Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... by_de.html


What a shame!!!


Billboard depicts Obama as gay, gangster, terrorist, and bandit

Thu. October 14, 2010 8:20:25 PM

Grand Junction, Colo. — A lot of people are talking about a new billboard in Grand Junction, Colo. which depicts the President as four caricatures sitting around a table: gay, gangster, terrorist, and Mexican bandit.


The caricatures are playing cards, and the caption reads: "Vote DemocRAT - Join the game."

The artist told the Grand Junction Sentinel that he's not allowed to say who paid for it.

"If it had been me, I would have included the Republicans as part of the problem," said Paul Snover, artist and well-known Tea Party activist.

Local Republican and Democratic party leaders are not impressed.

"It's beyond disrespectful," Mesa County Democratic Party Chairwoman Martelle Daniels told the Sentinel. "You would like to think that we all would show respect for our commander-in-chief, but this is just beyond that. It's racist, it's homophobic, and it's really cowardly."

The chairman of the local Republican party called it "juvenile."

The 'terrorist' is dressed in a turban and wearing a suicide belt! One of the rats is 'Trial Lawyer' and a vulture is the 'UN' - so pretty much everyone except conservative Christians and Jews has been insulted.

I'll wait to see if anyone loses their job over this or not (I doubt it) - but criticise Israel... .

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote::shock:

The 'terrorist' is dressed in a turban and wearing a suicide belt! One of the rats is 'Trial Lawyer' and a vulture is the 'UN' - so pretty much everyone except conservative Christians and Jews has been insulted.

I'll wait to see if anyone loses their job over this or not (I doubt it) - but criticise Israel... .

Cheers,
Shafique

Rick Sanchez of CNN has recently lost his job just because he called Jon Stewart a bigot. Imagine if he called him a gay, a gangster, a terrorist, and a bandit as the President was called,... on such a large street billboard!!! God forbid!!!

Amazing? Isn't it???

Tom Jones wrote:

shafique wrote::shock:

The 'terrorist' is dressed in a turban and wearing a suicide belt! One of the rats is 'Trial Lawyer' and a vulture is the 'UN' - so pretty much everyone except conservative Christians and Jews has been insulted.

I'll wait to see if anyone loses their job over this or not (I doubt it) - but criticise Israel... .

Cheers,
Shafique

Rick Sanchez of CNN has recently lost his job just because he called Jon Stewart a bigot. Imagine if he called him a gay, a gangster, a terrorist, and a bandit as the President was called,... on such a large street billboard!!! God forbid!!!

Amazing? Isn't it???

TJ you beat me to it. I was about to bring Rick Sanchez up. It's getting seriously out of hand isn't it? And on the other hand Murdoch is all set to gobble up BSkyB in the UK. It must be thwarted at all costs.

I heard the Sanchez interview and you feel him digging himself into a hole - 'people like him' etc. Basically he was just saying that Jews in the media and entertainment aren't an oppressed minority - but as with Thomas, you really can't go there can you!

As for making direct fun of the President - Geller seems to have got off scott-free with her views that he's a 'pimp', an 'anti-semite' and a 'jihadist' - but try and say something about a Jewish politician that refers to their religion or race... ooooh, can't do that!!
dubai-politics-talk/loon-exposed-fox-news-t43490.html?hilit=pimp#p349267

But then again, perhaps we have it all wrong. Our Dutch friend reliably informs us that the Arab lobby in the US is MORE powerful than the Jewish one.

Cheers,
Shafique

But then again, perhaps we have it all wrong. Our Dutch friend reliably informs us that the Arab lobby in the US is MORE powerful than the Jewish one.

I'd like to think that our dutch friend only likes to play devils advocate,since he can't be all too blind to the facts that running the whole world through certain sources that are very powerful in all terms therefore being the central policy makers for world countries..
i.e most influencial one in America is "The Council on Foreign Relations" (CFR) - most members carry jewish identity.And presidents, ministers of almost all countries pay visit to this council when visiting America..

