Mainstream Broadcast Media Suppressing Obama Assassination Story

OK you have made your point.

According to my posts which I overlooked, I guess I did make the Thomas getting fired a free speech issue, but I stand by my original point of you trying to compare what Thomas said with that of what Adler said is ridiculous.

I've already addressed your point and said that if Adler had said that Palestinian Arab and Christians should move to Egypt or Jordan and got fired for it should go to jail.

Likewise, I would never defend anyone's right to say that another person, especially a president should be killed.

Tell wifey I said hello lol

none would claim comparing what thomas said to what adler said would be reasonable.in fact i have been stating comparing the two of them in regards to what they said is a fools errand as it is completey subjective.making the offensive nature of it dependant on the value systems in question.

all i am asking is if helen thomas losing her job in media equates to her having her free speech taken away, which is your position that you refused to budge on, then why is adlers losing his job not also the same violation of civil liberties.

it doesnt matter what was said, as i am not asking to evaluate that subjective material.im simply asking why you dont avail everyone of the same rights, even when they are subject ot identical treatment.

helen is a victim, while adler has gotten what he deserved.

you can defer all you like to what they said.but none of it changes the fact they both got fired, and that is the action that to you is losing free speech.

Actually, you are mistaken. Technically both Thomas and Adler were not fire; Thomas retired and Adler resigned.

I could be mistaken and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but don't think that I ever said that Adler "got what he deserved" or even said that I approved the fact that he lost his position at the Atlantic Jewish Times.

While I don't advocate nor do I defend what he said, I would have been ok if he kept his position.

Back to my original point, my complain was not directed at Alder so much as it was directed at the networks for not highlighting Adler's outrageous statements like they would have done if it were a White or a Muslim poltical activist.

ah yes, the linguistic bullshit one defaults to when searching for defenses when none exist.

helen and adler resigned, as they both sat at their desks in moments of great clarity realized the errors of their ways and issued resignations as to not further embarass their employers any further that they already had.a resignation that was entirely p up to them, and not forced upon them in any way what so ever.

or in the real world its called being fired as we dont all put up our blinders just cuz the opportunity to do so is their.or do you think nixon was going to resigne regardless of the impreachment pressure that was coming?how removed from reality are ya?

just let me know the level of bullshit you want to swim in.if we are going to play "not fired but resigned" im gunna have to get my snorkle ready to join you in the deep end of the bullshit.

you did repeatedly state that adlers losing of his job was acceptable and cited what he wrote as the validation.even on this very page.in fact that is why i have called you fascist a handfull of times, as you supposed to know the standards upon which ones freedom of speech (firing/resignation from media vocation) can be suspended.

as i have stated before and am more than happy to do as often as you like, media coverage of any given event is entirely subjective.back to the ignored example i have offered you a dozen times by now, fox reports on the war on christmas.cuz that is what is important to them and their demographic.so every year they roll out the war on christmad logos and spend months dedicated to this phony event.while they do this msnbc and cnn report literaly nothing in regards to the war on christmas.because that story does not appeak to their demographics.

if you are unhappy with the news coverage you have seen in regards to adler simply change your media viewing from those who dont value it to those who do.unless you are absorbing all media 24/7 one cant make a definitive statement that anything gets coverage more than anything else, as our media is fragmented.

further more helen thomas kept her story alive by going on a media blitz to keep it alive.people such as yourself kept a simple story going by extrapilating all sorts of wonderfull concepts from her being denied speaking engagements and such.if the media coverage of helen thomas bothers you so much, maybe you should not have been obsessing over it, interjecting it as often as possible.you know self fullfilling prophecy.

i could just as easily document all the parts of adlers life that is falling apart as a result of what he did, and then complain about how much news thier is about him.or i can be a reasonable sane person, recognize it is just one schmuck saying shit he shouldnt, getting fired for it, and moving on.

not obsessing over it as if it is the lynchpin in a grand conspiracy.

im not the one dodging shit.adler is wrong and i dont defend him it all.no position of mine has to dodge shit.i skipped right over all that shit as it is self evident and well covered.i have absolutely nothing to add.like i have said repeatedly i am more than ok with adler being subject to all he has been.

all i have asked you is to hold the same standards in regards to this event as you do to others.you are the only one dodging that question as you kept trying to claim you didnt claim free speech is removed when a media person loses their job, or the fascist claim that content dictates who gets free speech and who doesnt.

i do think it is funny how you try to claim some media bais and suppose if others did what adler did we would never hear the end of it, as you just now posted the very example of it, which we did hear the end of.proving again your suppositions are not based in any kind of objective reality what so ever.

or are the neo nazi skinheads part of the grand zionist conspiracy now, which is why that story came and went like a fart in the wind?

i thought your issue was about zionist political groups, not world jewry?
now it is about global jewry?or was that a propagandist slip of the tongue and you will now go back to pretending when you say zionist you arent seeking to invoke jewish identity?

btw as a jew, i would love to hear what exactly it is that global jewry wants for obama to bend towards, as im not aware of the jews of the world agreeing on anything.so please tell us what the jews want, as you claim to know.

how am i putting words in your mouth when i quoted you?
are you made i put your words back in your mouth?
maybe take it up with yourself as you are the one who said it.

On this one, you know for sure that you cannot speak freely about the Jewish suffering of WW2 without risking your employment, and your freedom, if you live in a country that prosecutes free speech.

And no, I don't think that you can write an oped on killing a world leader unless of course the leader is a Muslim dictator.

"On this one, you know for sure that you cannot speak freely about the Jewish suffering of WW2 without risking your employment, and your freedom, if you live in a country that prosecutes free speech."

that is correct.you can be subject to punishment for saying any number of things in any number of nations in which free speech is not permitted.
but we arent talking about other countries, but this country.
we arent talking about hypotheticals, but actual examples.

in this country people can deny the holocaust all the want.lord knows the gestapo isnt coming to your house, or stopping any of the myriads of people whos videos to this end, that you are so fond of.

so in our society, which helen thomas and mr adler are subject to the laws of, im asking you how losing ones job is a loss of free speech for one, but not for the other.

i personaly dont believe either have lost their right to free speech, but your position claims helen did.so i am asking you why when the basis for you being offended at what happened to helen doesnt offend you when it happens to others?

Here is the difference between Helen Thomas and Andrew Adler once again, since you love to play dumb.

Helen Thomas - did not say president should be killed; received extensive television coverage for controversial statements.

Andrew Adler - said the president should be killed; television coverage scant, practically non-existent for controversial statements.

If this were anyone but a Jew or a Zionsit sympathizer who said that the president should be killed, and wrote about it in a publication with thousands of readers, we would probably still be hearing about it on the teevee.

It's time to stop playing dumb.

once again the one playing dumb is you, as no one is claiming that the offense they comitted is the same.nor is anyone seeking to find equivication between them, just the out comes.

media coverage is not objective.i wish it were, but it is hardly news to anyone that media coverage is not objective.making what helen thomas said major news to the fox demo, and adler msnbc fodder.your opinion as to what gets more coverage compared to anything else, is dependant on the media you choose to view.

that isnt the question i have posed to you, that you have declined confronting time and time again.the question im sure you will avoid now as i ask it again.

if helen was fired from her job, regardless of the content of what she said, to you it was a trampling of her right to free speech.so much so you harped on that point endlessly.we can cite your articles and comments to that end if you like.

so i am asking when adler being fired from his job, for saying some shit he shouldnt have said, why this doesnt bother you.as you claimed your issue with the helen thomas affair was based in free speech and her loss of it.

why when some one else is suffering the same loss, is it just.

the only playing dumb here is pretending it isnt about you holding your position in regards to jews above all else like a bigot.but by all means, pretend yet again as if no one has pointed out your bias, as you try to spin what i have asked into another narrative you are more comfortable with.as if that doesnt prove itself, out of your refusal to stand by your own positions, the admission of your bigory.which would be nice for once, rather than the cowardly backhanded stuff you love so much

I don't think that you can find any rational American citizen who would try and equate writing an article advocating terrorists from a foreign government to kill the president as a free speech issue, but then again, I don't really consider you rational as you once suggested that I was going to kill someone.

But since you insist...

Both appear to have resigned willingly for their statements, but once again, the big difference here is that Helen Thomas wasn't calling for the president to be killed, whereas Andrew Adler was calling for the president to be killed.

If you want to call that a free speech issue just because you see some bizarre double standard here, then feel free to do so.

i dont call it a free speech issue.you do.
i dont see ones speech being denied when they lose a distributor of what they say, as they still have the same right to say what ever they like.

the position that when one says something and then is fired as a result is a loss of free speech is your position.the position im asking you why it only applies to some and not to others.

my position is and always has been that media outlets are business's and get to hire and fire whom ever they like based on what ever they like.making me not bothered by helen thomas getting the boot for pissing off her masters, as im equaly not bothered by adler getting the boot for pissing off his.only you are holding the double standard.

this ought to be old hat by now as it s the same thing everytime.you come up with absurd standards for jews, then do not hold others to the same standard.i call you out on it, and you avoid admitting it.

same dance every time.

