It's Obvious Where Stossel Stands - But Where Does Fox News Stand?

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
From Media Matters:

For the second time in less than a week, Fox News' John Stossel has used his platform at Fox to stick up for "the right to discriminate." Tuesday night on The O'Reilly Factor, Stossel continued to call for the repeal of a portion of the Civil Rights Act -- the section that protects people from racial discrimination in public accommodations and businesses.

That's right: Instead of apologizing for his inflammatory comments about the Civil Rights Act, Stossel doubled down, praising his own "consistency" on a "complicated" issue. The truth is, it's not that complicated. Fox should fire John Stossel instead of continuing to give him a megaphone for his out-of-touch views.
And this . . .

Civil rights activists fought hard and braved real danger to end segregation and pass the Civil Rights Act, and the fight for equal justice and civil rights continues today. By promoting abhorrent comments like Stossel's, Fox disrespects that struggle.

What's more, Stossel's comments show ignorance not just of history, but of the ongoing challenge of racial discrimination. Stossel's opposition to this key civil rights protection would take us back to a time when restaurants, movie theaters and swimming pools could pick and choose who they let in based on race. He'd protect the right of racists to actively discriminate, and oppose basic rules to ensure fairness for everyone.
And finally:

Fox has a troubling history of racially-charged statements by hosts and guests. Now, Stossel has made it clear where he stands -- but where does Fox stand? Does it support its employee's comments about the "right to discriminate" and his insistence on rolling back a critical portion of the historic Civil Rights Act?

As a Fox contributor, Stossel represents the network, and Fox bears responsibility for what it airs. By airing Stossel's repugnant comments, Fox legitimizes his indefensible position and treats it as a valid point of view. That's a disservice to those who still consider Fox a legitimate news outlet.
I couldn't agree more. Stossel is an obvious racist. That's a given. But, as Media Matters so aptly asks: Where does Fox "News" stand on this issue?

Surely, Fox will take steps to disassociate itself from Stossel and his racist comments.

Surely . . . .
 
Last edited:

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
Bullshit.

Stossel is no racist. He's a libertarian. And Media Matters is on a mission to smear.
I was unsure about that, considering it is Fox. However:

John Stossel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He opposes legal prohibitions against pornography, marijuana, gambling, ticket scalping, prostitution, homosexual activity, and assisted suicide,[23] and believes most abortions should be legal.[24]

He opposes the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.[5]
I give credit where it is due, he is a Libertarian.
 

Zona

A guy in ariZONA
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
13,874
Reaction score
998
Points
48
Location
Phoenix, AZ.
From Media Matters:

For the second time in less than a week, Fox News' John Stossel has used his platform at Fox to stick up for "the right to discriminate." Tuesday night on The O'Reilly Factor, Stossel continued to call for the repeal of a portion of the Civil Rights Act -- the section that protects people from racial discrimination in public accommodations and businesses.

That's right: Instead of apologizing for his inflammatory comments about the Civil Rights Act, Stossel doubled down, praising his own "consistency" on a "complicated" issue. The truth is, it's not that complicated. Fox should fire John Stossel instead of continuing to give him a megaphone for his out-of-touch views.
And this . . .

Civil rights activists fought hard and braved real danger to end segregation and pass the Civil Rights Act, and the fight for equal justice and civil rights continues today. By promoting abhorrent comments like Stossel's, Fox disrespects that struggle.

What's more, Stossel's comments show ignorance not just of history, but of the ongoing challenge of racial discrimination. Stossel's opposition to this key civil rights protection would take us back to a time when restaurants, movie theaters and swimming pools could pick and choose who they let in based on race. He'd protect the right of racists to actively discriminate, and oppose basic rules to ensure fairness for everyone.
And finally:

Fox has a troubling history of racially-charged statements by hosts and guests. Now, Stossel has made it clear where he stands -- but where does Fox stand? Does it support its employee's comments about the "right to discriminate" and his insistence on rolling back a critical portion of the historic Civil Rights Act?

As a Fox contributor, Stossel represents the network, and Fox bears responsibility for what it airs. By airing Stossel's repugnant comments, Fox legitimizes his indefensible position and treats it as a valid point of view. That's a disservice to those who still consider Fox a legitimate news outlet.
I couldn't agree more. Stossel is an obvious racist. That's a given. But, as Media Matters so aptly asks: Where does Fox "News" stand on this issue?

Surely, Fox will take steps to disassociate itself from Stossel and his racist comments.

Surely . . . .
They are quietly right with him. When the righty's say whats the difference between fox and msnbc, refer to this please....they are righty with Stossel. They (fox) are racists.
 
Last edited:

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
In addition, I am glad he is not for repealing the entire Civil Rights Act like some are. I can understand where he is coming from this, and he is certainly not being a hypocrite as it is consistent with his views.

I'm of the opinion that if a place is racist, let them be racist, but let them have a nice big sign up about who they refuse to serve and or hire. If they don't follow said guidelines and try to get around them, they'll get fined. Simple as that. I rather not give my money to a establishment that the profits will go to racists.

Obviously in some parts of the country this will work better than others.
 

Zona

A guy in ariZONA
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
13,874
Reaction score
998
Points
48
Location
Phoenix, AZ.
Bullshit.

Stossel is no racist. He's a libertarian. And Media Matters is on a mission to smear.
Does he work for fox or msnbc?


Fox fans are racist right along with this idiot who supports him.

Agree?
 
OP
George Costanza

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
Bullshit.

Stossel is no racist. He's a libertarian. And Media Matters is on a mission to smear.
I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?
 
OP
George Costanza

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
Bullshit.

Stossel is no racist. He's a libertarian. And Media Matters is on a mission to smear.
Does he work for fox or msnbc?


