Displaying 121 To 150 Of 1,300 Comments Tripled? Come now. » Posted By KevenSeven On February 7, 2011 @ 5:49 pm So, let me ask you: Is there a corporation that you could have more faith would screw up what little is worthwhile about Huff than AOL? Maybe Haliburton…… » Posted By KevenSeven On February 7, 2011 @ 5:48 pm I ruined it for everyone, back when I was on my recruiting jihad! » Posted By KevenSeven On February 7, 2011 @ 5:39 pm A LITTLE while back? Going on two years! » Posted By KevenSeven On February 7, 2011 @ 4:57 pm Humph! Seems like fun and games at the Planet! You people just can’t admit it! You miss being abused by that cretin BJ! Or try to get Flossie to shovel his sophomoric drivel here, and see who likes it. Sheese, I can’t give up Huff, I just need to slap Flossie on a regular basis. But whoever thought for five seconds that Harryanna was remotely sincere is getting the let down that they had set themselves up for. Don’t despair. I’d like to believe that Huff will crash and burn, and no corporation is more qualified to do that than AOL, I’m thinking, but I’m not betting the farm on it. Welcome to all the new arrivals. You will find it a hoot here. Justplainfedup » Posted By KevenSeven On February 7, 2011 @ 4:44 pm The Undeclared War on America…By Americans Just skimmed it, but I can only say that this is not news. Go back a thousand years if you like. The plutocrats, or aristocrats if that is what you are stuck with, want the vast unwashed majority to be so exhausted and run down at the end of the day that they have no fight in them. The Romans understood a thing or two. Keep the price of bread low (and modern France follows that maxim) and offer cheap or free entertainment. The Rethugs are deliberately debauching the value of public education, nation-wide. They do not want the citizens to know any more than is necessary that they be readily exploited for their labor. » Posted By KevenSeven On January 21, 2011 @ 4:41 pm I hope y’all caught this one: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/24/huffpo_breitbart/index.html » Posted By KevenSeven On March 24, 2011 @ 4:06 pm The journalists producing the report are not responsible for the quality of the comments on the blog following it, now are they? I mean, what sort of logic are you working to, anyway? You want to tell me that KPCC is “toxic”? Pulllllease. » Posted By KevenSeven On March 15, 2011 @ 8:26 pm Toxic? Care to be specific? » Posted By KevenSeven On March 15, 2011 @ 3:59 pm A lively little slam on Hairyanna and the HuffandPuff: http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/03/15/arianna-huffington1/ On one of the nation’s best NPR affiliate stations. » Posted By KevenSeven On March 15, 2011 @ 10:53 am The Dems will indeed lose many seats in the Senate, the numbers just guarantee it. Not so much the House, after we got so stomped this time….. And Obama will win with more electoral votes than the last time. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 15, 2010 @ 4:22 pm He’s a Millionaire Celebrity Pundit, Not Your Boyfriend. You really must trust me, I like the guy. And I bet he is very nice most of the time. But I would be amazed to find that he does not have a bit of an ego. I don’t hold it against him, really. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 15, 2010 @ 4:29 pm Oh, no he’s not!!!! Don’t get me wrong. I like the guy. But he is one bull-headed bastard and you can tell him I said so. And AdLib knows my address, if Keith wants a word with me! » Posted By KevenSeven On November 11, 2010 @ 7:56 am Salon has a rather nice review of Keith’s career: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/09/olbermann_msnbc_statement/index.html » Posted By KevenSeven On November 10, 2010 @ 7:09 pm “I can pretty much guarantee you, Marion, your post is more interesting than what actually happened.” That actually is a pretty interesting view of the matter. I hate to say it, but I am not sure yet that your friend Keith (who I like a lot) was not in part responsible for this mess. At least in part. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 11:22 pm OH. OK. If ever there was a poster who could not complain about another being ironic or sarcastic, it would need to be me. But I am not convinced that your friend Keith (who I like) possibly did not blow his top and tell the boss to stuff it. I really do suspect that Keith is a very stiff necked guy. Not that I am knocking that. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 8:26 pm I really cannot answer you questions, except to say that a news org can insist that its employees, including editorialists, not engage in politics outside the office. NPR has people who profess opinions on air, and are expected to abide by the same policies as are the other employees. The same holds true for most of the serious media. As for what happened here and who was actually at fault, I am not prepared to accept any particular judgment on the matter. I am quite prepared to believe that Olbermann could have prevented it blowing up and instead told Griffin to stuff it. This despite what Keith says. I like him a lot, but I think he has a very stiff neck. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 6:14 pm Assuming that an employer has a legitimate interest in restricting an employee’s actions, the employer has that right. In this particular case it seems that MSNBC did not have a clear policy, nor did it impose it evenly. Set that aside. If MSNBC wants to tell all its employees, including Keith, that they cannot contribute to campaigns, then MSNBC has that right and power. If that troubles any of the employees, they can resign. That is the reality of it all. News orgs have a legitimate interest in seeming unconnected to politics. If they want to do it, they can. If they don’t care, they don’t have to. That is the boss’s decision. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 4:59 pm Marion, Having read all this again, I don’t agree with you quite as much as I had thought at first blush. I’m not as critical of Olbermann as you are. That said, I really appreciated this thread. Good give and take, and I applaud you sticking up for your views. I anticipate with pleasure the topic that we are diametrically opposed on. I know you will have no complaints in a vigorous debate. I’m just afraid that you will beat me soundly! » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 4:14 pm “there is no question”? Sure there is. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 2:14 pm Um. MSNBC has a perfect right to restrict the political expression of any of its employees, including Keith. It is very much common practice in Journalism. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 2:11 pm The guy has a 7 million dollar contract. He either has an attorney read it or he is ungodly stupid. And I don’t think Keith is ungodly stupid, do you? If he did not read the fine print, that is his own fault, and is no excuse. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 1:51 pm I’m not certain that I am prepared to take the entirety of the second paragraph as true on its face. In other words, could KO be fibbing? I think he is a bull-headed guy. I like him a lot, but I think he is a bull-headed guy (being one, I should know them when I see them). So I am not prepared at this point to buy into an explanation that leaves Keith without some responsibility for this mess. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 1:49 pm Hey Babe, I don’t see any hate in Marion’s column. Criticism, but I miss the hate. Care to show me? » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 1:45 pm Marion, I gotta tell you, that you really pissed me off with this post. It was so excellent and covered most of what I have been saying on the subject. I’ll get even with you some day. I will post a brilliant column that says everything you wanted to say, and leave you with nothing to do but agree. You just wait. Lord, I was just frantic explaining to people that this has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. (MSNBC is not Congress). And that as long as the employer has a legitimate interest in restricting an employee’s actions, it can. Just for comparison, this is what NPR says on the subject: VIII. Politics, community and outside activities 1. NPR journalists may not run for office, endorse candidates or otherwise engage in politics. Since contributions to candidates are part of the public record, NPR journalists may not contribute to political campaigns, as doing so would call into question a journalist’s impartiality. 2. NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them. Thanks again for the excellent column. I gotta give it a re-read and then go thru the comments….. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 9, 2010 @ 1:43 pm Nature of debate, Goodbye Christopher Hitchens Hey! Just opened the mail! My second hand copy, (been on a shelf in a store forever) of Hitchens’ “Letters to a young contrarian” just arrived. Actually, it has never been opened before. Just some shelf wear and yellowing, published circa 2005. I’ll be back in a few days! Six bucks, with shipping. Yummy! C-ya! » Posted By KevenSeven On September 17, 2010 @ 8:48 pm You are wrong, as it happens. I do not say that character and track record are irrelevant to the strength of an individual’s argument. I do not ask anyone to be bothered to dissect David Duke’s arguments. Hitchens is nothing even remotely comparable to Duke. He asserts many positions that the vast majority of this audience would agree with. Who here wants to argue that a religious edict to circumcise women (cut off their clitorises and much of their labia) is acceptable in a modern society? Anyone? Hitchens opposes that. Who wants to say that he is wrong? My thesis here is that opinions, flatly stated, without a logic or reason behind them, are not of necessity due respect. It is the path that built the opinion, life experience, education or debate, that is of value. Any fool can have an opinion, consider David Duke. Hitchens, I believe, most infuriates the left because he has the most solid argument for the invasion of Iraq. Massively superior to that supplied by BushCo. And the nasty truth? Had BushCo let Hitchens write their argument for invasion? No way would have America permitted it. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 17, 2010 @ 10:41 am Um. I don’t say that a person’s character is irrelevant. I say it is immaterial as to the truth or falsity of their argument. I have no problem with people distrusting every word that Limbaugh says. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 16, 2010 @ 2:25 pm Now you know perfectly well the definition of “ad hominen”. To attack the man, and not the argument. It is a classic logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy That Hitchens is or is not a “gasbag” has no relevance to the truth of falsity of his arguments on whatever he is arguing. That David Duke is a flat out racist need not be cited to debunk any of his arguments and the defeat of his arguments is stronger and cleaner without such citation. It is just easier to call him a racist and dismiss him. Which would be OK by me. Like arguing with a kitchen table. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 16, 2010 @ 9:56 am Ah, we are back to a Socratic debate here. We are trying to define terms or positions. You are absolutely incorrect to assert that Hitchens thinks that he is always right. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an interesting point. Hitchens just LIVES by the Socratic method. He often cites Socrates who said that it is the mark of an educated man that that he knows that he knows almost nothing. You may be under the mis-apprehension that atheists BELIEVE or know that there is no god. You miss the point perfectly. We believe that there is no evidence what ever that there IS one. Now evidence is everything in the Socratic method. Hitchens is often bashed as being angry at ‘god”, which is a nonsense. How could he be angry at a thing that he doubts exists? Religion, on the other hand, clearly exists. And the very multiplicity of religions (what, are there about 5000 currently practiced, or is that the count over the last 5000 years?) is evidence that man created god, and not the other way around. Add to that the obvious design of men dominating women in just about all religions and you have a further piece of evidence. Hitchens has made it part of his career, not his whole career, to call out the religious bullies who attempt to grab and hold power based on revealed truth. Seeing as neither he nor I accept the reality of that truth, why do you find it so astonishing that he resists it? Why are you so offended? Richard Dawkins is MUCH ruder on the subject. Hitchens is perfectly civil in his debates with theologians. I can assure you, you have the wrong end of the stick. Unless you have determined to close yourself off to all doubters. And why would you do that? Put another way, how can you come to this judgement of Hitchens without hearing or reading him? » Posted By KevenSeven On September 16, 2010 @ 9:14 amComments Posted By KevenSeven
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats