what did he say?
Did he say anything that relates to your mitigating factors?
No...simple, plain as, dealt with:know:


Oh god save me from the dumbasses.
If you think that the words he spoke are relative to the words you wish he spoke then you are nuttier than a sack of almonds.
Look at the words he said, from the start of this topic numbnuts have been trying to justify the words used by using words that were not used even in the slightest on a wet wednesday in a month of sundays even by a huge stretch of the imagination.
In fact doesn't it make the whole "looky what he said"vtopic nothing more than a strawman who is lo0oking for his brains in somewhere that sure ain't Kansas.

Because I wanted to give you a chance to answer the one question you ignored:

"Do you come to this board for any other reason than to try and prove to yourself how superior you are over everyone?"

Personally I think that is your only reason but here's one last chance to prove me wrong. Isn't that what you love to do so much?

Please august can't I pinch the "proud member of ignore list" line? after all a troll like you should relish in it eh:har:

I see you have dodged the question once again. I'm actually starting to pity you.

Come along darling, have you anything to say on the subject in hand?

Oh I see you attribute a claim to myself that I have never made...much like the topic about a statement that was never made.
At least you are consistant

So August, do you have a problem with reality?:har:
Come out from under the bridge you wingnut in denial.

Go on let me put your "proud member of" tag in a sig.

I'm dealing with exactly what he said.

I said his STATEMENT was rational. Read. Not that his FEELINGS were rational.

I've said this every time.

He was rationally discussing his IRRATIONAL feelings. He said:
He means what in the US is "political" muslim clothing. Hijab, burqua, robes, etc. Not West Africans, not people from the subcontinent, but Arab garb (when your typical American muslim dresses like... an American. Those that dress like Arabs on domestic flights are doing so as a demonstration.).

In his statement he is RATIONALLY discussing his feelings. His feelings do not have to be rational for his statement about his feelings to be rational.

Schizophrenics have cycles of lucidity. If during a sane, lucid period, a schizophrenic discusses his feelings from a period when he WAS "crazy" his statement is NOT irrational. He could say, "I felt like everyone was talking about me when I was out in public." He can go on to say he knows that's crazy, NOW. His feelings at the time were irrational. His statement about those feelings later NOT IRRATIONAL.

Williams was not being irrational on Fox. He was rationally discussing partially irrational feelings. On the plane, when he's feeling that, then he's not being entirely rational, he's being emotional. In the studio... the situation is hypothetical.

So again, he got in trouble for rationally discussing partially irrational feelings. And they are only partially irrational. I welcome proof of recent intentional airline disasters caused by non-muslims.

Tribesman you tying so hard i think even jesus would crusify you.
Come back in 2000 years.....

Um... yeah, actually.:-? He said quite a bit about that. In fact, he specifically mentioned that not all Muslims are extremists and cautioned others against making generalizations. Did you even watch the whole thing?

Dodge, dodge, dodge. :roll:

Troll troll troll ,but hey you have problems with english so you do deserve some pity:har:

He made no distinctions about their nationality, or what particular flavour of muslim garb so once again you are trying to justify the statement by changing it.
Though your statement there actually makes it worse since its even more ludicrous .

And how does that relate to the comment in question?

No, not a troll at all, just asking a simple question which you obviously won't answer. The fact you have to resort to childish insults just illustrates that quite well don't you think?

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Simple question:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Your question is nonsense august and you should know that as its such obvious nonsense.
Though your pesistance might suggest that you don't realise its nonsense

Dodge, dodge, dodge... :roll:

No dodge at all you troll, the answer is that your question is silly.

Silly or not you still can't answer it. :hmm2:

Tribesman, you showed your true colors when you called him "darling". Why is it that every discussion you become involved in devolves to this level? And why is it that half the time your very first post is for no other purpose than to insult somebody?

Do you think I should have been more affectionate?

That would be a generalisation wouldn't it.

Well in this case I thought Pinochet would be a more fitting and relevant measure than Ghengis Khan.


When did it become a requirement to answer silly questions?
Though I did read the other day that the Dems are rethinking their idea of not responding to silly questions as so many people are unable to see the sillyness of the questions being made.


So back to Tater.
After his opening words which actually were not relative to the incident or to the previous episode they were discussing, he then goes on to make a comment which he immediatly shows to be wrong. So at what point then does he rationalise his comment that caused the stir?
And no it isn't at the later point as then he is talking about comments by the others not his own one that didn't make sense.

Then back to Sailor Steve in case he has any input into the actual topic.
Why do you think the only way many people are able to justify the comment is by changing the comment?

Cute. But not helpful.

Would it? It may be an overstatement, but I wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't so common.

Again, cute, but my point still stands - you tend to snipe at people before you say anything real. Some of the earlier posters on this particular thread desverve it, but Tater and August are usually less one-sided in their arguments than those others, and than you as well.

On the other hand, declaring a question silly is a good way to avoid answering it. Declaring it so doesn't make it so.

Point taken. I haven't commented thus far simply because I don't consider myself qualified to. That said, a large part of this thread has consisted of people taking potshots at each other, and your "comments" have devolved to name-calling and dismissal.

So here's my comment:

How exactly was it changed? I've just now watched the entire clip, and Williams and O'Reilly were arguing with each other for most of it. Within the context, I don't see Williams' comments as irrational at all.

I enjoyed the comments from the far left:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTfQy...eature=related

So, I'm surprised you think Williams was irrational, especially considering his very liberal stance for the rest of the segment, and I think NPR's action was entirely political.

I'm closing this thread as it long turned into a personal battle and away from discussing whether williams did anything wrong and should or shouldn't be fired.