This article on the following link is a very good one and explains how America and the world is being run..
The CFR states that it is "host to many views, advocate of none," and it "has no affiliation with the U.S. government." No, no affiliation at all, if you don't count: "A Council member was elected president of the United States...Dozens of other Council colleagues were called to serve in cabinet and sub-cabinet positions," as they describe it in "Foreign Affairs," along with many members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs, the Federal Reserve, and many other Federal bureaucrats.

They are not AFFILIATED with government, they ARE the government, in effect.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Co ... ations.htm


Official site..http://www.cfr.org/
When you look at the news and articles on this site you can clearly see how they keep themselves busy..

.

Berrin wrote:I'd like to think that our dutch friend only likes to play devils advocate,since he can't be all too blind to the facts that running the whole world through certain sources that are very powerful in all terms therefore being the central policy makers for world countries..

I think oil rules the world, not jews.

But they are trying their best

I think oil rules the world, not jews.

Hey just as much as Araps,also Americans, Russians, even Africans have oil too..
What rules the world is not oil but money that comes from oil...

I would only say that you’re right if we knew wall-street to be known as Saudi financial centre..
Unfortunately Araps, other than oil, have no particular industry that they are strong at..Even their oil industry- technology wise depends on research and developments carried out in the western world.
The mean to have a strong lobby means that no one can dare to threaten you all around…that requires to be self-sufficient- militarily, industrially, politically as much as through skilfull labour and large native human population... What Araps do is that what they earn from oil, invested in mainly American financial institutions, in return they spent what they own for major imports and know-how…to keep their national security and growing public demands.
As far as I am concerned they are totally dependent to the present world empires, unless they make huge union with other strong/growing muslim nations..

Have you ever heard, one- all around developed Arap nation? Or have you heard oil money being invested in developing muslim nations stock exchanges and financial instituations? I haven’t, if you do please let us know.. I’d like to read…

When you wish to strictly claim something to be true you look at the stats/reports not imaginations FD..

desertdudeshj wrote:But they are trying their best

Like any other lobby.

Oh damn ! not the old eye roller move.

Like TJ you gotta give it to them for being the most influenetial and powerful. Credit is given where its due.

^I agree dd - I think that there's nothing wrong in lobbying for your interests and kudos to those who have managed to get their message across. It's only when injustices are done - be it by big business, Arab dictators, African dictators or colonialists etc - that I think objections can legitimately be raised.

That's why I'm totally in favour of the political/diplomatic/cultural etc moves of late that have raised the world's attention towards injustices and countered decades of spin.

Big oil certainly has strong lobbying strength and does support dictatorships who support them. I'm not sure whether I'd call these guys an 'Arab' lobby though. But you know how it is with our friends of Israel - they like so much to play with words when faced with facts.

Edit - but it is funny that the most loud squealing we've heard from the loons over the Park 51 and Quran burning incidents is about an alleged Moooslim take-over of the West - including these fantasies that there is a pro-Islam/shariah/Muslim lobby that is gaining ground.

Cheers,
Shafique

desertdudeshj wrote:Like TJ you gotta give it to them for being the most influenetial and powerful. Credit is given where its due.

With that I cannot really explain why Wilders has to appear before the court for comparing the Quran with Mein Kampf, while imams can say without consequences that gays should be thrown of high buildings.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

desertdudeshj wrote:Like TJ you gotta give it to them for being the most influenetial and powerful. Credit is given where its due.

With that I cannot really explain why Wilders has to appear before the court for comparing the Quran with Mein Kampf, while imams can say without consequences that gays should be thrown of high buildings.

Oh didn't realise it was make random statment week already. My turn I guess

The ball fell down the well

Whose next ?

If a young poster spins a story in a forest and no one is around....

The loon ends up believing his own spin ?

My turn

A bear and a loon are taking a crap in the forrest.............

LOOOL I see you pinky

I'm not really buying the connection between members of the media who make outrageous statements to Pamela Geller making a comment one of the members here finds objectionable - she doesn't have a job to lose.

But perhaps you've forgotten that Pam Geller has faced some hosting issue battles with the server she uses (and has had to move) and she has had to switch from pay-pal to another service over the contents of her site.

So, yes. If Geller were a journalist, like Rich Sanchez and Helen Thomas, she would have lost her job over what she has said.

