OrangeDragon wrote:2) i disagree, we'll wait for one of the many on here to chime in.
3) so it is "only ADL" or "only ADL and it's affiliates"? Or perhaps only ADL, it's affiliates, and anyone not directly affiliated with either organization who agreed with them. Hell even Southpark keyed in on it.

"Now please tell me how you go from"
Blaming Jewish groups for filtering media and claiming they dictate the contents of the media to further their own agendas would be antisemitic, presuming you don't assume that they are made up of a variety of religions/ethnicities which have nothing to do with Judaism.

Again your logic is completely wrong here. Your own definition of antisemitism is about hating Jews just because they are Jewish. If I blame some Christians for exploiting poor people in trying to spread their creed, does that mean I hate Christians? The same applies to Jews --- some do bad things and need to be called out for what they do. That is not Antisemitic.

I reject the ACTION they are doing.

Noam Chomsky... sort of says it all right there I guess.

Personally I feel he's a twit with a lot of his own misinformation campaigning. Another argument for another day.

Your jab about me using the word illuminati to represent some controlling cabal (sort of the very nature of that word isn't it? some supposedly enlightened group pulling the strings behind the scene?) in dismissive tones with a childish personal attack mixed in was cute.

Then of course to call a differing opinion "nieve" instead of just differing, while assuring that your opinion is "reality"... when in fact they're both opinions. You should WORK for Fox...

And you accuse me of wordplay.

To make a nice example of how our opinions for cause/effect differ: Gays on TV, I believe it was quite surely done by market demand... the gay market specifically, as well as a younger generation that didn't have nearly the degree of homophobia their parents generation did. They were a large and expanding market, and the TV networks capitalized on it. It added depth to programming which had previously gone a little stale with all of the plot themes being the same. Evidence of that can be seen in how 90210 was one of the first to explore it, and it was a show 100% directed to this younger market.

I can't believe you think that if NBC was to start a sitcom called "My Shiite Family", featuring the silly antics of a Shiite Islamic family in their day to day lives that always ended with a nice moral to the story and a happy ending, that the American people would even consider watching it.

To clarify, 13 years ago it may have been possible... may. There was still some distaste from other incidents... but nothing like 9-11. 9-11 has made is so that ANYTHING pro Islam will be rejected by the American viewing audience. Hell, there are STILL a number of the US population who hate Obama for being Muslim, and he's not even Muslim. And there's PLENTY of other things out there to hate him for if you're just looking for a reason... you don't have to make one up.

Rain Dog wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:2) i disagree, we'll wait for one of the many on here to chime in.
3) so it is "only ADL" or "only ADL and it's affiliates"? Or perhaps only ADL, it's affiliates, and anyone not directly affiliated with either organization who agreed with them. Hell even Southpark keyed in on it.

"Now please tell me how you go from"
Blaming Jewish groups for filtering media and claiming they dictate the contents of the media to further their own agendas would be antisemitic, presuming you don't assume that they are made up of a variety of religions/ethnicities which have nothing to do with Judaism.

Again your logic is completely wrong here. Your own definition of antisemitism is about hating Jews just because they are Jewish. If I blame some Christians for exploiting poor people in trying to spread their creed, does that mean I hate Christians? The same applies to Jews --- some do bad things and need to be called out for what they do. That is not Antisemitic.

I reject the ACTION they are doing.

But you are claiming the action is being done BECAUSE they're Jewish... not because they're simply giving an audience what they want or selling what they know will sell.

OrangeDragon wrote:Noam Chomsky... sort of says it all right there I guess.

Personally I feel he's a twit with a lot of his own misinformation campaigning. Another argument for another day.

Your jab about me using the word illuminati to represent some controlling cabal (sort of the very nature of that word isn't it? some supposedly enlightened group pulling the strings behind the scene?) in dismissive tones with a childish personal attack mixed in was cute.

Then of course to call a differing opinion "nieve" instead of just differing, while assuring that your opinion is "reality"... when in fact they're both opinions. You should WORK for Fox...

