The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg and Oriley » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-10-17 22:32, LobowolfXXX wrote:

The very height of tolerance is the position espoused by O'Reilly - publicly defending the right of others to engage in behavior he personally and strongly disagrees with.

No. I'd say that the very height of tolerance would be for one to say that someone else has the right to do something, and then keep silent your own personal opinion that they should not exercise that right. I would describe O'Reilly's comments on The View (see below) as a lesser form of "back-handed tolerance", or perhaps tolerance combined with a bit of sour grapes. Just my own opinion.

[William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr.]
I’ll give you an example, the mosque, the mosque down here on 9/11, that’s inappropriate, its, its, its, sure, they have a right to do it, and, and, and the constitution, but its inappropriate cause a lot of 9/11 families who I know say: “Look we don’t want that, that that, that shouldn’t be there.”
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Who, who, who cares what Bill Oreilly says? As a radio guy he's far better than Savage or Hannity (assuming he is still on the radio, I've not heard him in five years).
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-17 23:56, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-17 22:32, LobowolfXXX wrote:

The very height of tolerance is the position espoused by O'Reilly - publicly defending the right of others to engage in behavior he personally and strongly disagrees with.

No. I'd say that the very height of tolerance would be for one to say that someone else has the right to do something, and then keep silent your own personal opinion that they should not exercise that right. I would describe O'Reilly's comments on The View (see below) as a lesser form of "back-handed tolerance", or perhaps tolerance combined with a bit of sour grapes. Just my own opinion.

[William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr.]
I’ll give you an example, the mosque, the mosque down here on 9/11, that’s inappropriate, its, its, its, sure, they have a right to do it, and, and, and the constitution, but its inappropriate cause a lot of 9/11 families who I know say: “Look we don’t want that, that that, that shouldn’t be there.”


So, assuming we all agree that the Floridian pastor had a legal right to burn any copies of the Koran that he purchased, I assume that you and Landmark think that the people who found that disturbing or offensive should have just kept quiet about it.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-17 23:55, landmark wrote:
And I was pointing to a continuous pattern of discrimination against non-whites over the last 200 years--not just an isolated instance of slavery 200 years ago. I don't think I need to go through the history of Jim Crow in the US.


ok, and as a result of which, you agree with using race as a justification to discriminate against people who never owned slaves, had anything to do with Jim Crow laws, etc., but rather merely share the same skin color with those who did.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-10-18 00:48, LobowolfXXX wrote:

So, assuming we all agree that the Floridian pastor had a legal right to burn any copies of the Koran that he purchased, I assume that you and Landmark think that the people who found that disturbing or offensive should have just kept quiet about it.

You know what they say about assuming. Smile

I think what the Pastor wanted to do was wrong. I don't think he was right to want to burn a holy book (any holy book). I'm not obliged to "tolerate" his actions as long as I live where I do.

I'll admit I'm not 100% sure off the top of my head what the law on that sort of thing is up here in my land where beavers run free and maple syrup runs out of our faucets, but I think it is possible that if that Pastor had burned a Koran (or a Bible) up here and caused a ruckus he may well have been charged with a hate crime.

legislation
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-18 01:12, balducci wrote:

You know what they say about assuming. Smile



Well, it was very much a tongue-in-cheek "assumption."

I find the extreme condemnation (not saying by you, per se) of those who oppose the mosque rather bizarre. I'm operating on the assumption that there are people who are, in good faith, hurt and/or offended by the proposal. If that's the case, why on earth shouldn't they vocalize that hurt or offense, in the same way that those who were hurt or offended by the proposed Koran-burning did? If there's something wrong with saying that you think someone "shouldn't" do something they have a right to do, then it should apply to both situations. It shouldn't come down to which side you happen to agree with.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5023 Posts

Profile of landmark
Again, they have the right to express themselves; it doesn't make it less racist, even if they feel hurt or offended.

We can run through the affirmative action discussion all over again, but that's really another thread if we're to discuss it properly, and I doubt it will make it very far.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-18 07:20, landmark wrote:
Again, they have the right to express themselves; it doesn't make it less racist, even if they feel hurt or offended.

We can run through the affirmative action discussion all over again, but that's really another thread if we're to discuss it properly, and I doubt it will make it very far.


Interesting to frame it in terms of race, despite the fact that there are Muslim Caucasians and Christian Arabs.

Of course, it's easy to ascribe racism to the Caucasians who oppose the mosque; what about the Muslims who do? Did you read the link Rockwall posted?
When a Muslim opposes it, is he just a self-loathing racist, too, or an Uncle Tom, or what?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Here's a question: Is the motivation behind the mosque relevant to the discussion at all? Let be me more specific about what I mean by "relevant."

Let's say we could be inside the head of Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf for a few minutes, and know what he's thinking 100%. Here are two scenarios:

1) He's thinking that this is a good opportunity to celebrate American freedom of religion, bring some greater understanding between religions by putting up a new cultural center, and just generally spread peace on earth and goodwill to men.

2) He's thinking that the center is the ultimate middle finger to the USA...in football parlance, a "sack dance" - an in-your-face exclamation point almost on top of a great Islamic jihadist victory. He has a tremendous hatred for America, and the mosque is just an architectural vehicle for him to laugh at us.

What I mean by relevant is, would your position on the whole issue be any different if you knew 100% that either of the two scenarios above was accurate? For anyone who cares to answer.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
This whole things boils down to...Yes it can be done...but should it?

Should a strip joint be allowed to erected next to a church? Lets say zoning allows it. Yes it can be done but should it?

Is this the only property that can be used for the mosque? Or is it the only property they want to use because________ you fill in the blank.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
NicholasD
View Profile
Inner circle
1460 Posts

Profile of NicholasD
It's very easy to make this a racial and religious issue.
But, suppose a group of radical Bank of America employees attacked the Trade Center on 9/11. Would anyone think it's a good idea to build a Bank of America office on ground zero? Probably not. Would that be discriminating against Bank of America? Would all banks then have a shadow cast over them? Would it have anything to do with race or religion? It just wouldn't be right.
ClintonMagus
View Profile
Inner circle
Southwestern Southeast
3999 Posts

Profile of ClintonMagus
Back to the topic at hand, I just watched the video on YouTube, and it is pretty apparent that Joy and Whoopi completely lost control on their own show. The hosts asked a question, O'Reilly answered it honestly, and they went into meltdown mode.

I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan, but I thought he maintained control of the situation pretty well.

I have no opinion of the View hosts, but, with the possible exception of Barbara Walters, they proved that they have no business trying to conduct a political interview.
Things are more like they are today than they've ever been before...
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-18 11:08, ClintonMagus wrote:
Back to the topic at hand, I just watched the video on YouTube, and it is pretty apparent that Joy and Whoopi completely lost control on their own show. The hosts asked a question, O'Reilly answered it honestly, and they went into meltdown mode.

I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan, but I thought he maintained control of the situation pretty well.

I have no opinion of the View hosts, but, with the possible exception of Barbara Walters, they proved that they have no business trying to conduct a political interview.


And his answer was patently true. The professional response would be to press him on the point that the 9/11 crew was a small handful of extremists out of a billion Muslims, many of whom are part of numerous communities in New York.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Carrie Sue
View Profile
Veteran user
Auburn, MI
332 Posts

Profile of Carrie Sue
How long do we have to continue verbalizing the qualification that "Muslim extremists were behind the attack of 9/11?" When will that become common knowledge such that a statement like O'Reilly's - "Building a mosque down by Ground Zero is inappropriate because Muslims attacked us on 9/11" can be simply debated on its merits?

Whoopi and Joy were not just offended by O'Reilly, they were livid! They were stark raving mad! They were totally irrational, which is why Barbara Walters said what she said when they were gone.

Can I be on that show? I know how to be civil with people I disagree with.

Carrie
www.proximityillusions.com

ASLAN IS ON THE MOVE!
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1875 Posts

Profile of kcg5
I stopped eating shusi because the japanesse attacked us.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-18 13:50, kcg5 wrote:
I stopped eating shusi because the japanesse attacked us.


Oh my God, how can you blame Pearl Harbor on all Japanese people everywhere!
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-10-18 14:42, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-18 13:50, kcg5 wrote:
I stopped eating shusi because the japanesse attacked us.


Oh my God, how can you blame Pearl Harbor on all Japanese people everywhere!


I don't think he did, he blamed it on all sushi everywhere.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1875 Posts

Profile of kcg5
I blame dead fish, mostly the fried kind.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
ClintonMagus
View Profile
Inner circle
Southwestern Southeast
3999 Posts

Profile of ClintonMagus
Quote:
On 2010-10-18 13:50, kcg5 wrote:
I stopped eating shusi because the japanesse attacked us.


I stopped eating sushi because, well, I don't like it...
Things are more like they are today than they've ever been before...
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5023 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2010-10-18 13:09, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-18 11:08, ClintonMagus wrote:
Back to the topic at hand, I just watched the video on YouTube, and it is pretty apparent that Joy and Whoopi completely lost control on their own show. The hosts asked a question, O'Reilly answered it honestly, and they went into meltdown mode.

I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan, but I thought he maintained control of the situation pretty well.

I have no opinion of the View hosts, but, with the possible exception of Barbara Walters, they proved that they have no business trying to conduct a political interview.


And his answer was patently true. The professional response would be to press him on the point that the 9/11 crew was a small handful of extremists out of a billion Muslims, many of whom are part of numerous communities in New York.

Please. Bill was incredibly patronizing with his "Be quiet so you can learn something." And then his statement that he knows the families of 9/11 victims and they oppose the mosque. How intellectually dishonest. There are many families that don't oppose the mosque, but Bill never bothered to find out about them, if he was truly concerned. He just came off as an ignorant blowhard.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg and Oriley » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.19 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL