Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: CNN HOST Bill Press tells Christian to STFU about Jesus

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 16, 2011, 7:51 p.m. EST by theaveng (602)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I guess intolerance isn't strictly a Republican trait. It's also shared by the Democrats. Someone should tell this guy, "That's not politically correct." and then fine him under the new Hate Speech bill that Obama wants to pass.

http://youtu.be/9z_YZObTX64

50 Comments

50 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Occupyoneer (52) 7 years ago

What does this have to do with Occupy Wall Street? Occupy Wall Street supporters consist of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, etc. We all want money out of politics. If you wanna do the tit-for-tat partisan bickering thing, there are a plenty of other places to go on the Internet to do that. And hey, I may or may not agree with you on this if you took it to another site. This just isn't the place.

[-] 1 points by MASTERdBATER (15) 7 years ago

What do 99% of these posts have to with Occupy Wall Street? Better yet, what does Occupy Wall Street have to do with Occupy Wall Street?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Right-wing cognitive dissonance...

The faith of the "Prince of Peace" is antithetical to the wanton violence of football. praying to Christ for the power to physically overwhelm another human being is desecration of the teachings of Christ.

Bringing together Christ and football is so typically right-wing cognitive dissonance that it is ludicrous.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

I agree with the charge of unprofessional or intolerant conduct against Bill Press, but I do not see hate speech. Listening to the whole speech, I think the 'offensive bit' was employed as a bit of tongue in cheek for his leading into his next comment about how Tim better start praying about going up against Tom Brady. That's how it came across to me anyway.

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 7 years ago

There are many different beliefs in this country. Some are not Christian. I thought this country was supposed to not sanction any one religion over another.

Why do Christians think they have the absolute truth and why do they want to impose it on others?

Edit: I read in the bible that you should go into your closet and pray instead of showing it to the world. Public displays of faith actually go against what Jesus taught.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 7 years ago

This past Saturday, I promised all of you that CNN would use their new show about 'ordinary people' heroes as yet another excuse to plug their army of filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs. All of which are promoting new CDs, movies, tours, ect. ITS ALWAYS ABOUT MARKETING. I just did some checking. They did exactly as I promised they would. Those 'ordinary people' were exploited. The entire show was just another gimmick to sell product. Below is the exact entry I posted on Saturday:

CNN. The Celebrity News Network. What a bunch of rotten sold-out pigs. It's bad enough that they constantly praise celebrities for their bogus fake humanitarian crap every time they have a new movie, show, CD, fashion line, or some other over-priced crap to promote. All while COMPLETELY IGNORING the record high concentration of wealth that filthy rich celebrities represent. That's bad enough. But now, they have the nerve to hype up a new show about 'heroes' and claim that its about ordinary people. It's not. It should be but it's not.

IT SHOULD BE BUT ITS NOT. Those 'ordinary people' are being exploited for ratings and PR. How do I know this? That's easy.

The show will be hosted by Anderson Cooper. The CNN poster boy. His face appears on every single ad for the show. EVERY SINGLE ONE. That wasn't necessary. The show will be attended by the same filthy rich celebrity pigs that CNN commentators constantly praise for their bogus 'good will' fake humanitarian crap. That isn't necessary.

Mark my words: Those celebrity pigs won't be upstaged by 'ordinary people'. No way in hell. THEY REFUSE TO BE UPSTAGED BY ANYONE. They won't stay seated. They won't stay in the background. They have agreed to attend the show in part, to give the ILLUSION that they are humble and modest. They are not. They all have ulterior motives. Every single one of them.

Mark my words: Those filthy rich celebrities have already negotiated with CNN for their own airtime. Their faces will be shown OVER AND OVER AND OVER during the show itself. They will be mentioned by name and invited to appear on stage during the show.

FILTHY RICH CELEBRITY PIGS WHO ALL HAVE NEW PRODUCTS TO PROMOTE. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. THEY ALWAYS HAVE ULTERIOR MOTIVES. ITS AWAYS ABOUT MARKETING. ITS ALWAYS ABOUT PROMOTING THEMSELVES. THIS IS NO EXCEPTION. THEY CANT EVEN STEP ASIDE AND LET A FEW REAL HEROES HAVE THEIR OWN FUCKING DAY WITHOUT SHOWING THEIR ROTTEN CELEBRITY FACES. ITS A SHAM. ANOTHER ROTTEN MARKETING TRICK.