"i dont call it a free speech issue.you do."

No my confused friend, I am considering this a MEDIA ISSUE. That has been the point of me posting all of the Andrew Adler stories here on Current; to point out the lack of media coverage that someone who wrote about Israel killing an American President.

You are trying to make this a free speech issue as if I should somehow hold Adler being forced out of his job to be equivalent to Thomas being forced from her job for saying that Zionist Jews should go back to Poland and Russia.

It's silly, and you're silly for trying to ignore my orginal point of the lack of broadcast media this assassination story has received.

http://current.com/community/92809899_helen-thomas-reminding-america-that-no-cri...

http://current.com/community/92906465_falls-church-news-press-hires-helen-thomas...

http://current.com/community/92852832_helen-thomas-attacked-for-saying-the-obvio...

http://current.com/community/92858505_helen-thomas-says-anti-defamation-league-i...

http://current.com/community/92843583_helen-thomas-congress-the-white-house-and-...

here are just a few examples, even one which is literaly a video of you personaly talking shit that proves my position, as you claim any one can say anything against obama and not be punished but cant say anything against israel, as this very case is the example of you being wrong.as adler spoke of assassinating the president, the very case in the analogy, and was fired, proving your wrong.

from the articles to the comments to the videos you post, time and time again you claim helen thomas has lost her freedom of speech.you may have changed your position conveniently as your flawed position has been exposed as such, but it doenst change what your position was.

once again, im not making it about freedom of speech.im asking you how if helen lost her freedom of speech, and that was the basis for much of your complaints, why you arent bothered when adler experiences the same.my position has never been anyone loses freedom of speech when fired from a job.that is your position, and im simply asking you to stand by it, or explain why you wont.

im not ignoring your original point, and have now thrice stated that media coverage is dependant on media you watch.kind of how the war on christmas is never reported on msnbc, while being a subject of daily evaluation on fox during the winter months.this story, just like all other stories is covered by the media to what ever extent it generates revenue.
if you dont feel it is getting enough coverage, change the media you watch to that which covers it more, such as shalom tv, or fox.
if you are bothered by how much face time helen got, aske her to stop going on the joy nehar show, and other media outlets pushing the story.

this is an entirely subjective issue, and i have stated that three times now with no counterance of it from you.so that issue has been as well adressed as it can be, three times over.if you would like me to post it a fourth time i can do that for ya too.

but it still doesnt change the fact you wont answer my very simple question, as you continualy seek to deflect.

if helen thomas losing her job for saying shit she shouldnt have is an example of some one havng their free speech taken from then (as you have stated and now i have cited) how is the adler situation being identical in its results not the same offense?
very simple question

Helen Thomas wasn't advocating KILIING ANYONE AND ADLER WAS THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

The problem is freecrack is two-fold

1) you honestly think that what Helen Thomas said about Jews going back to Russia and Poland is wrong

Fair enough that is your opinion, but the second problem is that

2) You are comparing Adler's statements with Thomas' statements not just the outcome of the statements, which are the same

It should be fairly obvious that you cannot compare apples to oranges despite the fact you can process juice from both fruits, if I can use an analogy here.

thank you for finaly answering the question.
so it isnt that ones free speech being removed that is your issue, it is when a persons free speech is suspended based on the content of what is said.
personaly i believe the right to free speech is to protect unpopular speech, as popular speech needs no protection.
so your position is that free speech is not an absolute right, but a priviledge to be revoked based on how it is used?

if so then whos value system dictates what speech is allowed and which is not?

how far are you willing to dive inot the deep end of the fascist pool to avoid admitting your bigotry?really?rather be a rascist than a racist, when it isnt news to anyone?

1-my opinion is wrong?arent you the one who likes to bitch about ad-homenim positions?

yes i think what helen thomas said was wrong, as i dont believe any people should be taken from any society and placed in another based on race.im not racist, so it doesnt make sense.just as i would think it is wrong to force all americans to go back to europe, or australians.not only is it wrong in these terms, but is wrong conceptualy as being forced from a homeland is the crime being adressed, to which helen thomas's asnwer is to literaly committ the same crime, just to another people.making it two wrongs not making a right.a different standard of rights being held for some and not others.making the position wrong.

2-nope.didnt compare the statements once actualy.at no point did i quote helen, or adler.i in fact make a point time and time again saying that the nature of what wa said in each case is offensive depending on the value system of those who read it.making it subjective and not a matter worth arguing.
what is not subjective how ever are the results, which were in both cases each person losing their job as a result of saying what their corperate masters found unacceptable.the result is all im discussing.not the cause, the validity of what was said, or wether or not what was said is agreable of offensive.in this regard to each their own.

im simply asking you to explain how when one person loses their job in media for offending her boss how that is the removal of her right to free speech, and when the same thing happens to some one else it isnt the same travesty.thats all.

im not saying a drunk driver and an executioner in a prison are guilty of the same thing,despite the same out come resulting, which is they kill people.not discussing the nature of what they do, only the outcome, which is those they effect are dead.wether killed by drunk driving, or cuz old sparky fried them, dead none the less.you are trying to equivicate and say that in one case the person is dead and in the other not based on what they did pereviously.which doesnt change the reality in the end, dead is dead.

both helen and adler got the boot for talking shit their media boss's didnt not find acceptable.both have equaly lost their platform on which they had previously been able to speak their mind.
in helen's case you defined it, as cited above many times, as her freedom of speech being removed.you even went so far as to center her loss of free speech as the basis for why you were offended.
so im simply asking you why when the same exact result occurs to others you are not as offended, or even bothered in the slightest.

that is all.

2) You are comparing Adler's statements with Thomas' statements not just the outcome of the statements, which are the same

if you want we can compare all the times crazy ass zionists have claimed the palestinians should be entirely removed from israel, which is a notion you deem offensively racist, but when applied to the jews when helen thomas said it, was totaly fine.

that would be comparing statements of the same nature.which i am not doing.only comparing events, independant of what caused them, and your evaluation of them.

do you want to go through all the crazy zionists you yourself have cited calling for destruction of arabs and removal of arabs from israeli land as an example of racism.to show how its racist to you when one people say it and not when others do?i dont suggest it.you are already struggling enough trying to hide your bigotry in this case, i wouldnt open up another example of it.

unless you finaly want to come clean?

There is no pont in even continuing this discussion when are comparing Helen Thomas' opinion about what Jews should do in Israel as being the same as Adler calling for the assassination of an American president.

Good day sir.

their is no point in you trying to defend the indefensible.
not only am i literaly not discussing what either party said, but literaly stated that what either had said is irrelevant, when the matter i am asking you about is the result.not what lead up to the result, or wether or not the result is just.im not asking you anything that has anything to do with the content of what anyone said about anything, other that your classification of what happened to helen thomas being a suspending of her free speech.not wether that suspension was right or wrong, or what she said to earn the suspension from her duties.

only you keep defaulting the to the cause, and cannot adress the effect by itself.

if helen thomas losing her job was calassified as her losing her free speech, then adler who also lost his job, is also an example of some one losing their free speech.
that is all im asking you about.how is one persons firing a trampling of civil rights, when anothers is not?
im asking you if the basis upon which you had a problem with helen losing her job was that her rights were being infringed upon, why are you not bothered in the slightest when others rights are identicaly infringed upon.

this is really very simple and remedial.

so far, in adressing this question all you have done is supposed that a standard exists for when ones rights are to be taken away, and that adler met that standard and helen did not.

im more that happy to discuss your fascist view that those who say apples are ok but those who say oranges should be punished.but you have yet to actualy accept any of the positions you held through out your helen obsession, leaving no basis to work with.

it was a loss of free speech, and now it isnt.
she said something you liked so it wasnt ok and adler said something you didnt like so it is ok.
that is all we got

I don't think that you will find any rational person who would defend Adler's advocating a foreign terrorist group assassinating the president, or the killing of anyone as an issue of free speech worth defending.

You think that this is hypocritical? Fine deal with it.

If it makes any difference, I wouldn't defend or try and rationalize or Helen Thomas calling for Hezbolla to assassinate an American president.

However, if Adler had been fired for calling for all Palestinians to leave the Jewish state and go to Jordan or Egypt then you'd have a point. If he had said that and got fired, I'd probably make a big deal of it and complain that it would be wrong.

Oh and just for the record, I never complained in those posts that Helen Thomas' rights were violated in those posts, only the fact that THE MEDIA made such a big deal and that she made the broadcast news for days until she was fired, unlike Adler, who never made the broadcast news.

Oh boy, Helen Thomas can't keep her big mouth shut. She's exercising her God given right to free speech as if it were going to be taken away tomorrow!

typed by you and no one else but you, wanna keep going?

I repeat, I never complained in those posts that Helen Thomas' rights were violated in those posts.

In fact, that's me celebrating the fact that Thomas was excercising her free speech.

I've analysed all those posts and all I did was complain that the media made such a big deal over what she said. I never once said that