|
Post by Trades on May 12, 2016 8:58:48 GMT -5
He hides his bias well... Seriously, this is journalism? An article like this on a real paper would say OPINION in big letters on the top. I guess the Star Ledger has moved to "rag" quality. Why is it everyone says he wants to "ban Muslims" when what he said is we shouldn't allow Muslims or possibly anyone in until we get our screening process fixed. Is that really so unreasonable? As for Mo understanding hopefully he understands Mangold's declaration of not agreeing 100% with anyone as opposed to this race-baiting, vitriolic ass wipe. No it's not journalism, it's an opinion piece. You know that by there being a byline. And how is Mo supposed to know Mangold does not support the Muslim ban if he did not refute it? And if by broken screening process you mean that it takes longer than two years and should be faster than yes it's broken If Mo and Mangold only talk through news "reporters" then I think their relationship was tenuous to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on May 12, 2016 9:12:21 GMT -5
No it's not journalism, it's an opinion piece. You know that by there being a byline. And how is Mo supposed to know Mangold does not support the Muslim ban if he did not refute it? And if by broken screening process you mean that it takes longer than two years and should be faster than yes it's broken If Mo and Mangold only talk through news "reporters" then I think their relationship was tenuous to begin with. By not refuting it publicly he is supporting it. It doesn't matter what he says in private
|
|
|
Post by Sonny Werblin on May 12, 2016 9:15:51 GMT -5
I support Bernie. just not his policies. In all fairness, you do not have to support 100% of any candidate's ideas to support that candidate, and regardless of how the media likes to assume the worst in any statement made by Trump and with all due respect to "your" opinions, the fact is that a ban (or tightening, extra screening, whatever) on Muslim travel into the US is a legitimate issue. I understand that both sides to the issue have good points. But remember, we didn't let Nazi's travel to the US during WW2 and I'm sure lots of them wanted to come here for non-violent reasons. And my point for this thread is that Cosentino had no reason to write that article other than to try and stir trouble for Mangold simply because Mangold supports a candidate that Cosentino does not like. That is the height of douchebaggery.
|
|
|
Post by Trades on May 12, 2016 9:20:47 GMT -5
If Mo and Mangold only talk through news "reporters" then I think their relationship was tenuous to begin with. By not refuting it publicly he is supporting it. It doesn't matter what he says in private I disagree and I think that is a ridiculous statement. You are saying we have to answer every public question posed by the baiters in our society or we are assumed guilty? No mater how it is phrased and by anyone that wants to cause trouble? Mangold's answer of "I don't agree with anyone 100%" is a perfectly fair comment. He doesn't have to knock his chosen candidate and give credence to every comment.
|
|
|
Post by HawkeyeJet on May 12, 2016 9:44:58 GMT -5
Political discussions are fun. Can we do religion next?
|
|
|
Post by Peebag on May 12, 2016 9:47:43 GMT -5
Political discussions are fun. Can we do religion next? Sure thing you pagan Iowagean!
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on May 12, 2016 9:55:19 GMT -5
By not refuting it publicly he is supporting it. It doesn't matter what he says in private I disagree and I think that is a ridiculous statement. You are saying we have to answer every public question posed by the baiters in our society or we are assumed guilty? No mater how it is phrased and by anyone that wants to cause trouble? Mangold's answer of "I don't agree with anyone 100%" is a perfectly fair comment. He doesn't have to knock his chosen candidate and give credence to every comment. No, "we" don't have to answer anything to anyone until we get up on a stage and publicly support a candidate. This is the face he (Mangold) has presented to the public, and Mo Wilkerson, and his family, and all his Muslim friends, and by extension all Muslims, until and if he publicly says he does not support that particular policy . He can't have it both ways, publicly supporting the candidate but privately disagreeing with some of it . As far as any of us know, he supports the ban on Muslims entering the country (except for the London mayor)
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on May 12, 2016 9:59:42 GMT -5
No by broken he means that we dont even look at facebook accounts. How is anybody supposed to know anything? How are we supposed to know that the "hands up" players on the Rams don't support violence and the destruction of property? Mind you those are things that actually happened as opposed to something someone said. Slippery slopes and all. We can go around in circles all day with this stuff. DHS started checking social media this year, after requests from two dozen Democratic Senators. As for the rest of your comment I have no idea what you're trying to say
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 10:15:34 GMT -5
Mangold is in the public eye. He knows full well that whatever he does in public is fair game, especially in the NY media market; whether its promoting a public official running for office or berating the opposing hockey team in the playoffs from row 1.
