Juan Williams Firing

The more I think about this the more disgusted I become. I may not agree with Juan on much if anything but he does seem to be a good person who means well. The fact that he got fired for speaking his personal feeling (not opinion) on Muslims on airplanes is beyond ridiculous. That left wing bi**h Vivian Schiller did worse by asserting that he has a shrink. Where is the outrage in her statement? What makes her as the CEO of that public trash radio station any more acceptable than Juan stating his feeling on Muslims on planes?

I looked her up to see how long she has been at NPR but there is hardly any info available on her Wikipedia page. But she was the first general manager ever at the Discovery Channel from 2002-2006, and also was senior vice president of the New York Times. Interesting note on her too is that she majored in Russian studies for her bachelors and masters degrees. Not sure what to make of that but I would imagine she is a fan of Marx. Anyway, Juan, who worked at NPR for 10 years was fired by a woman who has only been there for a few years if that long. Not that this would typically matter, but considering what he did shouldn't have even got him fired, and that she is surely aware of that, just goes to show how cruel she is. Remember when I said most of those in politics are pure evil, well, so are those on the left in the media. This woman is a disgraceful, pathetic, left wing radical.

My last point is this; I have always said I don't believe anything the government or the medial tell me, and that I do my own research. Well, the Discovery Channel, NPR, and the New York Times are a few of the organizations that I never listen to.....EVER! I find it comforting to know that I have not watched Discovery Channel all this time because of its left wing bs bias, which is even clearer now that I know she used to run it. The Discovery Channel is pure propaganda, brainwashing bs.

Amen brotha

This is why I refer to those people as leftist instead of "liberals". They are anything but liberal. Leftist/Communist are everything you used to describe that *****, and damn sure do not have a liberal bone in their body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horsepwr

This is why I refer to those people as leftist instead of "liberals". They are anything but liberal. Leftist/Communist are everything you used to describe that *****, and damn sure do not have a liberal bone in their body.

---

Juan is actually a left wing journalist, which is what is so crazy. He was fired by the left for being on Fox, that is how cruel those on the left are. But at any rate, anyone who is openly left or right is not worthy of being called a journalist in my book, though I understand they are indeed considered such. None of the commentators on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc, are actual journalists. A true journalist is one that nobody can tell what party if any they support. The role of a journalist is to give you the information from a fair perspective without opinions or feelings attached. Virtually nobody in the media today is worthy of such a title. The no namers out there that do journalism in a fair manner are the ones who deserve the title.

As for liberals, the definition has been gutted and changed to mean something entirely different in the U.S. In Australia for instance, the word liberal is still used in the classical sense. In the U.S. we would call that classical liberalism, whereas today the left liberals are known as modern liberals. I am actually a liberal in the true classical sense of the word, for the most part at least. I believe in absolutely limited government and maximum liberty. I am actually borderline anarchocapitalist. That is what I am leaning toward these days since it is evident that no amount of government leads to anything positive for mankind. I don't get bent out of shape on things and ask for the government to make a law or regulation to fix it. I simply want the government to stay out of my life and let me live and work on my own accord.

I know who Juan Williams is and his left of center, democrat status.
And that is absolutely true about the term (liberal) now in America. I looked up an up-to-date definition of 'liberal'. The definition/s have been adjusted to fit the present use of liberal. Which is completely different from it's original meaning.

What was that?.. anarchocapitalist?..that sounds like a perfect label for a perfect system. I'm sure someone would quickly jump to the conclusion that you're an anarchist, but I know what you mean. That blond foreign "wordsmith", pretty hot, that is on O'Reilly now and then defined libertarian as "an anarchist which believes in no government." wrong. But I'm with ya. I am for the absolute minimal government necessary to maintain a Republic. The size of our government is absoutely ridiculous. Which has to be among the top expenses that are putting America further in the hole. Every new piece of legislation. (Every new law). Every new regulation, is a complete crock of horseshit put in place to control you. The government expands and then local gvernment's job description grows more. Hence all the most horrific crimes that happen everyday unseen. I don't even wanna go there. It makes me sick to think about the things the law overlooks, or turns their back on, to fight the ever so harmful drug war.*note: The level of violence went thru the roof when they decided to label it a "War on Drugs". While the true sickos of the nation cruise under the radar. It makes sense though. Rephrase; It makes sense for a corrupt system. The system doesn't care about the individual. Wheather child, senior citizen, or you.

My God...*TV just caught my att.* Now their passing a law which will allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in Portland. brilliant! yeah. mmk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horsepwr

I know who Juan Williams is and his left of center, democrat status.
And that is absolutely true about the term (liberal) now in America. I looked up an up-to-date definition of 'liberal'. The definition/s have been adjusted to fit the present use of liberal. Which is completely different from it's original meaning.

