While not necessarily about the topic, I found something in this weeks SI interesting. In a story about French (and black) soccer player Thiery Henry coming to play in American he made several comments about the lack of racist taunts in American sports

"While attending a Yankees game recently, Henry realized that he has never heard any racist taunts from US fans. In 2005 he founded Stand Up, Speak UP, a campaign that encouraged European soccer players and fans to oppose racist behavior-which is all too common on the Continent, whether its throwing bananas at black athletes or leading slur filled chants. Henry himself was the subject of a shocking slur in '04, when Spain coach Luis Arangones, imploring one of his defenders to play henry aggressively, was overheard referring to Henry as a "black s---"..."I can understand why people in America are kind of shocked because that doesn't happen in their sports. In Europe it's quite often, unfortunately, but now i think its getting better""

No, sweetie, I'm only smarter than you.

Not hardly, Chuck Simon.

C'mon you are as rigid in your views as anyone, nascar included.

Wow. Speak for your own mind.

I know and if your car broke down in the barrio or ghetto you would feel totally safe because evil conservatives only make up stereotypes about those kind of places and the people who live there.

Well, you're factually wrong as can be about this......I repeat...He butchered many people. This is what you do when you want people to ignore something that's a fact. You sort of challenge it, and then you get off on a tangent. You do it. GB does it, and Wannabe God does it. Why don't we stay on whether he butchered a lot of people. You questioned it's accuracy. I'll bring the info in. The facts involved are easy to bring forth.

supposedly people want dialogue, an ability to talk about thoughts and feelings. evidently that's not really the case. why are some granted free speech, but others aren't? we know those dipshits from their 'church' have the right to protest at a serviceman's funeral...but someone can't say they feel a bit of a chill when they see muslims? a visceral reaction is one thing, the subsequent behavior is another. if williams admits feeling that way, what's wrong with it? did he react based on it? or was he trying to show that people do have feelings that might not always make sense, might not be 'correct', but are real all the same? i doubt his remarks meant anything other than him admitting to having experienced the occurrence. did he recommend actions based on that feeling?
that said, i always wonder why people say things that they most likely know will cause something like this.

and, from slate, more to the story (doesn't it seem like there's always more then the initial story to the story??):


http://www.slate.com/id/2271931/

He told everyone why he said it. Said it because he believes Political Correctness can lead to us not addressing reality. Said we can't "get away from these facts that we are faced with."

If Riot was walking down a dark street at midnight, she would have the exact same reaction whether an 80 year old lady was approaching her or whether a young man in baggy pants was approaching her. Riot is a robot when it comes to that kind of stuff. Riot is far more evolved than any of us. Shame on all of you who would fear the young punk in baggy clothes more than the 80 year old lady. You are all bigots.

Senator Jim DeMint promises to introduce legislation to bar public funding of NPR. So, at least the taxpayer-fueled subsidizing of this left wing madness will cease.

Of course Mr. Soros is free to use as much of his own money to prop up NPR as he likes. I hope it works out for him as well as it did with Air America. :rolleyes:

nice deflection. you are the worlds best at those.

:tro:

lol :tro:

omg hahahah

:tro::tro:

this is a great thread

Getting on an airplane anymore makes me nervous... period.

^^^^^

Bigot







:p

Well, no, but you go right ahead making yourself look silly ;)

Doubtful that will happen. NPR is the third-largest radio station in the country, and has been supported over the past 30-40 years by far more people than currently want to politically grandstand about removing it's funding because an employee didn't adhere to his employment contract and was fired.

I would think the Libertarians would be all over NPR in support.

You would have more fear of the young man in baggy clothes than the old lady? Why? Are you a sexist? Are you prejudice against young people?

She's Medusa.

I knew she had to have a secret weapon.

I would think Libertarians would demand the Government stop funding NPR all together or are the propaganda spewing radio stations different and more worthy than say the funding of education or social security? :zz:

The government funds less than 2% of NPR's budget. I would think Libertarians would stand up for the right of a corporation to determine it's own employees without government interference.