By "endorsing" a candidate running for President, he opens himself up to criticism from those opposed to the person he is endorsing, likewise, he opens himself up to praise from those who agree with his endorsement.
Cosentino has every right to question and call out Mangold for his endorsement if Consentino disagrees with it...public discourse and debate is one of the many great things that separates our country from the rest.
Those with right leaning political views can disagree with what Cosentino says, but it doesn't mean Cosentino is wrong for writing his article or questioning Mangold's views.
It would be no different if Mangold endorsed Bernie and a right leaning columnist called him out for supporting a "socialist".
|
|
|
Post by Sonny Werblin on May 12, 2016 11:15:12 GMT -5
Mangold is in the public eye. He knows full well that whatever he does in public is fair game, especially in the NY media market; whether its promoting a public official running for office or berating the opposing hockey team in the playoffs from row 1. By "endorsing" a candidate running for President, he opens himself up to criticism from those opposed to the person he is endorsing, likewise, he opens himself up to praise from those who agree with his endorsement. Cosentino has every right to question and call out Mangold for his endorsement if Consentino disagrees with it...public discourse and debate is one of the many great things that separates our country from the rest. Those with right leaning political views can disagree with what Cosentino says, but it doesn't mean Cosentino is wrong for writing his article or questioning Mangold's views. It would be no different if Mangold endorsed Bernie and a right leaning columnist called him out for supporting a "socialist". I basically agree with this, but the article is hardly public discourse and debate. He essentially calls Mangold a fascist and racist for supporting Trump (a nominee for one of the two major political parties), and tries to stir up trouble in the Jets locker room between Mo and Mangold. Cosentino is entitled to his own views, but what he did in that article is not journalism. He simply is trying to harm Mangold for supporting a candidate Cosentino does not like. BTW, I have no knowledge of Mo's political views, but wouldn't the fact that Cosentino singled out Mo as possibly having a problem with Mangold supporting Trump make Cosentino the racist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 12:24:06 GMT -5
Mangold is in the public eye. He knows full well that whatever he does in public is fair game, especially in the NY media market; whether its promoting a public official running for office or berating the opposing hockey team in the playoffs from row 1. By "endorsing" a candidate running for President, he opens himself up to criticism from those opposed to the person he is endorsing, likewise, he opens himself up to praise from those who agree with his endorsement. Cosentino has every right to question and call out Mangold for his endorsement if Consentino disagrees with it...public discourse and debate is one of the many great things that separates our country from the rest. Those with right leaning political views can disagree with what Cosentino says, but it doesn't mean Cosentino is wrong for writing his article or questioning Mangold's views. It would be no different if Mangold endorsed Bernie and a right leaning columnist called him out for supporting a "socialist". I basically agree with this, but the article is hardly public discourse and debate. He essentially calls Mangold a fascist and racist for supporting Trump (a nominee for one of the two major political parties), and tries to stir up trouble in the Jets locker room between Mo and Mangold. Cosentino is entitled to his own views, but what he did in that article is not journalism. He simply is trying to harm Mangold for supporting a candidate Cosentino does not like. BTW, I have no knowledge of Mo's political views, but wouldn't the fact that Cosentino singled out Mo as possibly having a problem with Mangold supporting Trump make Cosentino the racist?I'm not sure I follow that logic at all. He singled out Mo because Mo is Muslin and Trump has made very controversial statements about Muslims. If Trump made statements about Aussies I would have expected Cosentino to single out our Aussie punters.....if Trump made controversial statements about the Irish, I would have expected Cosentino to single out someone of Irish descent on the team.