As for the billboard, there is no connection to someone losing their job and paying to have a billboard put up, as long as the contents of the billboard follow some basic guidelines, I would imagine.

Of course, Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas are free to start their own newspaper/cable news channel on their own where they can make all the outrageous comments that they wish. They would be more than entitled to exercise their freedom of speech if they were so inclined.

Really, this is embarrassing that members here cannot make this distinction.

I was wondering when the big guns ol bob and pam were going to be brought out.

event horizon wrote:I'm not really buying the connection between members of the media who make outrageous statements to Pamela Geller making a comment one of the members here finds objectionable - she doesn't have a job to lose.

But perhaps you've forgotten that Pam Geller has faced some hosting issue battles with the server she uses (and has had to move) and she has had to switch from pay-pal to another service over the contents of her site.

So, yes. If Geller were a journalist, like Rich Sanchez and Helen Thomas, she would have lost her job over what she has said.

As for the billboard, there is no connection to someone losing their job and paying to have a billboard put up, as long as the contents of the billboard follow some basic guidelines, I would imagine.

Of course, Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas are free to start their own newspaper/cable news channel on their own where they can make all the outrageous comments that they wish. They would be more than entitled to exercise their freedom of speech if they were so inclined.

Really, this is embarrassing that members here cannot make this distinction.

EH,

I know about the distinction you’re speaking of, which really does not apply to most private employers.

As to the Media, I thought I’d double check.

One of my neighbors down the street is a member of the media. She is a TV reporter for one of the local stations, which is affiliated with one of the major broadcast networks.

I ran into her this morning, on my morning walk, and I asked her if she had any clause in her contract restricting her from saying certain things in public.

She thought for a minute and said, “I don’t think we have such a clause, except we have to abide by the FCC rulings regarding what we can say on the air. You know that we can’t say certain vulgar words and such. There is also a clause that we should not do reports that could bring about lawsuits against the station or the network. Taped reports are no problem, because they are usually reviewed (and edited if necessary) by our bosses. We only have be careful with live reports, but even those run on a few seconds delay,… to allow the bosses at the station to stop or edit anything that they may deem inappropriate or illegal. However, this seldom happens, because the news team (camerapersons, producers , reporters..) are, by and large, experienced enough to know what or what not to show or say on air. As to what we can say during our off hours, whether privately or publicly, we really don’t have any specific restrictions on that either, except we are urged to follow good conduct in public and to protect the station’s interests and reputation,... and not to reveal any confidential information (she said I think there is a specific clause for the latter)."

So there seems to be nothing restricting them from expressing their personal opinions on public issues!!!!

TJ - most enlightening and pretty much common sense.

Now, let's see whether we can have an intelligent (and intelligible) response without insults - over to you, eh.

Cheers,
Shafique

Tom, even if Helen Thomas did not have any code of ethics that she needed to adhere to, there were still grounds for her to lose her job over what she said:

The appearance of a conflict of interest created by your free speech can legitimately affect your work status as well. This is an ethical question that I’ve dealt with several times both as a supervisor and as a reporter. A Sentinel reporter participating in a protest at a city council meeting or making a significant contribution to a local political candidate would certainly have a hard time convincing readers of his or her objectivity covering the council or politics beat — and bring into question the objectivity of the paper as a whole.

event horizon wrote:Tom, even if Helen Thomas did not have any code of ethics that she needed to adhere to, there were still grounds for her to lose her job over what she said:

The appearance of a conflict of interest created by your free speech can legitimately affect your work status as well. This is an ethical question that I’ve dealt with several times both as a supervisor and as a reporter. A Sentinel reporter participating in a protest at a city council meeting or making a significant contribution to a local political candidate would certainly have a hard time convincing readers of his or her objectivity covering the council or politics beat — and bring into question the objectivity of the paper as a whole.

Well…I think you’re missing my point, EH.

To the contrary, what you said actually adds more credence to my point of view.

You have to agree with me that there is no person on this earth, including the media people, who is 100% free of biases, prejudices and favoritisms.. Right??

That doesn’t mean that, for example, a TV reporter is expected to favor one side over the other in reporting a conflict.

But let’s just stick only to Helen Thomas.

