Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

andy7171 wrote:I'd still shag her rotten.

SuperHornet wrote:Bashir goes off ON THE AIR, and MSM doesn't say a word.

SuperHornet wrote:People are now questioning whether A&E violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in disciplining Robertson. Title VII of the act prohibits employment discrimination with respect to an employee's race, color, national origin, gender, or religion.

I think it's also cogent to note that Robertson wasn't going out of his way to slander anyone. He was asked a question, and he honestly answered it. And for that he's vilified. That's wrong.

SuperHornet wrote:People are now questioning whether A&E violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in disciplining Robertson. Title VII of the act prohibits employment discrimination with respect to an employee's race, color, national origin, gender, or religion.

I think it's also cogent to note that Robertson wasn't going out of his way to slander anyone. He was asked a question, and he honestly answered it. And for that he's vilified. That's wrong.

Could you imagine the uproar if someone passed a law saying that Martin Bashir couldn't be bounced from a broadcast job for saying Sarah Palin was a good candidate to have feces shoved in her mouth? Now that would be censorship.

Remember, nobody heard a peep from Sarah Palin about free speech after that episode. Bashir earlier this year tiptoed across the line in an angry diatribe about Palin's invocation of slavery imagery, which she had somewhat amazingly used to describe the suffering (presumably white) middle Americans will feel when they are forced to pay for the "free stuff" the Obama administration is handing out, i.e. health care:

Our free stuff today is being paid for today by taking money from our children and borrowing from China. When that money comes due and, this isn't racist, so try it, try it anyway, this isn't racist, but it's going to be like slavery when that note is due. Right? We are going to be beholden to a foreign master.

She elaborated:

And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control.

Palin's mind is amazing. Slavery was purely a private-enterprise abomination. It had nothing to do with being subservient to the government. It was the opposite of that, actually. She was also wrong in the sense that the health care program isn't "free stuff" (even those who will receive subsidized care will be paying in one form or another for their policies).

So she pulled off a Friedman-esque anatomical impossibility there, getting three feet in her mouth at the same time.

First, she was wrong about slavery. Then she was wrong about health care. Then, thirdly, she was almost insanely insensitive and inappropriate in her use of the word slavery at all, comparing white middle class angst over having to partially subsidize health care for their poor (and mostly nonwhite) neighbors to being whipped and tortured across generations of institutional racist terror.

Bashir reacted to this by telling a story about slaves who were forced to defecate in each others' mouths, and then suggested that Palin, having "scraped the barrel of her long-deceased mind," was a "good candidate" for the same treatment. Soon after, he was essentially forced out of the network.

Again, Palin had no problem with that. In fact, Palin lauded the network once Bashir was out:

It was refreshing to see though, that many in the media did come out and say, 'Look, our standards have got to be higher than this . . .'

The thing is, Robertson's ouster by A&E was exactly the same sort of move – a network sucking it up and distancing itself from an on-air figure because of controversial speech. But because Robertson's views were ones Palin apparently agrees with, suddenly she wasn't talking about anything being refreshing, but instead cried that "free speech is an endangered species."

Palin's inability to grasp the difference between a first-amendment violation and corporate calculation is amazing because she literally just published a book on the subject. Her newly-released War-on-Christmas diatribe, Good Tidings and Great Joy, is all about the efforts by evil Jesus-hating atheists to sue the Christmas out of our public lives. (It's one of the funniest things ever written, by the way. I would write a review but I don't think I could make it all the way to the end without a cardiac episode).

In writing this new book, Palin presumably spent the whole of the last year or so staring right at the issue of what may be said on private property versus what may be said on public property – the difference between putting up a nativity scene in front of a courthouse and putting one up on your lawn. Yet as this latest controversy shows, the underlying issue is still a total blur to her.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z2o1HIXp8B" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

kalm wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:People are now questioning whether A&E violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in disciplining Robertson. Title VII of the act prohibits employment discrimination with respect to an employee's race, color, national origin, gender, or religion.

I think it's also cogent to note that Robertson wasn't going out of his way to slander anyone. He was asked a question, and he honestly answered it. And for that he's vilified. That's wrong.

He had every right to say what he said. He chose his words. His remarks brought negative pub to the company he works for.

If a representative of the CBN or Chick Fillet whatever that stupid company's name is) came out in an interview stating that Christians were a bunch of whining, hypocritical cultists worshipping a made up sky god, you would be the last person defending him or denying their business decision.

SuperHornet wrote:People are now questioning whether A&E violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in disciplining Robertson. Title VII of the act prohibits employment discrimination with respect to an employee's race, color, national origin, gender, or religion.

I think it's also cogent to note that Robertson wasn't going out of his way to slander anyone. He was asked a question, and he honestly answered it. And for that he's vilified. That's wrong.

dbackjon wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:People are now questioning whether A&E violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in disciplining Robertson. Title VII of the act prohibits employment discrimination with respect to an employee's race, color, national origin, gender, or religion.

I think it's also cogent to note that Robertson wasn't going out of his way to slander anyone. He was asked a question, and he honestly answered it. And for that he's vilified. That's wrong.

No, he slandered every gay person in America.

He is a lying piece of shit hypocrite.


It's all an act anyways - they are multi-millionaires who only wear camo, grew the beards, etc for the show.

VictorG wrote:But in the photo it sure looks like she's talking about something else! Personal minimum requirements perhaps?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/s ... tml?hp=r11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

No, he slandered every gay person in America.

He is a lying piece of shit hypocrite.


It's all an act anyways - they are multi-millionaires who only wear camo, grew the beards, etc for the show.

Aren't you slandering him in that post?

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

Aren't you slandering him in that post?

Shut up you Coastal Hick