home

The Fox News Mosque At Ground Zero

Jon Stewart on the Fox News Mosque at Ground Zero.

The Fox News Mosque at Ground Zero*? I like it.

Speaking for me only

*It's not at Ground Zero, but Fox News says it is.

< Hyperbole | "The Most Ambitious Domestic Agenda Since FDR" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Why does Jon Stewart talk about this? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Buckeye on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    Why is the main stream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.) not mentioning any of this?

    Because Stewart is (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 12:32:09 AM EST
    honest and unfraid, and they aren't?

    Parent
    FYI, Prince Alwaleed also owns large stakes in (none / 0) (#1)
    by steviez314 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:22:36 AM EST
    Apple, Motorola and Disney.

    So for all you people who own iPhones, Droids or vacation with Micky Mouse, I ask you:  why do you hate America so much?

    On the other hand, he also owns a lot of Citicorp, as do we, so we're all partners together.

    You are part of a terrorist organization (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 10:23:41 AM EST
    By that I mean you own a part of Citi.

    Parent
    do a quick check (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    most Form 10-K's, on the SEC site, and you'll find out that most publicly held companies are "terrorist organaizations", by virtue of ownership.

    joseph heller was way ahead of his time. milo minderbinder would be right at home on wall street today.

    this is actually (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    starting to get interesting

    Very interesting... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 01:01:01 PM EST
    lovin' this new development...if the loyal Fox viewership gets wind of this their heads will explode!!!

    Parent
    That's just it (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by PatHat on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 02:52:09 PM EST
    the Fox viewers will either not know or not care. It's the message, not the facts. Use this "fact" to try to enlighten (or abuse) one of your Fox friends and they will not acknowledge there is a problem.

    Let's ask jim and see how he views it.

    Parent

    He announced today (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    at his site that questions he refuses to answer here, he "might" acknowledge (and might not delete out of existence) at his own site.

    Because he's nothing if not all about honestly and unflinchingly addressing all sides of an issue.  

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    that facts have almost nothing to do with it.

    Parent
    There is something risible about someone (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 05:12:20 PM EST
    with a blog who can't stand being limited in what he can say on some sites on the Internet, but demonstrates less tolerance for dissent than this blog does for his comments here.

    Here's the complete Popper quote, the portion he likes to use is bolded:

    The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
    Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. -- In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

    What's the old saying about throwing stones and glass houses?

    Parent

    I can just hear Hannity: (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    "Im calling on all Americans concerned with the security of this nation to institute of boycott of me, until we are given a thorough-going accounting of the activities of all the organizations and companies Prince Alwaleed has investments in.."

    Parent
    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 12:33:36 AM EST
    will he call for Andrew Cuomo to investigate Fox's funding sources?

    Parent