I still can't get over you admitting that you would be more fearful of the young man in baggy pants than the 80 year old lady. I guess that means that you are a sexist and are prejudice against young people. I used to think you were so tolerant. I'm very disappointed in you.

That would be nice but in the real world

Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from local funding and 10% of their revenue from the federal funding in the form of CPB grants

If they were not funded on the taxpayer dime of course Libertarians would say it's a private corporation free to do as it will but NPR isn't private. Suppose government funding both local and federal went to FOX in an equal amount?

:zz: We are not talking about local member stations. We are talking about the parent corp, the original government money going to Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Government funding is less than 2% of their revenue.

If you want to cut funding to NPR, I suggest you call the private corporations that support it, such as Bill and Melinda Gates, and Midland, and complain.

Still looking silly.

When you make stuff up and talk to yourself, do you listen?

I could care less what private corps/charites fund NPR, I can choose to not buy their stock in the case of corps

I just don't want tax payer dollars going there as there's no way to opt out

You know the Libertarian Way!

NPR was started by Nixon, seriously funded by Reagan and Bush The First (that's why I laugh when some refuse to believe I'm a pretty typical moderate R - for 40 years most R's had a strong social conscience).

Now they get about 460 million a year. Sure, take that drop in the bucket away if you can meet the test, below (the GOP has variously tried to defund NPR throughout the years, to no avail).

BTW, do you also want to defund the National Endowment for the Arts?

Before anybody defunds anything, though, I do challenge you to find any demonstrably measurable bias whatsoever, right or left, about NPR. The transcripts are there. Plenty have looked in the past, during past attempts to defund.

You complain there is no "opt out" clause for how your tax money is spent. I say too bad. You are an American citizen. You elect representatives to go to Washington and spend your tax money. Individuals are not entitled to an individual "opt out" clause if they want to be an American and live by our Constitution and laws.

Feel free to buy some land outside American, and start Libertarian World, however (a la Atlas Shrugged)

I don't care if it's R run or D run I don't want taxpayer dollars going to a radio station. Free market provides enough variety and if not there is always satellite and ATRAB.


Of course I do!

But I and any other citizen have a vote and if the shift occurs this November too bad your socialist healthcare program will be repealed and Obama's remaining two years will be served out as a lame duck.


I'd rather have my own country back thank you.......

The only shift I see will be the GOP picking up 30 seats or less in the House. Maybe 35. They already lost the Senate months ago.

The healthcare reform act (really the insurance "a little" reform act) isn't "socialist" in the least (please show how it is?).

And even if both the House and Senate ever voted to repeal it, it would be impossible, as this President would veto it.

"Back from" what? The democratic majority that voted in the last election? As you said, everyone gets a vote.

When government, through regulations and laws, is involved in virtually every aspect of healthcare from recommended treatment, education, and prevention to billing and payment, reducing premiums for high-risk patients at the expense of healthy patients, subsidizing healthcare for low income patients on the backs everyone else and increasing funding exponentially to an already fraud-laden who-you-know system reeks of socialism IMO

Oh, goodie! That's not there! You're safe from socialism :tro:

Make up you mind. I first said that you have the same reaction whether you see an 80 year old lady or a young man in baggy pants. You denied it. Since you denied it I said that means you have a different reaction when you see an 80 year old lady compared to a young man in baggy pants. Now you're denying that too?

Which is it? Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. You are worse than a politician.

I will give you another oppurtunity to clarify your position. It's a simple question. If you are walking down a dark street at midnight and you saw someone approaching you, would you be more frightened if it was a 20 year old guy in baggy pants or if it was an 80 year old lady?

You have never met my wife.

Don't insult snake head in this manner.



She's Doprah Winfrey,Al Coulter,Snarfa Palin,Can'tSee Pelosi and Pillaried Clinton all wrapped up in one grey big ol' smelly muff box.