Of course, there will be scripted lines. The ordinary people were chosen in part, for their willingness to show love for their favorite celebrities or fake it for the camera. Of course, there will be celebrity praise. Maybe, even fake tears. Just remember: Commercial airtime is incredibly valuable. Each minute of commercial airtime is worth six or seven figures. They aren't allocated unless there is a profit to be made. These shows don't just happen. They are carefully planned and rehearsed ahead of time. Every single participant has been coached on what to do and what to say. This includes the ordinary people. Most of whom probably don't realize that they are being exploited by CNN. The Celebrity News Network.

CNN. It's bad enough that they constantly praise filthy rich celebrity pigs for their bogus fake humanitarian crap. They even devoted an entire segment in December of '09' to Madonna and her now disgraced 'Raising Malawi' foundation. That's bad enough. But they can't even throw a bone to a few ordinary people without including a bunch of filthy rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs.

ALL OF WHICH HAVE NEW PRODUCTS TO PROMOTE. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

It makes me sick.

Good will has become big business.

Thats what I posted on Saturday. The show aired Sunday night. It was basically a two hour long commercial with a gimmick. Those 'ordinary people' were exploited by CNN to give the illusion of heart felt appreciation when in fact, the entire event was sold out to the entertainment industry.

If you search the phrase "CNN heroes", the vast overwhelming majority of entries make immediate reference to the filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs who attended the event. All of whom have new products to promote. Ch'Ching!

If you search the phrase 'CNN heroes' on the 'image' page most of the photos that show up are of the filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs who attended the event. All of whom have new products to promote.

Ch'Ching!

I wish I could tell you that 1 out of 10 of those photos on the 'image' page were of those 'ordinary (decent) people'. But I can't. Its more like 1 out of 100. The rest of the photos are of Anderson Cooper and the filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs who attended the event.

Ch'Ching!

Like I said on Saturday, those filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs negotiated with CNN for their own air time. Their own close-ups. Their own introductions. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered to show up. Its now obvious that they have also instructed their publicists to plaster the entire web.

Ch' God Damn Fucking Ching! Those bastards. They couldn't even step aside for one fucking event and let those 'ordinary (decent) people' have their own fucking day. They just had to show up and exploit ANOTHER event for maximum publicity. Maximum sales. MAXIMUM PROFIT.

Anderson Cooper, Miley Cyrus, Kid Rock, Taylor Swift, and the whole bunch of those filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs suck. THEY SUCK. They have some God Damn nerve.

HEY CNN. YOU FILTHY SOLD-OUT PIGS. I HAVE A CHALLENGE FOR YOU. ITS MORE THAN A CHALLENGE. ITS A FUCKING DARE! THATS RIGHT. I DARE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG. I FUCKING DARE YOU. PRODUCE ANOTHER TWO HOUR LONG SHOW ABOUT 'HEROES'. THATS RIGHT YOU FUCKING SELL-OUT PIGS. I DARE YOU TO DO ANOTHER ONE. THIS TIME, LEAVE THE CELEBRITIES OUT OF IT. LEAVE THEM OUT. LEAVE THEM OUT. LEAVE THEM OUT. LEAVE THOSE FILTHY DISGUSTING RICH FAKE HUMANITARIAN CELEBRITY PIGS OUT OF IT!

No? THATS WHAT I THOUGHT. You miserable fucking sell-out pigs. THATS WHAT I THOUGHT!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

I like Bill Press, he's a honest journalist and commentator.

You should see Bill Mahr's Movie called "Religiousless" It's hilarious but also makes a very good point about religion. It's an eye opener if you've never looked at religion this way but easy to see how those, even here, can be very sensitive to the subject, some people in real life die and kill over it. But to speak our mind without fear of death here is clearly a unique American trait, and we defend that right. Amen?.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

I would hardly call this anything close to hate speech. Another poster here, the one who started this flawed thread, mentioned it with absolutely no support for why it could be considered that way. It really has nothing to do with the story at all. We can talk about religion, but really this isn't the right forum for that. I don't give damn about Jesus either but I love peace and I'm not consumed by hate. As the poster called avenger already knows he can say just about anything here. This hate speech angle is some concocted narrative playing in his head that he has no justification for. And don't look for him to be sharing his wisdom here either. The premise of this thread has caste it's fate already. Fade to black with this one Mr. Avenger. Try another useless rant maybe another one will invoke more negative responses since this want trolling is all about.

THE PUZZLER

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 7 years ago

yea - Bill Press is a loser

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Politically Correct.

Aren't you a conservative?

And you think we should be politically correct?

What is your real problem avenger?

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 7 years ago

I believe in decriminalizing gay marriage and marijuana/heroine/cocaine usage (though strictly regulated as prescription-only drugs). So no I wouldn't call myself conservative.

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 7 years ago

Not professional at all. What is this guy doing on CNN?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

To get you to waste your time talking about it.