|
|
|
Post by Jets Things on May 12, 2016 12:31:25 GMT -5
I basically agree with this, but the article is hardly public discourse and debate. He essentially calls Mangold a fascist and racist for supporting Trump (a nominee for one of the two major political parties), and tries to stir up trouble in the Jets locker room between Mo and Mangold. Cosentino is entitled to his own views, but what he did in that article is not journalism. He simply is trying to harm Mangold for supporting a candidate Cosentino does not like. BTW, I have no knowledge of Mo's political views, but wouldn't the fact that Cosentino singled out Mo as possibly having a problem with Mangold supporting Trump make Cosentino the racist?I'm not sure I follow that logic at all. He singled out Mo because Mo is Muslin and Trump has made very controversial statements about Muslims. If Trump made statements about Aussies I would have expected Cosentino to single out our Aussie punters.....if Trump made controversial statements about the Irish, I would have expected Cosentino to single out someone of Irish descent on the team. What about Jews, faggots and Laotians?
|
|
|
Post by Trades on May 12, 2016 12:57:53 GMT -5
He hides his bias well... Seriously, this is journalism? An article like this on a real paper would say OPINION in big letters on the top. I guess the Star Ledger has moved to "rag" quality. Why is it everyone says he wants to "ban Muslims" when what he said is we shouldn't allow Muslims or possibly anyone in until we get our screening process fixed. Is that really so unreasonable? As for Mo understanding hopefully he understands Mangold's declaration of not agreeing 100% with anyone as opposed to this race-baiting, vitriolic ass wipe. No it's not journalism, it's an opinion piece. You know that by the presence of the byline and contact information for the author at the top of the page. And how is Mo supposed to know Mangold does not support the Muslim ban if he did not refute it? And if by broken screening process you mean that it takes longer than two years and should be faster than yes it's broken Not to pick on you because I do like you but your By line theory is wrong too. Look at pretty much every article on the NY Times homepage. Each has a byline and the writer's contact information. They are not all opinion pieces. Times opinion pieces are marked as such with The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR at the top.
|
|
|
Post by Sonny Werblin on May 12, 2016 13:10:07 GMT -5
I basically agree with this, but the article is hardly public discourse and debate. He essentially calls Mangold a fascist and racist for supporting Trump (a nominee for one of the two major political parties), and tries to stir up trouble in the Jets locker room between Mo and Mangold. Cosentino is entitled to his own views, but what he did in that article is not journalism. He simply is trying to harm Mangold for supporting a candidate Cosentino does not like. BTW, I have no knowledge of Mo's political views, but wouldn't the fact that Cosentino singled out Mo as possibly having a problem with Mangold supporting Trump make Cosentino the racist?I'm not sure I follow that logic at all. He singled out Mo because Mo is Muslin and Trump has made very controversial statements about Muslims. If Trump made statements about Aussies I would have expected Cosentino to single out our Aussie punters.....if Trump made controversial statements about the Irish, I would have expected Cosentino to single out someone of Irish descent on the team. Frankly, I did not know Mo's religion. If it is well known that he is Muslim than I stand corrected on that point. IMO, the article is still written in an antagonistic manner. The author is not interested in "public discourse". Rather, his clear intent is condemnation. But, unlike the author of the article, I respect that you could see it differently.
|
|
|
Post by Peebag on May 12, 2016 13:10:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure I follow that logic at all. He singled out Mo because Mo is Muslin and Trump has made very controversial statements about Muslims. If Trump made statements about Aussies I would have expected Cosentino to single out our Aussie punters.....if Trump made controversial statements about the Irish, I would have expected Cosentino to single out someone of Irish descent on the team. What about Jews, faggots and Laotians? Don't forget the Albanians.
|
|