And you accuse me of wordplay.

To make a nice example of how our opinions for cause/effect differ: Gays on TV, I believe it was quite surely done by market demand... the gay market specifically, as well as a younger generation that didn't have nearly the degree of homophobia their parents generation did. They were a large and expanding market, and the TV networks capitalized on it. It added depth to programming which had previously gone a little stale with all of the plot themes being the same. Evidence of that can be seen in how 90210 was one of the first to explore it, and it was a show 100% directed to this younger market.

I can't believe you think that if NBC was to start a sitcom called "My Shiite Family", featuring the silly antics of a Shiite Islamic family in their day to day lives that always ended with a nice moral to the story and a happy ending, that the American people would even consider watching it.

Hmmm --- You do not like Chomsky. He is Jewish. You must be an Antisemite. (Just using your own logic against you)

Actually Chomsky is brilliant on some things -- mediocre on others. Never heard anyone call him a twit though. Is that an antisemitic label now too?

Seriously --- rather than attack the messenger (me and Chomsky) if you are serious about this topic then maybe try actually reading it --- you know -- before dismissing it outright.

See, I don't say he has those views (many of which i disagree with, and I have read/listened to him) BECAUSE he's Jewish... that's the key difference. You're suggesting they filter the media BECAUSE they're Jewish and filtering it forwards a Jewish agenda. Shame you can't see the difference there.

I'll just leave this here and go back to enjoying the debate: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/t ... ews-193116 . Oh, and I'll tuck this away for the next Bible bash:

Rain Dog wrote:Seriously --- rather than attack the messenger (me and Chomsky) if you are serious about this topic then maybe try actually reading it --- you know -- before dismissing it outright.

Do carry on

What's funny is that was claiming they pushed a liberal agenda, then lists shows that were aired during bush's presidency. Sort of knocks the whole "National strategic asset" conspiracy out of the water.

One of those slamming Coulter is George Schlatter, who directed and produced Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In in the 1970s, using the show to knock Republicans and the Vietnam War. “The fact we pissed the Pentagon off, that pleased me enormously,” he says before calling Coulter “the c-word.”

OrangeDragon wrote:What's funny is that was claiming they pushed a liberal agenda, then lists shows that were aired during bush's presidency. Sort of knocks the whole "National strategic asset" conspiracy out of the water.

One of those slamming Coulter is George Schlatter, who directed and produced Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In in the 1970s, using the show to knock Republicans and the Vietnam War. “The fact we pissed the Pentagon off, that pleased me enormously,” he says before calling Coulter “the c-word.”

Yeah, there are a couple of 'inconsistencies' in the argument, but a good read/watch nonetheless.

It's so fascinating to me that so many are interested in Jesus! Lol.

OrangeDragon wrote:
Your jab about me using the word illuminati to represent some controlling cabal (sort of the very nature of that word isn't it? some supposedly enlightened group pulling the strings behind the scene?) in dismissive tones with a childish personal attack mixed in was cute.

Then of course to call a differing opinion "nieve" instead of just differing, while assuring that your opinion is "reality"... when in fact they're both opinions. You should WORK for Fox...

Yes, you have continued to use misrepresentation of my statements and deliberately loaded terms like "Illuminati" in the absence of your inability to make any other coherent argument. I will call you on this every time you do it.

OrangeDragon wrote: I can't believe you think that if NBC was to start a sitcom called "My Shiite Family", featuring the silly antics of a Shiite Islamic family in their day to day lives that always ended with a nice moral to the story and a happy ending, that the American people would even consider watching it.

Actually such a show did exist on TLC in 2011 -- it was called "All American Muslim". It only lasted one season as far right Jewish (Frontpage.com) and Christian (Florida Family Association) groups organized a sponsor boycott of the show and succeeded in getting the largest sponsor to drop it. You know -- "Creeping Shariah" and the "Moooooooslims are taking over the airwaves".