The Media Industry

Pretty funny

Repeats of Tucker Carlson are more popular than any of CNN's prime time shows.

 

Wonder when CNN will figure out that the market is already saturated with liberal media outlets. Seems that most liberals prefer the more self-aware MSNBC over delusional CNN. If they ever want to increase viewership they can service that large market that wants its journalists to be tough on both sides of the political spectrum. I recommend they watch Chris Wallace every Sunday morning for a weekly clinic in professional journalism.

 

Breitbart has fired Katie McHugh for her since-deleted tweet over the weekend that the London attacks wouldn't have occurred if Muslims didn't live there which I guess is factually correct if not also a severe generalization and an example of religious bigotry.



That link she posted will take you to a site that allows you to donate money directly to Katie to help defray her cost of living while she looks for a new job. She's asking her supporters to give her for $10,000. At this moment she has raised $138.

 

Strange sentence. You state that she is correct, then you ignore the basic teachings of Islam, equate a hateful cult with a religion, and attempt to criticize someone that has an aversion to terrorists.

In your other posts, you are factually incorrect concerning the threat of Muslims, and are bigoted in your view of those that support women's rights, U.S law, and American values.

 

You stopped too soon. Her statement shows and aversion to terrorists and a religion which is why I said it was factually correct yet also an example of religious bigotry. That would be like me calling for the removal of all Christians because some guy decides to attack an abortion clinic. I'd be in the wrong if I said that and she deserved to no longer represent the media organization after her statement.

Nonsense. Again.

 

The so called "religion" is only a religion in name. I suppose we could start a sect that engages in honor killings, treats women like slaves, and wants to convert, tax or kill all non-believers, but what fools would ever believe we had an actual religion?

It is nonsense to you because you don't understand what is being said. Ruminate for awhile and you may figure it out.

 

Are you Christian? Imagine someone picking out just the fire and brimstone aspects of the Bible (Ole Testament?) and claiming that was your "religion". I'm agnostic if not atheist but support others to worship whatever god they choose. I personally abhor Christians subjugation of women too but that's your prerogative.

 

How many of those have there been in the last 10 years, again? And do you have a ballpark on the percentage of Christians who approve of abortion bombings? Do you think it's comparable to the percentage of Muslims in Europe who believe suicide bombings are justified?

In fact, let's make it even tougher. Do you think that as many Christians are in favor of killing abortion doctors as American muslims are of terrorist acts? According to Pew Research:

So what do you think: Are 19 percent of Christians on board with the idea that some terrorist bombings in the name of Christ are acceptable?

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/08/30/...ds-moderate-attitudes-among-muslim-americans/

If close to 50 percent of the Christian population was at least conflicted about terrorist acts in Jesus' name, I suspect we'd be having a very different conversation.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

My point is not about attacking Islam. It's about the baffling attempt by you and other liberals to put Radical Islam and Christianity on the same moral level. It's insulting, and says more about your own intolerance for Christianity than anything else.

It would be a lot more effective if they could find anyone who actually taught it. Nevertheless, the Old Testament and the Koran are viewed completely differently by Christians and Muslims, respectively. (BTW most of the fire and brimstone as you call it is in the New Testament, not the "Ole" Testament.) While a large percentage of Christians still believe (wrongly) that Christians are under the 10 Commandments, I have yet to hear any of them who teach that God approves stoning sinners under the law of Christ. And all of them have a basic understanding that the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are details of the law of Moses which have never been bound on Christians. By contrast, the Koran is viewed as entirely applicable to all Muslims today. While I'm glad a large number of Muslims don't embrace violence in the name of Islam, that's happening because they're choosing to reject parts of the book's teachings - not because it doesn't teach them.

 

Christians follow the old testament? Christians subjugate women?

You abhor something that doesn't exist among the Christian faith, but you support Muslims that actively engage in the same activities. Makes perfect sense.

 

I don't think he can see what is so obvious to the rest of us.

The Libs seem to show more anger toward Christians and Conservatives than they do ISIS and Black Lives Matter (rioting.)

