• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

that's not beyond the pale
certainly not for well connected supporters

he makes the argument that the policy was effected AFTER he made the headline edit. the veracity of that should be easy to assess. He said he edited a placeholder headline; not an unusual edit.

And then there is the argument that the headline was too raunchy ... 'shove it' ... really?!
it was an obvious play on an old CW hit, take this job and shove it, which was on the public airways for a long time, but the theme is somehow too raunchy now for the president's delicate ears. don't think so. then there are those who wrongly point to this as a free speech violation. clearly they have no understanding of our Bill of Rights. but they also tend to be those opposed to unionization and supporters of an employer being able to fire employees at 'free will' except if the fired employee is one who appears to share their political point of view.

what is evident here is the wholesale ignorance of civics by much of our population

Ho boy. Ha! First, we have him saying he didn't go against policy and the newspaper saying he did. Who's right? Well, I guess we're assuming he is, right? Next, we have a defense of a headline he added that said, "Take your jobs plan and shove it (up your ass)" as the headline. And that's supposed to be okay because it references an old country-western song that goes, "Take this job and shove it (up your ass)" -- well. I guess it's okay then. Then we have your assertion that only people opposed to unions would find his firing acceptable. I just don't know where to begin. So I'll just stop here and let others be the judge of your ridiculous post.

Name one reporter who was ever fired for being critical of Bush?

He wasn't fired for being critical of Obama. He was fired because of the headline.

THIS White House ? Yes.

And if he was fired because he exceeded policy, why is the News Paper now offering up excuses ? That their decision was influenced by pressure ?

Sure I understand the need for inter company rules and regulations, but with this President and his administration chosing to not abide by the rules and regulations placed before every President prior, I'm learning to not be a stickler.

How is the newspaper offering up excuses other than to say he was fired because he violated policy? Oh, and that they received a number of complaints? When you tell the President of the United States to shove something up his ass in print? Expect there to be repercussions.

That reporter didn't have a brain cell working.
 
Oh, come on. Do you really think the White House contacted this newspaper? Please. You're a Conservative. Don't you believe in following the policies of your job??

You don't really think they didn't do you?
 
Actually it isn't. If you own a newspaper, you can make the headline as you choose, but if some one else owns it, you do not have a right to make the headline as you choose.

Well, I'm glad we agree. Do you get it, yet?
 
Actually it isn't. If you own a newspaper, you can make the headline as you choose, but if some one else owns it, you do not have a right to make the headline as you choose.

Which makes it a right. Correct? Deuce said, that it absolutely isn't a right to do so.

C'mon darlin', you're smarter than that!
 
Quote Originally Posted by Deuce
"Publishing misleading headlines in a newspaper you don't own isn't a constitutional right."



Only if you are authorized to do so by the owner. If you think otherwise, you need to provide proof, such as court decisions. The proof sure isn't in the constitution.

Thank you for destroying Deuce's post and verifying my point.
 
If you need owners' authorization, how exactly is that a constitutional right?

If I own the paper, then it damn sure my constitutional right. It's a constitutional right, because the government can't punish a journalist for what is published.

Why is this so hard for some folks to understand? Is this really coming from the party of the Civil Rights Movement?
 
What's hard for us to understand is that Deuce claimed that NON OWNERS do not have a constitutional right and you're saying you 'destroyed' deuce's post. How exactly?

Can you see that or do I need to add some irrelevant and completely misapplied dig at the end?
 
Which makes it a right. Correct? Deuce said, that it absolutely isn't a right to do so.

C'mon darlin', you're smarter than that!

He said if you do not own the newspaper, you do not have a right to make the headlines.
 
Gawd I love this. Same crowd that argues you can call your boss an asshat on Facebook and he can't fire you because that is "free speech".
 
He said if you do not own the newspaper, you do not have a right to make the headlines.

AND THE OWNER OF THE NEWSPAPER CAN'T DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goddamn! Why is it so ****ing hard for you people?!?
 
What's hard for us to understand is that Deuce claimed that NON OWNERS do not have a constitutional right and you're saying you 'destroyed' deuce's post. How exactly?

Can you see that or do I need to add some irrelevant and completely misapplied dig at the end?

So, the only folks with 1st Amendment rights are people who OWN the media source???? Really?!?!?
 
AND THE OWNER OF THE NEWSPAPER CAN'T DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goddamn! Why is it so ****ing hard for you people?!?

You do not have a constitutional right to make headlines for some one else's newspaper.
 
Gawd I love this. Same crowd that argues you can call your boss an asshat on Facebook and he can't fire you because that is "free speech".

I love more, how the crowd that hates private corporations are willing to give those same people control over the rights of private citizens.

Allow me to quote one of them: "NON OWNERS do not have a constitutional right".
 
You do not have a constitutional right to make headlines for some one else's newspaper.

How can the government stop you from doing so?
 
How can the government stop you from doing so?

I think you are seriously confused. Your responses are nonsensical to the events.
 
So, the only folks with 1st Amendment rights are people who OWN the media source???? Really?!?!?

No media owners are not the only folks with 1st amendment rights, but their property rights (ownership of newspaper, let's say) holds precedence over a non owners right to express themselves (exercise their 1st amendment rights) in the owner's paper. Their decision not to let you express your 1st amendment rights in their paper in no way infringes upon your right to express yourself.
 
I love more, how the crowd that hates private corporations are willing to give those same people control over the rights of private citizens.

Allow me to quote one of them: "NON OWNERS do not have a constitutional right".

The way you conflate two separate issues is silly.
 
I think you are seriously confused. Your responses are nonsensical to the events.

I think it is you, sweetie, that is confused. You're confused about what The Constitution says. I mean, anyone that actually believes that a citizen doesn't have the constitutional right to write for a paper that he doesn't own is purdy much a moron.

Or, can you show me the government regulation that controls a person writing for a paper that he doesn't own?

Personally, I think this newspaper is owned by a bunch of ******s, that have no idea what "free press" and "free speech" are really about; they're nothing more than political hacks that happen to own a rag-sheet of a newspaper.
 
AND THE OWNER OF THE NEWSPAPER CAN'T DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goddamn! Why is it so ****ing hard for you people?!?


To put whatever you want in your boss's publication?

Another episode of "When conservatives sound like neo-marxist hippies" is apparently on DP.
 
Seems like I remember some very inflammatory Bush headlines. Funny though, I can't recall anyone ever being fired over them.

Hmm. Tell that to Bill Mahr. His show got canned because of criticizing Bush's Iraq adventure.
 
I think it is you, sweetie, that is confused. You're confused about what The Constitution says. I mean, anyone that actually believes that a citizen doesn't have the constitutional right to write for a paper that he doesn't own is purdy much a moron.

Or, can you show me the government regulation that controls a person writing for a paper that he doesn't own?

Personally, I think this newspaper is owned by a bunch of ******s, that have no idea what "free press" and "free speech" are really about; they're nothing more than political hacks that happen to own a rag-sheet of a newspaper.

NOONE said they can't write for a paper that they don't own. Nice try. The owner DOES NOT HAVE TO PRINT IT if so desired. That's it.
 
I'm far too complex for most of the ****ing Libbos to understand.

Didn't realize I was dealing with an immature, demagoguing, partisan shill. Noted for future reference.
 
NOONE said they can't write for a paper that they don't own. Nice try. The owner DOES NOT HAVE TO PRINT IT if so desired. That's it.

However, there's no way the government can control what you write in any newspaper. Yes?

Have you ever actually READ the Constitution?
 
Back
Top Bottom