Cynthia Mckinney slams Bill O`Reilly

Originally posted by Crapspackle
reply to post by OldCorp

 

I am having a hard time finding two simple things on that wiki page.
Her blatant racism and her knee deep relationship with the Black Panthers.

Leaves me to wonder what you actually know about the Black Panthers but I am sure that is for another time. I read the entire page. You said it was brimming with racism. Maybe you can point it out?

For most of it, you have to actually READ and understand what's being said, and the motivations behind it; but here is the part about her and the NBP:

According to the Anti Defamation League, McKinney's use of the New Black Panther Party as security, given that organization's use of antisemitic and racist invective, and her failure to distance herself from that group, are "troubling."

Her association with the Free Gaza Movement proves her anti-Semitism beyond a doubt. FGM and IHH, the sponsors of the Flotilla, are borderline terrorist organizations (IHH IS a terrorist organization) that were responsible for the death of Rachel Corrie. Guess what? Racism come in all colors, not just black and white.

Here's more:

In a January 2004 issue of Jet magazine, McKinney said that the "white, rich Democratic boys club wanted [her] to stay in the back of the bus."

And you and I both know that Wiki is a crappy source not known for in depth reporting. Read it again though, and what they do have on her should be apparent (if you look for it.)

It's people like McKinney that keep the racial divide gaping while everyone else is trying to close it.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


I know your link was to their site. That was why I found it ironic since every thing you said was refuted by their site... that you posted.

All of the points you just posted from the Green Party, every single one of them, are good things! The break-up of media conglomerates translates into censorship to you?! How do you get any of your conclusions out of what you wrote?

reply to post by Cuervo


that was altamont.

and was a bad move for them to have the hell's angles there running security.

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by Cuervo

 

that was altamont.

and was a bad move for them to have the hell's angles there running security.

Exactly. My point is that nobody assumed that Woodstock or Rolling Stones shared their values. It was a bad move for them and a bad move for her.

reply to post by OldCorp



How is the Free Gaza Movement anti-Semitic? They are a human rights organization. They counter-act anti-Palestinian organization called Israel.

reply to post by Cuervo

As I stated before, you can not force people what to watch or read. There is nothing that prevents a person from starting a Media company of their own, be it on the air or in print. The media cooperations are all on their own, standing and surviving on their own merits. If you force them to change the way that they do business, then you are dictating what they can and can not print or air, thus if you have that power to do such, then it leads to censorship. Are we now for every minute of one comentator stating his opinion have to put someone right after him to state is? And how do you get people to pay attention? If they are bored, they either change the channel or turn off the tv. Can't force people to watch or read what they don't watch and the only real way to do that, is to censor what is being aired and printed. This very concept was the essence of the Fairness Docterine:
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The doctrine was abolished in 1987.
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, and in 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost
(en.wikipedia.org...)

reply to post by Cuervo

If you think that everything there is a good thing then here is the question for you:
My family on both sides suffered losses due to the civil war. We are white, who do I sue to get compensation for the loss of money, property and income that was incured during the civil war and the subsequent freedom of the slaves that resulted? Mind you that I had family on both sides of the conflict and therefore am entitled to some form of compensation for the results of such. I think that is fair after all, consider this: After the civil war ended, the people of the south, the white people were punished by the north in a loss of assetts and money. Even those who did not own slaves. Are we to compensate their descendents for the lose of property?

reply to post by sdcigarpig


"In response, Greens will strengthen citizens’ influence over the broadcast media, break up the dominant media conglomerates and boost the number of community and non-profit news outlets, all to fortify the media’s crucial watchdog function and to help create a more diverse and lively exchange of ideas in America."

Tell me how that sounds like censorship. It promotes alternative news while endorsing anti-trust elements against the big three that are destroying our nation.

reply to post by Cuervo

Just ask Juan Williams about that.
Juan Williams, a commentator who was on NPR, a non profit news organization, when invited to another program made a comment that the people in charge of NPR found distateful and fired him unjustly. It served to show their intolerance to the freedom of speech, and more to the enforcement of censorship. And how do you stop another media company from getting large, if you break up the large media companies?
And since we are talking about their words:
Are we now told who we can and can not vote for? Or give one person more aid than the other?

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by OldCorp

 

How is the Free Gaza Movement anti-Semitic? They are a human rights organization. They counter-act anti-Palestinian organization called Israel.

Having known Muslim terrorists on board their boats is a good indication.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Just ask Juan Williams about that.
Juan Williams, a commentator who was on NPR, a non profit news organization, when invited to another program made a comment that the people in charge of NPR found distateful and fired him unjustly. It served to show their intolerance to the freedom of speech, and more to the enforcement of censorship. And how do you stop another media company from getting large, if you break up the large media companies?
And since we are talking about their words:
Are we now told who we can and can not vote for? Or give one person more aid than the other?

Again, you are explaining exactly why the big three need to be broken up. This wouldn't be accomplished so much by legally dismantling those companies but rather by supporting others. FOX, MSNBC, and CNN wouldn't be so dangerous if there were five or six more the same size.

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by OldCorp

 

How is the Free Gaza Movement anti-Semitic? They are a human rights organization. They counter-act anti-Palestinian organization called Israel.

Having known Muslim terrorists on board their boats is a good indication.

edit on 7/29/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)

They have suspected terrorists financing them. Big difference. Fox is just as guilty of having terrorist backing (link here) but that doesn't mean their news anchors are suicide bombers.

reply to post by Cuervo

Yet that is socialism in its truest form. Those media companies got to where they are at by doing one thing, reporting the news. They worked the business and made themselves into giants. To break them up for being sucessful sends a clear message that watch out, in the US if you get too big or sucessful you are going to get punished. ABC, NBC and CBS all are big media companies, but with todays technology, people are going to get out their message one way or the other, so how do you sway the public? of all three of them Fox is the youngest, and yet the most sucessful of the news corporations, they have to be doing something correct if they keep getting high ratings and viewership. Or would you break them up cause you feel they are too big, and sucessful, what happens to the next company? Do you suggest the same thing? Or what if it was a new organization that was run by African Americans, with women in charge and it fails, are you going to force people to watch them equal times with the others, and support them when they are not popular?

reply to post by Cuervo

And Fox did not fire Juan, NPR did. A publicly funded company under the umbrella of the PBS system of media. All NPR and PBS stations reciece money from the government to broadcast their shows, and yet they are not the highest rated broadcasting shows out there, cause people are not interested in them. That is business, and government should not interfere in business.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Those media companies got to where they are at by doing one thing, reporting the news. They worked the business and made themselves into giants.

I don't believe that you truly believe that. They became big because they became the mouthpiece for political parties and lobbies. If they were just "reporting the news" then we'd only have local outlets and the AP. Journalism is a civic duty and a social responsibility. To commercialize it is a new idea (since they found out that 60 Minutes could sell advertising).

reply to post by Cuervo


this is not new or news.

let's go back aways, say the greeks. you don't think there were news networks of some sort?

sumaria? the town crier?

people always want information, now we just have more freedom of idea's and cable tv.

how do you think movements and revolutions start? everyone has the same dream the night before?

i think mckinney is an idiot and WHO is getting her into these countries to talk ragtime?


i suppose it could be those governments dime to get a black american women congresswomen to trash the US.

sounds like she is getting paid, to me.

keeps her in the spotlight, too.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Those media companies got to where they are at by doing one thing, reporting the news. They worked the business and made themselves into giants.

I don't believe that you truly believe that. They became big because they became the mouthpiece for political parties and lobbies. If they were just "reporting the news" then we'd only have local outlets and the AP. Journalism is a civic duty and a social responsibility. To commercialize it is a new idea (since they found out that 60 Minutes could sell advertising).

Yes I do truly believe that. Tell me were you there at the start of all of three of these news companies when they first made their broadcast? I was, I watched such with some interest. CNN was the first to do such, by broadcasting the news 24 hours a day every day, and set the business model. Fox, is the newest, starting out in the entertainment industry. These three companies don't report the local news, they report what all is going on around the nation and the world. There are local news channels for those who choose to tune into them, but here again, if someone does not want to watch those, how do you correct that? If you as a person sitting at home don't want to watch what is going or a local broadcast, what would you do? You change the channel or turn off the TV and look for some other form of entertainment. That is how people act. What you are suggesting is horrific, it is the governance on human behavor and the interferance of privacy. Would you now insist that all TV's be controled by some government agency, that would determine what people were allowed to watch, and when? Isn't that the start of communisim and fanaticism, such as that which was promoted by the likes of Hitler and Stalin?

Go cynthia do not worry about the negative dying mainstream media! they are a joke these days.. "First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by OldCorp

 

How is the Free Gaza Movement anti-Semitic? They are a human rights organization. They counter-act anti-Palestinian organization called Israel.

Having known Muslim terrorists on board their boats is a good indication.

edit on 7/29/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)

They have suspected terrorists financing them. Big difference. Fox is just as guilty of having terrorist backing (link here) but that doesn't mean their news anchors are suicide bombers.

You're really reaching.

Watch this video I produced during the "Freedom Flotilla" fail and I'll spell it out in black and white.

He did it again...

OldCorp: Thread Killer