• 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

Didn't realize I was dealing with an immature, demagoguing, partisan shill. Noted for future reference.

More personal attacks by a Libbo. Nothing new, here! :lamo
 
Hmm. Tell that to Bill Mahr. His show got canned because of criticizing Bush's Iraq adventure.

It was because of his flipping the viewpoint that terrorism was cowardice in comparison to our modern warfighting capabilities. It was not because of Iraq.
 
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.

Good thing no one has said that. What has been said is that you do not have a constitutional right to work at some one else's newspaper, make editorial decisions for some one else's newspaper, determine content at some one else's newspaper. Any newspaper can if they choose not hire some one, can not publish something, can fire employees. Those are all perfectly constitutional.. No one has a right to dictate to an owner of a newspaper what they will publish.

See, I was right, you where confused.
 
More personal attacks by a Libbo. Nothing new, here! :lamo

Well, you were cursing, insulting people's intelligence, using 'libbo' this and 'libbo' that every other post, questioning if we've read the constitution as if you're some constitutional scholar... what part of that is not immature and partisan?

That's right, that's a conservative's style of civil discourse. (see what I did there)
 
However, there's no way the government can control what you write in any newspaper. Yes?

Have you ever actually READ the Constitution?

But the masses who subscribe to the newspaper can make clear to the business owner that they do not like what he is doing, and can threaten to make him lose a lot of money. This would then allow the business owner to think to himself, "well, jiminy cricket...I love me some money...and this little opinionated bastard is potentially costing me a lot of money." So he lets opinionated bastard go so he can make sure he gets 'mo money.
 
However, there's no way the government can control what you write in any newspaper. Yes?

Have you ever actually READ the Constitution?

As far as I can tell nobody's suggested that the government can do anything of the sort. They have said that a private newspaper could fire an employee for a controversial headline that could cost them money.
 
wrong it is an Inherent Right granted by our Creator. the bill of Rights wasn't written to give us those rights it was written so those rights could not be taken away. This is one of the fundamental differences between the Right and the Left. The left believes our rights come from government granted to them by the Bill of Rights. The Right knows they are Inherent Rights granted by our Creator and the Bill of Rights was to keep government from taking them away

the Constitution isn't an enabling document is was written as a limiting document

THAT MAKES NO SENSE in the context of this discussion. Are you saying that everybody has the right to have their opinions in editorial form in any news publication they wish, and it is a violation of their rights if the newspaper doesn't print it because only god may decide what is and is not in a newspaper? Either that's exactly what you're saying, or you are very confused about this issue.

You call yourself a "libertarian," which I have noticed from your posts you are not. Either way, libertarians have strongly supported at will employment throughout this political era and previous ones. Your viewpoints are so hopelessly mixed up that it's impossible to even know where to start addressing your posts. Another thing about libertarianism - it embraces the idea that consumers will regulate the marketplace themselves. That's what happened here. Yet you have a problem with it? I think it's time you changed your "lean" from Libertarian to Hyper-Partisan Neoconservative.
 
The editor should have been fired for such an outrageous Headline for his OpEd. The Presidency deserves more respect than that. Too bad the same standard isn't upheld when it's a Republican President.
 
I think it's time you changed your "lean" from Libertarian to Hyper-Partisan Neoconservative.

Why would we want him in our ranks? We already have to put up with Horowitz.
 
It was because of his flipping the viewpoint that terrorism was cowardice in comparison to our modern warfighting capabilities. It was not because of Iraq.

My bad. but he was fired because he disagreed with Bush.

During a debate about terrorism, Maher disagreed with President George W. Bush‘s characterization of the terrorists as “cowards” — noting that “we” (the U.S. military) have been the cowards for remotely bombing countries while the terrorists stayed in the very planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

“We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly,” Maher said according to transcripts (video below). “Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly,” he concluded.
If Bill Maher Made The Same Controversial 9/11 Comments Today, Would He Have Lost His Show? | Mediaite
 
The editor should have been fired for such an outrageous Headline for his OpEd. The Presidency deserves more respect than that. Too bad the same standard isn't upheld when it's a Republican President.

Of course the owner has the right to fire whomever he/she pleases. That being said stakeholders also have a voice. Employees can choose to stay or go elsewhere, subscribers can choose to continue or change papers ( hard to do in small towns) and advertisers will decide if they want to spend their advertising dollars with this paper.

As to the Presidency. We do not elect royalty. Papers have a proud tradition of speaking truth to power and not kneeling at the feet of Presidents. Too bad that standard does not apply to newspapers today.
 
As to the Presidency. We do not elect royalty. Papers have a proud tradition of speaking truth to power and not kneeling at the feet of Presidents. Too bad that standard does not apply to newspapers today.
There is obviously a great deal of criticism of Obama. There was also a great deal of deference to Bush, Reagan and other Republican presidents.

The guy didn't get whacked because he wrote an anti-Obama piece; that was basically his job, and the editorial had received approval to run. He got fired because he changed an approved headline to "Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr President" after his editor went home for the day. And apparently, this wasn't the first time he had done so.

So....

1) Lots of smoke, no fire.
2) Not a censorship issue.
 
wrong it is an Inherent Right granted by our Creator. the bill of Rights wasn't written to give us those rights it was written so those rights could not be taken away. This is one of the fundamental differences between the Right and the Left. The left believes our rights come from government granted to them by the Bill of Rights. The Right knows they are Inherent Rights granted by our Creator and the Bill of Rights was to keep government from taking them away

the Constitution isn't an enabling document is was written as a limiting document

No, the fundamental difference between the right and the left is this: the right believes in the fallacy of natural rights. The left KNOWS that rights are based on social constructs of society and of the time.

