Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,388,147 times
Reputation: 1446
Advertisements
Whatever but I give Lemon credit, because his stance(s) came out of left field. I'm surprised Zucker let him get away with it - seriously am. I'm guessing Zucker will toss him possibly though the first chance he gets.
Actually, this has everything to do with siding with a political pundit. That is where the problem is. If Don Lemon had sided with Bill Cosby, it might have been a different story. The fact that Lemon teamed up with someone from FOX News is the major issue. O'Reilly has a slanted agenda.
Whatever but I give Lemon credit, because his stance(s) came out of left field. I'm surprised Zucker let him get away with it - seriously am. I'm guessing Zucker will toss him possibly though the first chance he gets.
I would have more respect for Lemon if he had just stayed away from FOX News.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,388,147 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
I would have more respect for Lemon if he had just stayed away from FOX News.
Again as I stated, I don't think it was implicit and perhaps he had not even thought "I am going to team with FOX," seriously. This is your thinking; this is your prejudice toward the stance he took and his bedfellow (assumed, by you), O'.
It's a moot point, at the end of the day. It's irrelevant who he "teamed up" with, since his speaking up at all is what is what is relevant.
Again as I stated, I don't think it was implicit and perhaps he had not even thought "I am going to team with FOX," seriously. This is your thinking; this is your prejudice toward the stance he took and his bedfellow (assumed, by you), O'.
It's a moot point, at the end of the day. It's irrelevant who he "teamed up" with, since his speaking up at all is what is what is relevant.
It is relevant who he teamed up with. I don't favor illegal immigration. However, I am not going to team up with a member of the KKK, or even some nationalist party. Never. We might have the same view, but it doesn't mean I want to work with that person.
Better yet, a more important question is this. I care WHY someone says what they say. Just because someone is "telling the truth" it doesn't mean they are doing it for beneficial reasons. I have to consider these factors:
1) Why are you saying this?
2) How does it benefit me for you to tell me this?
3) It is HOW you say it is well.
FOX News has a political agenda, so I don't trust anyone who works for them. If one wants to talk about the issues within alot of Black communities, keep the political slant out of it. Keep the arrogance out of it too. HOW and WHY it is being mentioned are very relevant. If one is just being arrogant or trying to please one's constituency, then why should I listen? However, if the person mentioning this genuinely cares and wants to help others, then I will listen. From Bill O'Reilly's situation and tone, what I saw was someone speaking out of arrogance and a "let's spite those who want a race discussion" kind of tone. I didn't see any care coming from O'Reilly.
Actually, this has everything to do with siding with a political pundit. That is where the problem is. If Don Lemon had sided with Bill Cosby, it might have been a different story. The fact that Lemon teamed up with someone from FOX News is the major issue. O'Reilly has a slanted agenda.
O'Reilly has a "slanted agenda?" Could you give some examples?
O'Reilly has a "slanted agenda?" Could you give some examples?
His rants about "black on black" crime are actually quite enough on their own. O'Reilly ignored all facts in order to proclaim himself "the only person" talking about the issue, and the placed the entire blame squarely on the shoulders of single *mothers*, not even taking the time to discuss fathers who refused to take care of their kids. And of course, his entire "concern" was nothing more than a hand-waving response to the Trayvon Martin shooting, as if "black on black crime" were an excuse for Zimmerman to freak out and chase after Martin in the first place.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,388,147 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadoken
His rants about "black on black" crime are actually quite enough on their own. O'Reilly ignored all facts in order to proclaim himself "the only person" talking about the issue, and the placed the entire blame squarely on the shoulders of single *mothers*, not even taking the time to discuss fathers who refused to take care of their kids. And of course, his entire "concern" was nothing more than a hand-waving response to the Trayvon Martin shooting, as if "black on black crime" were an excuse for Zimmerman to freak out and chase after Martin in the first place.
Are you that weak that that's all you can contribute? Liberals are increasingly weak in their cheap-shot rhetoric. Grow up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