 

Please explain this.

 

Chris Wallace is extremely good at what he does, and I'm not some Fox News tool who only likes to watch shows that reinforce my beliefs. However, there's no question that he's the fairest of any of those Sunday show hosts and asks the best questions. I used to be a big Meet the Press fan, but once Russert died, that show turned into a mess of partisan hackery. David Gregory was a joke, and Chuck Todd (the current host) is even worse.

 

Do tell.

 

In a way, this is surprising. What she said isn't inflammatory by Breitbart standards. Hell, Milo Yiannopolis worked for them. It makes me wonder if she got canned for other reasons.

What I think is really sad is that Andrew Breitbart was a decent guy and not alt-right, but his name is now being associated with people whose politics are pretty far off from his.

 

There's a lot to digest in this post. First, you've indirectly made my point for me. Christianity should not be demeaned for the actions of some extremists which we seem to agree with. People of Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon and other faiths deserve the same respect. iatrogenic repeatedly paints the entire Muslim faith with the actions of the extremists. Do you agree with that approach? Is Islam different that you support they be held to different logic than Christianity?

Historically, Christianity absolutely subjugates women starting with the drafting of the bible and the role of women in it. Is it to the degree of Islam? Absolutely not but to ignore that the practice of Christianity has often treated women as subservent to men is willful ignorance. Look no further than the Roman Catholic church.

 

This isn't McHugh's first controversy thus this may be a cumulative problem. She previously had some controversy with a statement about Mexican culture destroying Mexico.

You're right about Breitbart. He was much more of a "thinker" than the flamethrowing that the site has become known for.

 

What we seem to disagree on is that the relationship between Christianity and abortion bombings is basically the same as the one between Islam and terrorist activities. That is demonstrably, provably false. You pretty much skimmed over all my questions, so I'm guessing you're not going to answer them.

Answer mine first.

 

So, this is a proportionality discussion for you? What percentage of extremist supporters allow us to brand an entire religion for the behavior of the extremists? 10%? 20%? 50%? I'm judging the actions of said extremists and limiting my anger to said extremists and their groups (i.e. ISIS). This is how I reconcile holding Westboro Baptist accountable for their own crazy actions and not Chrisitianity.

 

As a good example of fake news, here is the New York Times article that James Comey, while testifying to Congress on 6-8-17, stated was "entirely wrong" concerning contacts with Russian Intelligence:

Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZOFEB. 14, 2017


Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. Credit Sam Hodgson for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.

But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. At one point last summer, Mr. Trump said at a campaign event that he hoped Russian intelligence services had stolen Hillary Clinton’s emails and would make them public.

The officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other associates of Mr. Trump. On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the government outside of the intelligence services, they said. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified.

The officials said that one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Ukraine. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.

The call logs and intercepted communications are part of a larger trove of information that the F.B.I. is sifting through as it investigates the links between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russian government, as well as the hacking of the D.N.C., according to federal law enforcement officials. As part of its inquiry, the F.B.I. has obtained banking and travel records and conducted interviews, the officials said.

 

"entirely wrong" isn't the quote that I remember. He said it was "wrong in the main" whatever that means. I took it to believe that it was mostly incorrect. Regardless, the NYT article was misinformed, at best.

This is a real story of how fake news spreads. This story ended up on foxnews.com until they realized it was fake and deleted it.

 

The quote was "entirely wrong".

 

I haven't tarred an entire religion. I could argue that you have by arguing there should be no additional precautions surrounding the population of a Muslim country whose population substantially - and in some cases in majority - support terrorists acts against innocent civilians and which in many areas have active Imams teaching in mosques that these things are a Muslim's duty should be viewed no differently than Christianity. Even the social justice Christian groups aren't calling for violence that I know of.

