and has Pat Buchanan as a contributor. Still, I actually don't care if either side has guests to present a counter opinion, nor do I think it balances a show. The show's content and tone are dictated by it's host. Having the occasional dissenting opinion on for disagreement doesn't really change that. Rachel Maddow had Rand Paul on a few times. He even announced his candidacy on her show. Does that mean she has a balanced show, or is it still left-wing?


Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly are in those time slots because they have the most viewers, not because that's where Fox wants them. I actually think Fox is closer to center than any news organization. The country is getting blasted from so much left policies that anything near the center looks extreme right.
PreviousNext

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×