How much more time are you willing to waste?

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

I want actual hate speech forced out of the public sphere, and I want what goes on the airwaves regulated such that at least some of it is impartial coverage of actual news stories. That said, we do need to be careful about how we do and don't define hate speech and what we define as legally actionable.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

I would hardly call this anything close to hate speech. Another poster here, the one who started this flawed thread, mentioned it with absolutely no support for why it could be considered that way. It really has nothing to do with the story at all. We can talk about religion, but really this isn't the right forum for that. I don't give damn about Jesus either but I love peace and I'm not consumed by hate. As the poster called avenger already knows he can say just about anything here. This hate speech angle is some concocted narrative playing in his head that he has no justification for. And don't look for him to be sharing his wisdom here either. The premise of this thread has caste it's fate already. Fade to black with this one Mr. Avenger. Try another useless rant maybe another one will invoke more negative responses since this want trolling is all about.

THE PUZZLER

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 7 years ago

This is against the first amendment and I oppose it.

If someone hurt your feelings you shouldn't go crying to the government to make them stop.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

This is not about "hurt feelings" or anything so trivial as that; if people want to run around spewing bile then that's what they're going to do and it's then the responsibility of the rest of us to either ignore them or shout them down. My problem is when people start trying to blur the lines between news, editorialization, and flat-out bile such that they can say what they please without fact-checking and still lend their words the weight of the serious objective journalist.

I love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, partially because I agree with them politically, but the fact remains that they're comedians. Funnymen. They're the guys you're supposed to watch after you've had your fill of serious journalism when you want to laugh at the current state of the world, and yet they're actually no less reliable than typical network news. They have no obligation to fact check their material or provide intelligent commentary (even though they generally do), but the network news (which most would argue does have such an obligation) is no more accurate or intelligent than they are. That, to my mind, is the problem.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 7 years ago

May I paraphrase what you just posted ARod1993:

The media is just as affected by politics as the government is affected by big business.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

Absolutely, and thanks.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 7 years ago

THANKS for you recent post regarding ARod and where you got the nickname - I feel like you are a friend even though we have never met and may not agree all the time - Have a good one, my friend.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 7 years ago

Well in which case and not to hurt your feelings - you're a jackass and not a good one at that.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 7 years ago

I wholeheartedly support your right to call me a jackass.

I also wholeheartedly support this website's right to censor your post, since this is a private forum.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 7 years ago

And so do I. I am a guest herein and if that is the policy of this website, I will abide by their policies. The forum is private only in the sense that it has a sponsor - it is public in the sense that for the most part anyone can post within the guidelines set by the sponsors.

Really, do you see any similarities between this forum and the OWS protesters camping in a public park????? You cannot really demand that it be both ways to suit your fancies.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 7 years ago

I want what goes on the airwaves regulated

Neither the FCC nor Congress has authority to regulate private cable lines or websites according to the First Amendment. They can only regulate the public EM spectrum (broadcasting via antenna).

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 7 years ago

Who do you recommend be the hate speech police? Who do you recommend regulate what is said over the airwaves? What is impartial? Who decides? ARod is a phony athlete. A cheater. I hate him. All is home runs and rbi's don't mean shit. Why would you use that assholes name for a handle?

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

My name is Adam Rodriguez, and people have called me A-Rod since I was young. The association with the athlete is regrettable given how he actually chose to "earn" his success, but the only other nickname I have is the rather tongue-in-cheek "A Domesticated Aristocratic Mexican," which became an inside joke among a few friends but is way too easy to take the wrong way in the public sphere.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 7 years ago

Sorry for being a presumptuous ass. My mistake.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

Fair enough; I understand the reaction given the scandal surrounding the original A-Rod and the tendency for some on here to take intentionally inflammatory usernames.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 7 years ago

You just countered your own argument.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

And I just countered yours. I'm up by one.

THE PUZZLER

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 7 years ago

Go away Red scum.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

... Ahhhh, do u hate me MV?

Do U love Baby Jesus?



LoL LoL LoL

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 7 years ago

Keep talking stupid. Just keep talking... Oh, and go away Red scum.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Oh Oh Oh, don't touch me.

You funny MV. LoL

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

Actually wiping out hate speech would be nice, but it's enough of a know-it-when-you-see-it phenomenon that a lot of legislation powerful enough to be capable of completely wiping it out would also come into serious conflict with the First Amendment in the process and leave a wide avenue open for criminalization of dissent. That said, there are simple and fairly conservative (in the sense of scope rather than political alignment) measures that would cut out a lot of the crap, namely the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 7 years ago

Censorship plain and simple. Who is going to determine what is fair? You?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Now I'm up by four ; )



The Puzzler

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 7 years ago

Go away Red scum.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

We had those rules in place until the mid-1980s, and for the most part they served us quite well.

As far as I'm aware, the rationale for dropping the Fairness Doctrine was that the sheer breadth of channels available on things like cable TV meant that we could endorse the "anything goes" mentality because if the field was wide enough then surely somebody would keep the public interest in mind and journalism would get better for the lack of regulation. Did that actually happen? Absolutely not. Actual good investigative journalism became much harder to find on the airwaves, and generally the group that would go out of its way to look for it was the group that needed it the least.

The Equal Time Rule would also be a great way to deal with changing the way we run campaigns in this country, as it pretty much dictates that no television station or overtly political event, save a few exceptions, may offer different airtime rates for different candidates and are required to give the candidates the same sweetheart rates that they give firms with whom they have a close relationship. I would expand its scope a bit so that actual debates would be subject to these provisions (providing an appropriate forum for independent candidates) and consider requiring broadcast TV stations to provide actual equal advertising time to all who request it.

Also, just a little side note: the Fairness Doctrine provided a very wide latitude to television stations as to how controversial political issues are presented or how different points and counterpoints are presented (format, style, length, etc.). A 1-to-1 equal time rule for different views was also not enforced and in fact was not part of the doctrine. The point was that differing views must be given their chance to be heard, and the standards of how this was to be accomplished was left up to the stations themselves. It was a way of holding broadcast TV to decent journalistic standards without exerting influence over which views were or were not "allowed".

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 7 years ago

We had those rules in place until the mid-1980s, and for the most part they served us quite well.

The Fairness Doctrine never applied to private cable lines. CNN, MicrosoftNBC, FOX News, and all the rest can say whatever they want.

he Fairness Doctrine provided a very wide latitude... 1-to-1 equal time rule for different views was also not enforced

That's not true. WGCB in in the Lancaster-York-Harrisburg market was fined by the FCC for not providing equal air time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._Federal_Communications_Commission

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 7 years ago

As I posted about YOU. Those people spewing hate have sponsors - big sponsors who depend on your support for them to stay in business. Make your wishes known - it only costs 44 cents - and a sheet of paper has move weight than complaining about it in the outer reaches of internet space.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 7 years ago

and a sheet of paper has move weight than complaining about it in the outer reaches of internet space.

I used to think that but not anymore. A sheet of paper is only seen by 1 or 2 people. An email that is also posted publicly is seen by millions (if you pick the correct public forum). The email/public post combination carries more weight.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 7 years ago

To each his own. So your point is that you gain what you want to gain by telling a million people about it rather than the one person or company that you want to influence, do I understand that correctly.

It probably does carry more weight as you measure weight - but what is the point of having a million people throwing their weight at you if you never have an impact on the company or sponsor that you are trying to reach. The millions are a great approach if your aim is to run a campaign to get their support to DO SOMETHING and not to just broadcast your wishes to the world and have a million people nod in agreement. If it stops at that point - it stops.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 7 years ago

And are YOU going to determine what people are allowed to say?

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 7 years ago

Not by a vote of one - how about you?? Want to make it two or one-one??

Can't you get to the point where you can handle numbers better than that. It is not a really complicated problem - I write to a sponsor saying that I do or do not like what they are sponsoring. That has no real impact YOU is not even an issue in the matter. You write your letter saying that you do or do not like what they are sponsoring. YOU still doesn't enter into the decision. But there are over 3M people in this country. Surely if we can elect one person to be president of the country - we can have a little impact on what a sponsor does or does not promote.

It is not really a life and death issue - just exercising a freedom - realizing that there are umpteen other sponsors who may take their place and we may not even care WHAT they sponsor. And there is no surety that we will have any effect on what any sponsor does.

I just feel that if I spend $10,000 a year at WalMart, I have some responsibility to at least let them know what I do or do not like. They are not obligated to do anything in response. This is my freedom and my responsibility NOT theirs.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

of course i should - sig heil!

[-] 0 points by danmi (66) 7 years ago

Our Country has become more whacked ever since that assMonkey Obummer has taken office

[-] 0 points by Par (27) 7 years ago

Jesus was a space alien, the first of many. Beware! He was being nice in order to trick you all.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 7 years ago

Sorry, but I think you mistook him for that other guy

The one with the horns and the tail, what was his name?? Just remember, so was the horny guy and I really think you fell for him. RIGHT??

[-] 0 points by REALamerican (241) 7 years ago

Its his right to say what he wants about christians, but to me they might need someone more professional handling news.