Yuma 4×4

Media and Communications

Koran-Burner Fired From His Job, Political Ad Fox Doesn’t Want You to See

Koran-Burner Fired From His Job, Political Ad Fox Doesn’t Want You to See

politics on david hackman was a crime
burner who’s actually been fired remember before nine eleven we talked to
terry jones from the dev world outreach center or a little outreach actually
goes on coincidentally enough he was going to burn her on then we
talked surely phelps roper from the west for a baptist church she was going to
burn crime well amanda actually did burn pages from
the karana nine eleven was fired from his job his name is derek bentsen and he was at
a protest outside the plant location of the fox news majority shareholder
funded moskos as we’ve come to know it his employer for eleven and eleven years
his new jersey transit so will conservatives defend this guy
and i’ve actually got video that’ll run for t_v_ audience here of uh… of him doing the burning and it starts pretty pretty interesting
i guess in the eighties ripping individual pages out burning them the a_c_l_u_ has already said you know
you can’t fire someone if burning a flag is protected you can’t fire someone from burning
occur on which is a good point right yeah at the same time if he was fired for inciting violence
which we could argue that burning the koran certainly does that is not
protected as with everything else i might just
play out in the courts i don’t even know what to think certainly doesn’t seem
like you should keep federal job if you are burning ca runs on the street doesn t
there’s something about the just doesn’t seem quite right but again you can burn the flag i i don’t know how
i feel about this i don’t know which side i would be on
exactly you have to be honest here if you are armenia on one hand he’s clearly antagonizing people right exactly and if we can make the argument that he
is inciting violence then that is not something that that’s
protected i don’t know the agency said mister clinton’s public
actions violated new jersey transit skoda acts i guess it’s kind of its on its own rule
and we can think of a lot of things that would be legal but that you can get fired for right right and we are just when you get the
state laws so it’s a different story i mean for example if your employer has a policy that says you cannot be seen drinking while wearing our uniform as long as you’re not publicly drunkard
driving trumpets not a legal but they could still be against your
company’s ethics policy that if you’re wearing the uniform you should not be
seen drinking you could get fired but again maybe the a_c_l_u_ were
whoever would jump in and say you know you can’t do that it’s like it’s like all the stories we hear about
the like that i felt players like bear bear protocol of conduct then the operator always violating that and
getting you know penalties fines but they’re not
actually breaking any state laws are federal austerity she is
often the foot but who was that was that football
president that parts covers right technically that this is not against the
law to shoot yourself i don’t know exactly what state he was in her depend
on what state you’re in but the team may not like that right there’s a political ad that fox news
doesn’t want you to see is absurd as it may sound foxnews has sued the robin carnahan
campaign in some sort of lawsuit about compromising their objectivity that’s right fox news is suing someone
for compromising their objectivity the commercial is an anti roy black
commercial and it’s actually just chris wallace doing his sort of bias
questioning type of thing except it’s of a republican it’s a bit so weird situation i’ll play the ad for your just thirty
seconds i’m robin carnahan proof this message you just said a moment ago that that you
have to show that you’re the party larval form but some question whether
you are the man to do that in two thousand two you tried to insert
language into the homeland security act to help philip morris tobacco while you
were dating that companies lobbyist and your campaign committees paid four
hundred eighty five thousand dollars dwarf are linked the lobbyist jack
abramoff are you the one plane of the house roy black the very worst of washington this fascinating essentially the same
concern right i mean foxnews using one of its
and one and chris wallace who filed this lawsuit against robin carnahan campaign saying that she is using proprietary
footage to make it up here that the network wasn’t or singer i don’t actually think that that’s what
the the ad makes it seem like the addis makes it seem like chris
wallace did is typical hit piece hit questioning on a politician it just so happens this
time of the republicans that instead of bill clinton instead of a democrat right some tough questioning that happens to
be boxes and directed at a republican and a
nazis gives the impression that they endorse republicans all the time with
this type of questioning but one time it looks like there out against the republican and they file a lawsuit i don’t know the
accident taking down from robin carnahan website the message says the interview
with roy blunt that fox news doesn’t want you to see has been temper temporarily removed and what fox news seems to be upset about is chris wallace
actually seems like a real journalists here it doesn’t matter for a second that roy
bonds are republican republican chris wallace is asking some tough
questions that’s that’s what fox news is angry
about here this is a win-win for carnahan by the
way i mean she has a very amateurs website
but the ad even if inadvertently is at least
forcing the discussion about robots less than vannatter bowl past and in part foxnews responsible for it it’s something right i suppose sound politics possible in part by the
daily hampshire gazette fingers at met dot com connecting our communities with local
news and information by the national priorities project in
smith college department of government posting congresswoman donna edwards on
sunday october third more information and national priorities
dot orig i_d_f_ design specializing in custom business website idea design dot
com to find out more about underwriting mid-week politics music mid-week
politics dot com