What was that?.. anarchocapitalist?..that sounds like a perfect label for a perfect system. I'm sure someone would quickly jump to the conclusion that you're an anarchist, but I know what you mean. That blond foreign "wordsmith", pretty hot, that is on O'Reilly now and then defined libertarian as "an anarchist which believes in no government." wrong. But I'm with ya. I am for the absolute minimal government necessary to maintain a Republic. The size of our government is absoutely ridiculous. Which has to be among the top expenses that are putting America further in the hole. Every new piece of legislation. (Every new law). Every new regulation, is a complete crock of horseshit put in place to control you. The government expands and then local gvernment's job description grows more. Hence all the most horrific crimes that happen everyday unseen. I don't even wanna go there. It makes me sick to think about the things the law overlooks, or turns their back on, to fight the ever so harmful drug war.*note: The level of violence went thru the roof when they decided to label it a "War on Drugs". While the true sickos of the nation cruise under the radar. It makes sense though. Rephrase; It makes sense for a corrupt system. The system doesn't care about the individual. Wheather child, senior citizen, or you.

My God...*TV just caught my att.* Now their passing a law which will allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in Portland. brilliant! yeah. mmk.

---

That Russian girl is wrong on the definition of Libertarian. Most are not anarchists, though some are. As for anarchocapitalist, that is an actual philosophy. One of my favorite Austrian Economists was an anarchocapitalist when he was alive, Murray N. Rothbard, look him up. Also, one of my other favorite Austrians who is still living and teaches at my local UNLV, Hans Hermann Hoppe. Look him up too. I actually have a T-Shirt of him, it says privatize everything and has a shadow picture of him on it, pretty cool. Anyway, the anarchocpitalist view is to have zero government and a free market that manages everything from building roads, to home defense, to manufacturing, etc. Basically, Rothbard determined when he was a young economist fresh out of school that you either have to have full government (socialism) or no government (anarchy), and he decided easily to go the anarchy route but with a capitalist economy. He spent much of his career explaining how everything could be handled better by the private sector through capitalism under laizze faire free market principles. The more I study it and the more government proves it can do nothing right, the more I lean towards it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horsepwr

That blond foreign "wordsmith", pretty hot, that is on O'Reilly now and then defined libertarian as "an anarchist which believes in no government." wrong. .

---

You must have overlooked my "wrong"^ about the "wordsmith" broad with libertarian.

Thanks for the reading referrals on anarchocapitalist. Your post reminds me of Las Vegas' tale. Hey!..Vegas. perfect example. because Vegas was built and ran in the fashion it sounds like you're talking about. There was no municipality, at least that governed or regulated the modern laws in key aspects to "security". The very beginnings of Vegas were completely built and "governed" by free-marketers. Every single aspect of the city. Ran by private sector. The Mafia were the businessmen that made Vegas. It's a great example because it wasn't so long ago, therefore it is well documented. During that time, there were no purse-snatchers in Vegas. The casinos didn't have the attemps on them. It was basically crime free. At least the very few criminals that didn't realize how Vegas was so safe...they did once they tried some stupid shit. It was decribed as completely crime free during the few yrs leading up to the 1st sell-out which led to official law and governing as the rest of America. The private capitalist kept Vegas the safest and cleanest of it's history. I read that women, people in general, had nothing to worry about and walked safely around Vegas without any concern because the private capitalist made damn sure that there was no need for concern of being mugged, or robbed, raped, whatever. Because, of course, those guys handled that shit. Las Vegas is/was a perfect example. It was a safe city in the desert to take a vacation without need for the usual needed concerns while on vacation. Then Howard Hughes made the 1st hotel/casino purchase. Fast forward a little. In come a sitting municipality and law, and there goes the neighborhood, as they they.
Las Vegas. Another example of the negative effects of big government, regulation and law. When ran by private business-men. Everyone was safe except for a criminal. "Criminal" meaning true crime. muggings, murder, theft, etc...Partying, and all those darn inanimate substances that 'cause so much trouble now-days' were no problem. Bring in the city officials. Put Vegas in the hands of the government, and Vegas was instantly another metro city where you have to watch your wallet and women watch their backs. A virtually crime free city became another crime riddled city overnight. The rhyme and reason is as evident as the color red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horsepwr

You must have overlooked my "wrong"^ about the "wordsmith" broad with libertarian.

---

No I didn't, I was agreeing with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JsJs24

That Russian girl is wrong on the definition of Libertarian. Most are not anarchists, though some are.

---

my bad. I missed your letting me know that some are though.

Good thread. I thoroughly enjoy reading this stuff