Fox fans are racist right along with this idiot who supports him.

Agree?
Not all Fox fans are racist, I'm sure. But I'm willing to bet that most racists are Fox fans.
 
OP
George Costanza

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
Bullshit.

Stossel is no racist. He's a libertarian. And Media Matters is on a mission to smear.
I didn't say he wasn't a libertarian. I said he was a racist. His comments are clearly racist - no one can deny that.

You haven't commented on the real point of the OP - what about Fox News? Where does that leave them?

Well?
 

LuckyDan

Sublime
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
2,327
Reaction score
649
Points
48
Location
The mountains of North Central Texas
Bullshit.

Stossel is no racist. He's a libertarian. And Media Matters is on a mission to smear.
I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?
Yes, it opens the door to racial discrimination without legal remedy, but as Modbert points out (and as I pointed out on a similar thread) the public would readily know where NOT to spend their money.
 

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?
If you don't mind my intrusion.

Yes, this would open the door for racial discrimination. The larger question is however, would you want to eat or buy from a place that is racist? I know I certainly wouldn't. My principles are worth more than saving $20 on a television or whatever it may be.
 
OP
George Costanza

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?
If you don't mind my intrusion.

Yes, this would open the door for racial discrimination. The larger question is however, would you want to eat or buy from a place that is racist? I know I certainly wouldn't. My principles are worth more than saving $20 on a television or whatever it may be.
So you think the solution is to cancel out our present anti-discrimination laws, allow businesses to discriminate, and then boycott those businesses for discriminating?

Isn't the whole idea to eliminate discrimination? If businesses are presently prevented from discriminating under the law, doesn't that pretty much take care of the problem?

This whole, right-wing rationalization for this "let the free market decide" green-light for going back to the 1960's makes me laugh. You folks are going to have to do a lot better than that.

If you want to talk about your principles, why not swing them into play and not allow discrimination in the first instance?
 
Last edited:

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
In addition, I am glad he is not for repealing the entire Civil Rights Act like some are. I can understand where he is coming from this, and he is certainly not being a hypocrite as it is consistent with his views.

I'm of the opinion that if a place is racist, let them be racist, but let them have a nice big sign up about who they refuse to serve and or hire. If they don't follow said guidelines and try to get around them, they'll get fined. Simple as that. I rather not give my money to a establishment that the profits will go to racists.

Obviously in some parts of the country this will work better than others.
Who's in favor of repealing the entire Civil Rights Act?

And no, Stossel isn't a racist.
 

LuckyDan

Sublime
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
2,327
Reaction score
649
Points
48
Location
The mountains of North Central Texas
I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?
If you don't mind my intrusion.

Yes, this would open the door for racial discrimination. The larger question is however, would you want to eat or buy from a place that is racist? I know I certainly wouldn't. My principles are worth more than saving $20 on a television or whatever it may be.
So you think the solution is to cancel out our present anti-discrimination laws, allow businesses to discriminate, and then boycott those businesses for discriminating?

Isn't the whole idea to eliminate discrimination? If businesses are presently prevented from discriminating under the law, doesn't that pretty much take care of the problem?

This whole, right-wing rationalization for this "let the free market decide" green-light for going back to the 1960's makes me laugh. You folks are going to have to do a lot better than that.

If you want to talk about your principles, why not swing them into play and not allow discrimination in the first instance?
Are you comfortable with unfair accusations of racial discrimination? The type that forces ethical businesses to defend themselves? Stossel's idea ends that.

PS - I don't think Modbert is right wing. And I'm certain Stossel isn't.
 
Last edited:

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
Bullshit.

Stossel is no racist. He's a libertarian. And Media Matters is on a mission to smear.
I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?
It's no more racist to say defend the right of a racist to discriminate on their own property than it is to defend the right of a racist to say whatever they want.
 

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
So you think the solution is to cancel out our present anti-discrimination laws, allow businesses to discriminate, and then boycott those businesses for discriminating?

Isn't the whole idea to eliminate discrimination? If businesses are presently prevented from discriminating under the law, doesn't that pretty much take care of the problem?

This whole, right-wing rationalization for this "let the free market decide" green-light for going back to the 1960's makes me laugh. You folks are going to have to do a lot better than that.

If you want to talk about your principles, why not swing them into play and not allow discrimination in the first instance?
Except when you do this, all you're doing is hiding the discrimination so it's done in more subtle ways. Like I said previously, I wouldn't repeal anything of the Civil Rights Act if I were in office, but I can see the argument for it.

I think that boycotting as shown throughout history is a very effective tool to get a point across. Can't be racist if you go out of business, no?

I'm not saying let the free market decide either, I'm saying let people decide. I even admitted that it would work better in some states better than others, which is why I wouldn't want to repeal it.

While I also get your argument, I don't think that you can't simply not allow discrimination. You can hide it, you can make it not the focus, but you can't get rid of it. As long as human beings exist, there will always be discrimination. Take a look at the quotation in my signature to see where I'm getting at.

I'm just of the opinion that I'd want to know which places were racist, that way I wouldn't go there. It'd probably bother me more to know I'm helping to fund a racist business then not being able to go there.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?
And a person who stumps for the right of a private individual to say anything they want is opening the door to hate speech.

Your thoughts on that? Should we restrict the right of free speech in order to stamp out hateful and offensive speech, or should we allow that speech in order that everyone have the right to speak truth to power?
 

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
PS - I don't think Modbert is right wing. And I'm certain Stossel isn't.
I like to think of myself as Liberal, but I don't think I am anymore. :lol:

Took a political test recently with 10 questions. 4 Libertarian, 4 Conservative, and 2 Liberal. Though I tend to be more Libertarian on social issues, Conservative on fiscal issues, and Liberal when it comes to things like Health Care and Regulation.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top