You are welcome for the correction.
 
No, the fundamental difference between the right and the left is this: the right believes in the fallacy of natural rights. The left KNOWS that rights are based on social constructs of society and of the time.

You are welcome for the correction.

Is this what they are teaching in schools these days is this what the left believes? No wonder why this nation is in deep **** we as a nation are abandoning the very core principles this great nation was built upon

Our rights are not granted by government they are not given by man they are unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator. it is one of the core principles that this nation was built upon. it is in the first official document of the United States the document that made The United States that thousands gave their lives to establish and protect. it is what you are calling a fallacy

If you don't like the core principles that this nation was built upon, and you think it is a fallacy you are free to leave. it is one of your unalienable Rights
 
There is obviously a great deal of criticism of Obama. There was also a great deal of deference to Bush, Reagan and other Republican presidents.

The guy didn't get whacked because he wrote an anti-Obama piece; that was basically his job, and the editorial had received approval to run. He got fired because he changed an approved headline to "Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr President" after his editor went home for the day. And apparently, this wasn't the first time he had done so.

So....

1) Lots of smoke, no fire.
2) Not a censorship issue.

Don't consider it a censorship issue. Changing the heading was something that was allowed at this paper until this time when it was not as I understand. Whatever, like I said stakeholders will decide if they want to continue their relationship this this enterprise. Here is a real life example, I stopped contributing to NPR when they fired Juan Williams.
 
No, the fundamental difference between the right and the left is this: the right believes in the fallacy of natural rights. The left KNOWS that rights are based on social constructs of society and of the time.

You are welcome for the correction.

I agree with the fact that rights are inherent, but I am not going to call on the “Creator” and have someone mock that possibility.

I prefer to state they are naturally inherent as part of the drive for individual survival. From birth a creature contains the drive to survive and prosper. Human babies are born weak and dependant, therefore they have an inherent right to expect nurturing and protection from their mother. Conversely, a mother has a right to defend her child. That’s not a social construct, that is a survival characteristic.

Once a human reaches a stage when he can fend for himself, nature grants him the right to struggle to survive as an individual by any means necessary. This includes gathering food, discovering and using tools including those that make self-defense more effective, finding or constructing personal shelter, seeking mates to continue the species, etc., etc., etc.

When meeting another human being, both have the same rights to self-defense against the other. The ability to communicate grants them the right to try to express their self-defense positions and negotiate survival agreements.

I could go on and on but I think the point is fairly clear. Rights are not “social constructs” granted by communities. Privileges to ensure harmonious co-existence are granted by such agreements, starting from the basis of each individual’s inherent survival rights.

This is not a "right v. left" thing.

And YOU are welcome for THAT correction. ;)

P.S. I responded without realizing what the original thread was about. LOL Let me clarify my position on point: No one has a "right" to a job; but while an employer has a "right" to be a selfish, greedy, abusive dick, when he acts that way toward another human being when offerng employment...expect to trigger a self-defense response from the human being abused. ;)
 
Last edited:
Freedom of Speech. Just watch what you say.
 
Don't consider it a censorship issue. Changing the heading was something that was allowed at this paper until this time when it was not as I understand. Whatever, like I said stakeholders will decide if they want to continue their relationship this this enterprise. Here is a real life example, I stopped contributing to NPR when they fired Juan Williams.

then you are the reason NPR is no longer on the airwav .... nevermind
 
Freedom of Speech. Just watch what you say.

Well, yeah...freedom of expression always comes with consequences...sometimes good and sometimes bad. When it comes to a job the employer has a right to think of the business' public image which might undermine profits. Like I said before, no one has a right to a job...but when employer's act like dicks they can expect to get yes-men for employees.
 
Must be a point in there somewhere, just can't find it.

that your point is actually pointless
you made a big deal out of withholding financial support from NPR
and we see how effective your (in)actions were
NPR has not been impacted
but thanks for the opportunity to highlight that the practice you advocated was ineffective in the example you provided
 
Is this what they are teaching in schools these days is this what the left believes? No wonder why this nation is in deep **** we as a nation are abandoning the very core principles this great nation was built upon

Our rights are not granted by government they are not given by man they are unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator. it is one of the core principles that this nation was built upon. it is in the first official document of the United States the document that made The United States that thousands gave their lives to establish and protect. it is what you are calling a fallacy

If you don't like the core principles that this nation was built upon, and you think it is a fallacy you are free to leave. it is one of your unalienable Rights

No, what it does is demonstrates the ignorance of some rightwing principles, noting that these rightwingers don't understand basic tenets of sociology, psychology, the use of language and how rules and laws are formed in society. Pretty basic stuff that some rightwing principles either ignore or don't understand. THAT'S one reason why this nation has problems. Oh, and if you don't understand how things actually work, you can either educate yourself, or... if you don't like it, you can leave. You are free to.
 
Our rights are not granted by government they are not given by man they are unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator.

Is that why at the signing of the constitution that women had the right to vote and blacks had the same rights as whites? Oh wait they didn't. It wasn't until society changed their views on the subject that it changed and was applied. Had nothing to do with a creator.
 
No, the fundamental difference between the right and the left is this: the right believes in the fallacy of natural rights.
The left KNOWS that rights are based on social constructs of society and of the time.

You are welcome for the correction.
Say now ... there's an opportunity for big problems. But what the hell, we can call "society" anything we damn well please too so it's all good.
 
Back
Top Bottom