As you know, she served as a White House reporter under 10 presidents (going all the way back to Eisenhower). Throughout her distinguished career, Helen was always thought of as being an outstanding journalist who wrote good, fair and balanced reports.

Has Helen Thomas changed at her old age to become such a critic of Israel? No, I’m sure she had these same views all her life, probably they were even more radical, in her younger years.

Why was she not fired earlier? Because she did her job very well and produced excellent and generally balanced reports.

That’s what made her a superb reporter, not like the fanatical whack jobs at Fox News, who trash the Muslims and the Arabs everyday, with the most derogatory terms.

I heard O’Reilly recently saying on air that “the Moslems pulled the 911 job.“ Yes, just the Moslems, instead of saying the radical Moslems or the extremists. And, as usual, he got away with it, and didn’t lose his job.

Yes, Helen obviously has got her own personal views regarding the Mideast problem -- like most people in the Media and outside the Media. But did her personal views affect the quality and objectivity of her reports. I don’t think so. She clearly held these views throughout her career, but managed to file good, objective reports. If she had screwed up with her work (by not being objective), she would've been fired a long time ago.

Would she have been fired if she had declared that she was a lesbian, or thought prostitution should be legalized? No…. because they’d say: as long as her personal views or lifestyle are not affecting her work, we have no grounds to fire her.

Helen Thomas should’ve been fired ONLY if her reports were found to be not objective or one-sided. But that's not the case!!!

I can understand something like this happening in a tyrannical state, but not in the free, democratic US of A, whose constitution guarantees freem of speech to everyone!!!!


The only reason Helen Thomas was fired was just because she made public her unfavorable views about a “privileged” country and a “privileged" group.

My brother calls them the “Untouchables!!!”

And he is absolutely right!!!!

Tom Jones wrote:My brother calls them the “Untouchables!!!”

I assume by "untouchables" jews are meant. Perhaps your brother (or you) has some proof that jews are collectively behind her resignation?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

Tom Jones wrote:My brother calls them the “Untouchables!!!”

I assume by "untouchables" jews are meant. Perhaps your brother (or you) has some proof that jews are collectively behind her resignation?

Just ask yourself this question!!

If Helen Thomas said something similar about Angola or Rwanda or Kosovo..or any other country, do you think she would've been fired after 60 years of outstanding service???

I don't think so!!!!!!

Ok, so the assumption that jews are behind it, is just an unfounded guess. If you claim something like that, you better come up with something substantial!

Excellent post TJ - logically laid out and powerful.

I think that had Helen Thomas said the same thing about pretty much every other group of people in the world, she would have kept her job. I think that's pretty obvious.

And let's be clear - she is being critical of European and American immigrants to the region who are taking land away from natives.. but see how quickly 'jews' and the underlying threat of 'you hate jews, don't you' enters into the debate. That's pretty much what Thomas was saying in the interview where she said you can't be critical of ISRAEL and survive.

Why is it taboo to point out that it is a normal human reaction to object to injustices - and normal to point out the obvious facts that the issue in Palestine is land and foreigners depriving natives of their land. Indeed, she may even be referring to the relatively recent Russian/Eastern European immigrants of whom Lieberman is a prime example of.

But no, you can't in practice express a valid opinion and hope to keep your job.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.. chances are it is a duck. There are those that want you to have dna evidence before they are convinced it is a duck and not a Muslim conspiracy, but for the rest of the non-fanbois world, the Israelis are indeed the 'untouchables'!

Cheers,
Shafique

She denied thousands of years of jewish history. The far majority of jews living in Israel are natives. She actually calls for ethnic cleansing. She wasn't just being critical of Israel, she wants it to see abolished. I have seen some very critical American documentaries on the US media. None were fired. I don't know whether she should be fired or not, but she wasnt just being critical and loads of journalists in the US are very critical of Israel (which is a good thing) and can do so without problems.

shafique wrote:I think that had Helen Thomas said the same thing about pretty much every other group of people in the world, she would have kept her job. I think that's pretty obvious.

Sure she would have. I'm sure if she said that Mexicans should go back to Mexico, Europe or anywhere else as long as it's not here, she would still have her job.

shafique wrote:And let's be clear - she is being critical of European and American immigrants to the region who are taking land away from natives

Her comments don't reflect your loon spin on what she said. I already posted her transcript in full, it had nothing to do with 'settlers' or any other kooky interpretation you want to convince others into believing.

shafique wrote:but see how quickly 'jews' and the underlying threat of 'you hate jews, don't you' enters into the debate.

Yes, I'm sure a reporter in Britain could go Scott free if said that Pakis should go back to Pakistan (and I wouldn't blame him).

And remind me, didn't the Netherlands put a politician on trial over what he said?

And you want to lecture others on free speech. Oh the irony.

shafique wrote:That's pretty much what Thomas was saying in the interview where she said you can't be critical of ISRAEL and survive.

Yeah, after Helen Thomas was fired for saying that Israeli Jews should go back to Europe she wrote an article saying you can't criticize Israel.

Of course she's going to now say that.

shafique wrote:and normal to point out the obvious facts that the issue in Palestine is land and foreigners depriving natives of their land.

Loon tangent, five o'clock.

Tom Jones wrote:Has Helen Thomas changed at her old age to become such a critic of Israel? No, I’m sure she had these same views all her life, probably they were even more radical, in her younger years.

So, you're saying that in Helen Thomas' long career, her criticism of Israel was well known but don't see that admission as undercutting your point that you can't be a critic of Israel and hold a job?

Tom Jones wrote:Why was she not fired earlier? Because she did her job very well and produced excellent and generally balanced reports.

Ok, so you can be a critic of Israel as long as you do your job well.

Agreed, I think you should hold your job until you don't perform well.

Tom Jones wrote:That’s what made her a superb reporter, not like the fanatical whack jobs at Fox News, who trash the Muslims and the Arabs everyday, with the most derogatory terms.

Everyday, huh?

Tom Jones wrote:I heard O’Reilly recently saying on air that “the Moslems pulled the 911 job.“ Yes, just the Moslems, instead of saying the radical Moslems or the extremists. And, as usual, he got away with it, and didn’t lose his job.

So he was wrong? How is that trashing Muslims?

BTW, it helps to point out that Bill later (a few seconds afterward) clarified his comments.

Tom, looks like you should stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Tom Jones wrote:But did her personal views affect the quality and objectivity of her reports.

You tell me, Tom.

If a Texan reporter went on camera and said that Mexicans should get the hell out of Texas, how do you think that would affect his career if he were to cover future stories regarding the border and illegal aliens, etc?

She clearly held these views throughout her career, but managed to file good, objective reports. If she had screwed up with her work (by not being objective), she would've been fired a long time ago.

Once again, I agree. Helen Thomas has 'objectively' criticized Israel throughout her career and has never been fired for her reporting of Israel.

Tom Jones wrote:Would she have been fired if she had declared that she was a lesbian, or thought prostitution should be legalized? No…. because they’d say: as long as her personal views or lifestyle are not affecting her work, we have no grounds to fire her.

Would she have been fired if she said the same about Mexicans?

Helen Thomas should’ve been fired ONLY if her reports were found to be not objective or one-sided. But that's not the case!!!

I didn't fire her. I think a lot of people who lost their job over their comments should still have their jobs.

But I didn't invent PC.

It's only funny how the smear merchants and conspiracy whackos (shafique) crawl out of their holes to claim her firing was the result of Jewish control of the media.

Apparently Blacks and Latinos in the United States and Muslims in Europe control the media too, because many a person has lost their jobs over what they have said.

I can understand something like this happening in a tyrannical state, but not in the free, democratic US of A, whose constitution guarantees freem of speech to everyone!!!!

It does Tom. That's why Helen Thomas is not being prosecuted over her comments and she is free to put up billboards in Denver, Co., start her own cable news channel or get hired by someone else.

Please stop a) claiming that we are a democracy and b) claiming that free speech shields an employee from termination by their employer over their comments.

Tom Jones wrote:My brother calls them the “Untouchables!!!”

And he is absolutely right!!!!

Does your brother also say that religious minorities, gays/lesbians and Blacks and Latinos are also untouchables?

Serious question. Because I would love for you to explain why radio and TV personalities, journalists, politicians, etc have all lost their jobs or been reprimanded over their comments regarding the following groups.