StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 I don't know that she thinks she screwed up. And they're engaged. Huckabee has this nice-guy charming persona but he's got pretty terrible views underneath that wrapper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 11:18 AM) While I might agree with his opinion (that she's a role model sending an involuntary message) it's pretty stupid to point that out. What is she supposed to do? Go into hiding? Get an abortion? Ok, so she screwed up. I'm guessing even she would admit that. But there's nothing to be gained by pointing the finger at her about it. It's not like she's promoting how great it is to have been knocked up before being married or in a committed relationship, or even that she's telling people it's ok to be a single mom. She's just a famous person who happens to be going through this. Now, if he's going after people in the media who glorify this type of situation, then maybe he's got a point. How did she screw up? Marriage isn't for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 She's engaged! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 11:22 AM) I don't know that she thinks she screwed up. And they're engaged. Huckabee has this nice-guy charming persona but he's got pretty terrible views underneath that wrapper. Does anyone actively seek out to get pregnant before they're married? And they were engaged after the fact. From what my gossipy, Perez Hilton fan of a wife tells me, this was just some random dude she worked on a movie with and is now basically stuck with him because she got pregnant. Edit: And why's it so terrible to say that families should consist of a family and that it's best if couples have a child when they get married? I agree he's gone too far here and it doesn't make much sense to point the finger at her, but I think that's the main "view" he's expressing. Edited March 4, 2011 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 12:01 PM) Does anyone actively seek out to get pregnant before they're married? And they were engaged after the fact. From what my gossipy, Perez Hilton fan of a wife tells me, this was just some random dude she worked on a movie with and is now basically stuck with him because she got pregnant. It was her ballet instructor for Black Swan (thanks NPR!). I really don't care about this gossipy Hollywood stuff. I've no idea if they really love each other. It's not like they need to be married to be able to support a child. Edit: And why's it so terrible to say that families should consist of a family and that it's best if couples have a child when they get married? I agree he's gone too far here and it doesn't make much sense to point the finger at her, but I think that's the main "view" he's expressing. Well, like BS said, weddings aren't for everyone necessarily. And there's no indication that both parents won't be involved in the child's life. So if they've gone through legal paperwork filings or not really doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 lol, well, there goes the idea that NPR is a "neutral" news organization. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/08...ty-republicans/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Not really. He was in charge of fund raising, not programming or news editorial control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:01 AM) lol, well, there goes the idea that NPR is a "neutral" news organization. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/08...ty-republicans/ Queue up the inevitable comebacks: "Faux News", "Fox Lies", and "Doctored Footage". Also throw in a, "Maddow says otherwise...", too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:01 AM) lol, well, there goes the idea that NPR is a "neutral" news organization. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/08...ty-republicans/ I'm not sure anyone really thought NPR didn't lean left. Thing is, some of what he said is true - about the Tea Party and GOP twisting together in a way that amplifies the extremists, and the anti-intellectualism present on the right. But he obviously went over the line labeling the entire party, or movement, as racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:04 AM) Not really. He was in charge of fund raising, not programming or news editorial control. So, you claim he had zero influence, and no control whatsoever? Dubious claim. NPR is NOT balanced, just like Fox isn't balanced...everyone should know that by now, so who cares in either case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/lo...0,4190788.story Also this. No entitlement problems in this country. None at all. Why the f*** is a director of the park district getting 240k a year? That's more than the President. This country is so f***ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 No, it's not like Fox News at all. That's false equivalence. Do we need to churn up all the official editorial guidelines leaked out of Fox over the years showing deliberate, blatant conservative bias? And no, I don't think an exec in charge of fund raising would have influence over another exec's turf. Or Morning Edition/ATC editorial control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:07 AM) So, you claim he had zero influence, and no control whatsoever? Dubious claim. NPR is NOT balanced, just like Fox isn't balanced...everyone should know that by now, so who cares in either case. Have to agree. I think Fox is probably the king as far as how off from center they are, but no way NPR can be considered free from bias. I personally like NPR better than other networks in some ways, purely because of quality of reporting. They will focus more left, and they have fewer assets and cover fewer things, but are much better at professional journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) I'm not sure anyone really thought NPR didn't lean left. Thing is, some of what he said is true - about the Tea Party and GOP twisting together in a way that amplifies the extremists, and the anti-intellectualism present on the right. But he obviously went over the line labeling the entire party, or movement, as racist. Based on what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:10 AM) No, it's not like Fox News at all. That's false equivalence. Do we need to churn up all the official editorial guidelines leaked out of Fox over the years showing deliberate, blatant conservative bias? And no, I don't think an exec in charge of fund raising would have influence over another exec's turf. Or Morning Edition/ATC editorial control. Then why did the CEO resign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/lo...0,4190788.story Also this. No entitlement problems in this country. None at all. Why the f*** is a director of the park district getting 240k a year? That's more than the President. This country is so f***ed. Yeah, a lot of those types of pension systems need serious reforms. I can't remember the name but I know there was someone who was getting a six figure pension because they held a job in an interim position for a few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:11 AM) Based on what exactly? Do we need to go through the repeated attacks on science and education and the constant derision of the college educated as "elitists?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:11 AM) Then why did the CEO resign? CEO resigned=this exec had editorial control? Explain that please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:14 AM) Do we need to go through the repeated attacks on science and education and the constant derision of the college educated as "elitists?" With the way you guys have responded i'd agree with elitist part. More importantly, I'm not denying there aren't morons out there, but I dispute that the party/movement is a bunch of unintelligent hillbillies, or that they're any dumber than the left. You guys have your morons too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:14 AM) CEO resigned=this exec had editorial control? Explain that please. It doesn't need to be explained. Have you ever worked for a big corporation, or even a small one? Executives of all sorts tend to have more influence over unrelated departments than you would think. I've seen this at *every* company I've ever worked for, be it the CFO, the VP, the IT Director, whatever the case may be...the guys/gals at the top all tend to pal around and influence each other in one way or another... To pretend he had no influence a all...get real. I don't think this needs to be made into a big deal, however...it's not like Fox, NBC, CNN, etc...don't all do it, too. By now, people should know there is slant to what they're listening too, and regardless of what they listen too, they should realize that they need to think and decide for themselves after further research...taking anything, from any source as pure fact these days (especially with the existence of the Internet), is just stupid to me. Edited March 9, 2011 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) With the way you guys have responded i'd agree with elitist part. More importantly, I'm not denying there aren't morons out there, but I dispute that the party/movement is a bunch of unintelligent hillbillies, or that they're any dumber than the left. You guys have your morons too. All I can say is look at Beck, Palin, Cristine O'Donnell, the whole creationist/anti-evolution movement, anti-science in general, etc. It's a dominant force for a sizable group of the right and there is no equivalent on the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:14 AM) CEO resigned=this exec had editorial control? Explain that please. I'm saying that he clearly had some influence given his position. Is he doing the reporting? No. Is he advising on the types of stories that would generate some money? My guess is yes. If he had no involvement in the process then the CEO wouldn't have any need to resign. But she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) It doesn't need to be explained. Have you ever worked for a big corporation, or even a small one? Executives of all sorts tend to have more influence over unrelated departments than you would think. I've seen this at *every* company I've ever worked for, be it the CFO, the VP, the IT Director, whatever the case may be...the guys/gals at the top all tend to pal around and influence each other in one way or another... To pretend he had no influence a all...get real. No, I still think you need to explain how the VP of fundraising exerted influence over editorial control of NPR's news programs. Just saying "VP's pal around, of course he did!" doesn't really count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:22 AM) No, I still think you need to explain how the VP of fundraising exerted influence over editorial control of NPR's news programs. Just saying "VP's pal around, of course he did!" doesn't really count. I edited my post while you were responding. Bottom line is this kind of behavior is expected at the top...and it's a non issue as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) All I can say is look at Beck, Palin, Cristine O'Donnell, the whole creationist/anti-evolution movement, anti-science in general, etc. It's a dominant force for a sizable group of the right and there is no equivalent on the left. So basically anyone who questions the almighty science is uneducated? Anyone who believes in creationism is unintelligent? Again, the elitist label fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts