Are you a fucking idiot or what, Hully Gully?
How many French citizens are employed by this french restaurant in Washington DC? What do you think, that the steaks he ate there were imported from France? I am sure that he isn’t drinking French wine or planning a visit to France anytime soon.
Oreilly puts his money where his mouth is. I know that he wont get into an SUV or limo if he can help it, due to his stance against fuel wasting vehicles.
Another quote from the same cite:
What a bastard!
Note: Oreilly also refuses to discuss any of the charity work that he does. He does it simply for charity and wont use it as a argument in his debates.
** Debaser** - do you want me to send you that clip?
Ignore above statement - just checked my mail.
On its way.
If he doesn’t disclose what he gives to charity then how do you know what the fuck he gives to charity? Obviously he doesn’t give anonymously, but it doesn’t matter anyway. The fact that a rich white guy condescends to give a few dollars to charity doesn’t mean he has the right to make racist jokes about sixth grade kids.
O’Reilly also once said that black people should be grateful for slavery because they’re better off now than they would be if they were still in Africa (which was destroyed by European colonialism, not by Africans).
He constantly makes patronizing, moralistic assertions about what the black people need to think or what leaders they need to follow. He’s a racist piece of dogshit just like he’s a homophobic piece of dogshit.
I just watched the Glick clip. I actually saw this back when it first aired in February. I wasn’t sure until seeing it.
I don’t see anything wrong with Oreilly’s behavior on the clip. He is clearly very angry. As he should be. Glick blames the murder of his father, and countless thousands of others on the Bush family. Basically, his theory seems to be that Bush Sr. is somehow to blame for 9/11 because as head of the CIA he supported the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
His views were offensive and stupid. He deserved every bit of the lashing that Oreilly gave him, IMO.
He also was clearly not discussing what he was there to. Oreilly tries to keep the conversation on track but Glick continues his rant. He claims that Bush has used 9/11 to justify “domestic plunder” and “imperialistic agression”. Note: This was before the Iraq war, so they were talking about the Afghanistan invasion. Glick insists that the Taliban in Afghanistan were not at all to blame for 9/11 and it’s all Bush’s fault. Oreilly finishes by suppressing his anger, and simply ending the conversation. He says “out of respect for your father” because he was a port authority worker he will end the interview. He also feels sorry for his mother who is probably watching. Then he cuts his mike, because Glick is still ranting.
I think that overall, Oreilly was quite constrained. Of course, if he threatened him with violence after the taping, that was out of line. But, I don’t think anybody here is arguing that Oreilly was going to actually harm the kid. He genuinly felt sorry for him and his warped view of the world.
I didn’t until reading this thread. Your cite had the figures I quoted. The author was stating them.
Cite?
He does attack the ‘leaders’ of the black community often. Because they so richly deserve the flamings that he gives them. You seriously think that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are doing black people any good? Jesse Jackson is exactly the blackmailing, self-serving, scumbag that Oreilly makes him out to be. Smearing Jackson doesn’t make O’Reilly a racist.
The reason the clip is in my possession, by the way, is that it has been doing the email rounds with the words “Oh my God” or “For fuck’s sake!”. I have to say that my jaw hit the ground when I saw this.
See, there’s harsh interviewing, and there’s plain rudeness. In my view, shouting “SHUT UP! SHUT UP!” and “cut his mike” at an interviewee is simply unprofessional.
O’Reilly could have interviewed him in a seriously harsh fashion if he’d had the intelligence professional ability.
(For examples of extemely harsh interviewing of a highly professional standard, please look up Jeremy Paxman. Now that’s the way to do it.)
I watched his show again last night. Again, I suspect that I am in the minority on this thread. Jayson Blair was the topic. O’Reilly supported diversity and affirmative action. I see opinions he has that would annoy those on the left…but I don’t see a right-wing zealot marching in lockstep with Satan. It just isn’t there, folks.
My point was that he says he doesn’t disclose his charitable donations but obviously he does because it’s there in the cite. The fact that his donation is made public at all is proof that he disclosed it to the public. He can make anonymous donations if he chooses to, he chooses not to.
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/transcripts/spongoreilly.htm
It’s not his (or your) place to decide which black leaders are “doing black people any good.” Bill O’Reilly is not qualified to have an opinion about what’s good for black people. He’s a rich white guy with no clue. He needs to keep his racist fucking mouth shut.
I didn’t say that his donations were all anonymous. Although, it wouldn’t surprise me if he does give anonymously and we just don’t know about it. My point was that he doesn’t discuss his charitable acts in any of the forums that are available to him. I think he deserves some credit for this.
You are lying.
You said:
The cite you provided shows O’Reilly claming (several times) that black people in 2002 are better off living in America then Africa. This is is a true statement. He mentions the life expectancy as evidence. Spong attempts to paint O’Reilly as a racist, but O’Reilly doesn’t bite. O’Reilly never says black people should be grateful for slavery or anything like it.
The transcript is a good read. O’Reilly wins the debate, IMO. He shows no signs of racism, though. And clearly not the false statements that Diogenes is claiming.
Who’s place is it then? O’Reilly is qualified to have an opinion on whatever he likes. It’s his show and nobody is being forced to watch. It’s also the most popular program on cable news, so he must be doing something right.
Is it only blacks that are qualified to have the opinion that Jesse Jackson is a jackass, in your warped mind? Or do other minorities get that right also? Why aren’t rich white people capable of taking note of what Jesse Jackson is all about. It’s obvious to any reasonable person. The fact is that the “old media” as O’Reilly calls them are unwilling to take on Jackson. O’Reilly deserves credit for opposing and exposing him for what he is.
This is, hands-down, the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever seen Diogenes post on these boards. And not for a want of other stupid fucking posts, either.
Since when can only black people have an informed opinion on what’s good for black people? Why does having a certain quantity of melanin in one’s skin “qualify” one to comment on difficult social problems?
If “rich white guys” aren’t qualified to have an opinion on what’s good for black people, I’d like to hear your opinion of the late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Or was he just another clueless racist idiot who should’ve kept his mouth shut?
O’Reilly’s implication was that black people should be grateful that they were brought to America. He also equated showing support for the invasion of Iraq with support for the country. Reading between the lines, O’Reilly’s implications was exactly as I have characterized it. Spong called him on it and Spong ate him alive in the debate. Spong comes off as cool and reasoned while O’Reilly comes off like a sputtering fucktard.
It’s not a question of his right to an opinion, it’s that his opinion is totally uninfomed and ignorant.
My objection is not that he criticizes Jackson or Sharpton. What bothers me is when he makes patronizing comments about who black people, as a whole, should or should not be listening to. He also seems to assume that black people are all one monolithic throng who mindlessly follow the lead of Jesse Jackson on any issue, when the truth is that most black people do not base their life decisions on anything that Jackson or Sharpton tell them to think. “Black leadership” is a safe way for white conservatives to attack the morality of blacks while seeming not to. They can’t can’t admit that any responsibility for conditions in urban neighborhoods lies with a top heavy, pro-coorporate, capitalist system which benefits the rich and ignores the poor. They also can no longer simply attack black people in toto as being morally inferior so the only way to blame conditions on black people without seeming racist is to blame “black leadership.” It’s code, that’s all it is. It’s obvious nonsense if you think about it at all.
I’m sure you can see the difference between making condescending, uninformed, moralistic judgements about the plight of urban blacks (essentially asserting that if they were just better people they wouldn’t have those problems) and simply expressing non-judgemental concern about those conditions.
To say that blacks would have no problems if they just stopped listening to Jesse Jackson is laughably simplistic, dismissive and ignorant.
Wow.
“Hi, Diogenes. How are you feeling today?”
That was another secret republican code. It translates to mean:
“You are a paranoid fucking nutcase who is starting to lose grip on reality.”
Oh, so he’s allowed to feely sympathy for the plight of urban blacks, but not to have an opinion on how those problems might be remedied? :rolleyes:
I’m curious as to your opinion of the Moynihan report. **
“No problems”? No, of course not. But marginalizing leaders like Jackson and Sharpton would sure as hell be a step in the right direction.
FWIW, I’ve never heard Jackson/Sharpton critics, including O’Reilly, suggest that pushing them aside would be some kind of silver bullet that would slay all the problems facing blacks in this country. Your characterization of O’Reilly’s position is misleading.
Bullshit. If O’Reilly just said that comment and it went unchallenged you could make a guess at him implying this. You would still be wrong. However, since they did discuss this here:
O’Reilly clearly doesn’t say what you are claiming that he said. He specifically states he is talking about where black people are better off living today. Not the history of the past 300 years. Just today.
You claimed that Bill O’Reilly said **"O’Reilly also once said that black people should be grateful for slavery **because they’re better off now than they would be if they were still in Africa "
He did not say this. You are a liar.
Don’t try to bring up Iraq to change the subject. The word “Iraq” doesn’t even appear in the transcript once.
Who said this? Strawman.
The same processes which created the chattel slave system in the Americas contributed to the decay of conditions in Africa. European exploitation of the continent crated both problems. Without the slave trade, Africa would not be in the condition it’s in today, so it’s nonsense to say that African Americans need be grateful that they are Americans.
My problem with O’Reilly vis-a-vis “black leadership” is not that he critcizes black leaders but that he passes moral judgement on those who follow them.
And Dewey, as I said before, i’m drawing a distiction between simple compassion and a call for holistic social change, and O’Reilly’s moralistic “bootstraps” admonitions to blacks which relieves white America of any responsibility for urban social conditions. No, he doesn’t offer ignoring Jackson/Sharpton as a silver bullet, explicitly, but he doesn’t offer anything else either. He certainly doesn’t advocate any legislative support. He takes the same tact with homeless people, it’s their fault they’re homeless. Us decent people bear no responsibility whatever.
I was (clumsily) trying to explain the context of the original statement. O’Reilly was lamenting in a previous show the fact that polls were showing that most black Americans did not support the war. O’Reilly said that this made them bad Americans and gratuitously asserted that they should be happy that they weren’t still in Africa. Spong came on the show to confront those remarks.
I don’t believe you.
You lied before when you said that O’Reilly made a statement about blacks being grateful for slavery. I think this is just another lie.
Of course, if you can come up with a cite showing O’Reilly saying that blacks are bad Americans than I will happily accept it.