16 thoughts on “Koran-Burner Fired From His Job, Political Ad Fox Doesn’t Want You to See

  1. Burning the Qur'an is not inciting violence any more than burning the flag is inciting violence. Freedom of speech/expression is expressly a freedom to offend, to be offensive to some group of people. We don't need to have a guarantee of freedom of speech/expression if all we ever say or do are things that offend nobody. If the people who are offended decide to get violent in response, only then should someone be arrested and that should be the people who resorted to physical violence.

  2. Once again, the ACLU bravely rises to the legal occasion. Burning the Quran is a heinous insult to a noble faith and to those who practice it with tolerance and love, but nonetheless it is protected speech.
    Could this guy have been fired for breaking open-flame laws as a dangerous activity?

  3. So because the burning of the Qur'an incites violence you're gonna back down, there are a lot of other things that will incur muslim violence, I suggest you give up your free speech and stop voicing these liberal opinions of yours.
    Their faith is retarded and does not the deserve -a millimeter- of respect, nothing. Bowing to them is slippery slope into muslim theocracy.
    Somebody ought to design Qur'an toilet paper depicting that pedophile prophet. I'd buy it.

  4. Well it may not be an illegal thing to burn the Qur'an but it certainly gives his employers a bad reputation. He should have thought of his responsibilities and commitments before he does something like that.

    I mean its perfectly logical to fire an employee for burning the flag,so burning pages of the Qur'an could also be justified in that sense.

  5. @dontdoitnow My home is not public space. It is private space and you would be allowed in that space only by invitation. If you acted like you proposed, I certainly wouldn't be inviting you onto my property.

    One of the statements you suggested, if made in public, would be subject to slander laws. My daughter would be able to sue you for calling her a whore and would win if you were not able to demonstrate that she had sex for money.

  6. Burning the quran is an "attack" , NOT freedom of expression, freedom of speech is about talkin the truth or wat u believe to be the truth, not insulting.

  7. @1140Cecile i highly doubt that, so if ur kids get traumatized, u lose sleep over it, causes ur family stress, u stil think im free to? yah dont bother answerin its NO ,point is blabbering just to insult under freedom of speech is total B.S

  8. @1140Cecile If burning a flag, or burning a Qur'an causes a riot and deaths, then it is inciting violence. When violence actually occurs if becomes a crime. The same as shouting fire in a movie theater will cause a riot.

  9. @snowbaordguru Sorry, but your definition for "inciting violence" is incorrect. Under your definition ALL violence would be the fault of the victim who "caused" the violent person(s) to become violent because of something the victim did.

    Your example of shouting fire in a crowded theater causing a panic has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of inciting violence.

  10. @1140Cecile It is protected symbolic speech until it causes violence. Shouting fire is free speech, shouting fire in a crowded movie theater is not.
    Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater will incite a mob, mobs inevitably cause violence.

  11. @thespacialone Wiser than you it seems. Provoking violence is inciting violence. I guess free speech can end at the hands of the government AND the hands of the people you piss off. A gamble you should decide for yourself I suppose.

  12. @thespacialone Looks like I got under your skin. Calling me names and what not makes you an internet bully. You a tough guy?

    I wish you would put a coherent thought together and articulate it properly.

    Taking responsibility for my actions is realizing that if I do something that intentionally pisses someone off I had better be able to take the consequences. You piss someone off intentionally and they harm you, are you both at fault? You for taunting, them for the violence?

  13. @thespacialone MrNickBento's comment above is some proof: "To me burning my flag is inciting violance! I pray I never see it, for the sake of the azzhole that is burning it I pray!"

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.