You want to ignore the numbers and say that one is no better than the other, or no riskier than the other, or doesn't cultivate violence more than the other. Despite all evidence to the contrary. That's what this is about. It's not about tarring a group. It's about acknowledging that one religion has a substantial number of followers with a worldview that is dangerous and a strategy that involves being "just like everyone else" right up until they decide to blow something up. I honestly feel for the majority - and in the U.S. the SUBSTANTIAL majority - of Muslims who don't approve of those actions. It makes everything they do a struggle.

I don't know whether you're honest about any of the things you're arguing here. You may well honestly believe that the vast majority of European muslims and Middle Eastern muslims are just looking for a chance to live and thrive in a democracy, and once they get here they'll just throw away their culture and melt right in with us and be just like the westernized Muslims who have been here for generations. But I do believe that the majority of leaders on the left are being dishonest about their intentions. Deliberately importing more Muslims - as many as we possibly can - who are almost certain to have a more militant and sometimes even radical view of violence, and who have no allegiance or love for this country outside of the prospect that someone is going to give them something, is absolutely idiotic. But that happens to be the liberal sweet spot - an automatic dependent class. So bring 'em on in! We'll just settle them up in a middle America area where good liberals don't have to deal with them and they can start working on flipping red states.

So anonymous source lies to NYT or gives information that he/she can't verify that ends up being wrong, and the NYT runs it without responsibility for vetting or corroborating for the sole reason that they have stated that they don't have to be real journalists in the face of evil incarnate, Donald Trump, and that's not fake news. It would only be fake news if instead, the anonymous source had instead put it on a website and tricked the Times into running it? How many stories do they have to get wrong with this formula before it becomes obvious that they don't care if it's wrong?

 

You didn't. iatrogenic did which is who I initially responded to. You simply decided to weigh in to defend Christianity for some perceived insult oblivious to the fact that I was using the example to NOT brand an entire religion.

Huh? What additional precautions? I've merely argued against Muslim specific checks as represented by Trump's Muslim ban that he advocated during campaign and against halting all refugees from Muslim countries with a belief that the extensive refugee vetting works for the mass majority. What other precautions are you talking about that I've argued against?

Ignoring the numbers? How so? I see this as a law enforcement activity no different locally and a war against groups like ISIS, Taliban and Boko Haram. You and I both seem to be aligned that we shouldn't brand an entire religion which is why your response was surprising.

Yes, I do believe the vast majority of these refugees are fleeing for a better life. Do I expect them to "throw away their culture"? You live in the Northeast, right? Did you "throw away" your Texas roots and culture or incorporate them into where you live? I think some don't give the strength of our culture enough credit.

That would be absolutely idiotic if that was the plan. I think you are being dishonest by claiming anyone is "importing more Muslims - as many as we possibly can". The fact that you believe that says more about you than reality. I don't for a second believe this is some master conspiracy to create democratic voters in red states but rather a recognition that you have a large group of people who are at risk of a tragic end with no hope of any future perpetually sitting in refugee camps. The chances that they become an extremist are greater if they have no hope of any future than if they do.

 

If you want to call Islam a religion, then yes, I have "tarred" it in its entirety. Just look at the numbers posted by ProdigalHorn above. Members of that group have been trying to kill non-Muslims, or one another depending on whether they are a descendant of Mohammed or not, since the 5th century. The basis of their teaching is to convert, tax, or kill non-believers. If you can prove otherwise, you will have convinced me to change my ways. Otherwise, you are the one with a major misunderstanding of the intentions of Muslims. You even admit they won't throw away their culture, but then argue with yourself by saying that our culture is strong and the Muslims will acculturate. How strong is the European culture? They have been around a few years longer than America, but don't seem to be making much progress on the Muslim front. At least some of them are beginning to recognize what you will not, and that is inviting the poor, suffering refugees to live in their country has been a major mistake.

 

Yes, you have branded an entire religion. Here is the gist, ~5% of UK's population is Muslim. More than 2 million Brits are Muslim. How many have committed or been charged with terrorist acts? 100? Less? Clearly many have acculturated into British culture. At worst, they aren't yelling "Allah Akbar" and walking around with suicide vests.

Maybe it makes more sense to figure out why it's working for more than 1,999,900 people and how do we get those people to help us find those 100's that are radicalized and stop that source. Do you think that might be more effective than saying 2,000,000 people believe in "converting, taxing and killing non-believers"?

 

sYes, I have branded an entire cult. The "source" is Islam.

You are ignoring the stats posted by ProdigalHorn. Inconvenient facts are cumbersome for the liberal. Libs have great belief that they can modify social behavior by adjusting underlying social conditions. The liberals' answer to crime and war is; "if we just change society, criminals won't be criminals, and if we as a country behave better, we will eliminate the urge for war." This is where your liberal idea of "helping people in refugee camps will prevent them from becoming terrorists, and allow us to turn them into model citizens" is derived. Let me clue you into something; the refugee camps they live in are about the same quality as the homes they occupied in backwardistan, and their prospect for future prosperity has not been harmed because they had none to begin with. How many products from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Somalia do you use everyday that were fabricated by the great industrial engines in those countries? That's right. Zero. Is it lack of intelligence? Lack of resources? Or is it the fact that the Muslim culture is backward and floundering somewhere around the seventh century? Why is that?

Guess what? Your ideas don't work. They haven't worked for the 200+ years they have existed. Acting neutral and trying to appease people didn't stop Hitler, and it won't stop the spread of Muslim adherents. Chamberlain claimed that fear, suspicion, and misunderstanding caused war, and thought his personal contact with other country's leaders would magically dissolve those negative, subjective feelings. He called Japan's invasion of China "this unhappy conflict". He also referred to the "unhappy Sudetenland" and, similar to you only blaming extremist Muslims, only blamed "extremists" for the subversion being committed there by the Nazis. The same, failed idea of "just be nice" was repeated by many regarding Soviet insurgencies around the world, and personal contact and nice discussions at "summit meetings" were going to solve Soviet aggression. Obama sent pallet loads of cash to Iran, and would not say "radical Islamic terrorists" for fear of offending someone. He went on the infamous American apology tour letting everyone know how sorry we were for the terrible things we have done as a country with the hope that we could all hug it out in world peace. His administration called criminals "justice involved" individuals as if that were going to change them into upstanding, law abiding Americans. The same moronic ideas allowed Muslims to cross the borders of European nations freely, and is behind the multiculturalism b.s. spread by those with "the vision". The vision is the liberal idea that they actually are smart enough to solve all of the problems, but the truth is that everything has a tradeoff. Just because liberals ignore the cost of those tradeoffs doesn't mean those costs disappear. The same vision is also behind the hatchet attacks, shootings, bombings, and murder-by-truck plague haunting Europe. The vision of "happy harmony in the world" is a fallacy. Simply "understanding" these poor people, acting "impartial", and spewing false moral equivalency only lets evil spread.

Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan were the polar opposites of Chamberlain and Obama. They understood that incentives and disincentives are what matter. They understood the inescapable, tragic nature of humans. They believed, as Adam Smith said, that "mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent". They knew that your view of a happy world is not going to exist because man has inherent limitations. Your idea that Muslims will acculturate into a society that is truly foreign in every way to them, and at odds with their beliefs, is not going to happen. Churchill and Reagan understood that Hitler and the Soviet Union were not going to be appeased, and that the only thing that will conquer evil, or hold it at bay, is retaliatory aggression.

The soft hearted libs protesting Trump's travel ban are just as lost as Chamberlain and Obama. They have no historical perspective. They even repeat the same idiotic things over and over again, such as, "I believe existing vetting makes us safe" even though they are well aware that such vetting is not possible due to no background information in various countries. Being "inoffensive", "neutral", "nice" and "apologetic" does not work, and will not work when it comes to stopping the spread of Islam and the accompanying terrorism. I have 1500 years of proof. You only have a vision that has repeatedly failed.

 

Still good --

 

heh

 

Since CNN is 97% negative about Trump, it seems only fitting that they're relegated to the back row.

 

Yep. One thing I do not understand about most Republicans is why they constantly try to play nice with people who never, ever have anything positive to say about them.