You can take what you hear and stick it where you shit.
Here’s the transcript from the Fox News website.
Ok, it was "coyotes, " not “mules.” It’s irrelevant to me. Even if it was a brainfart it says something about how he thinks. Racial slurs don’t just come flying out of my mouth by accident. I never forget the word for “crack dealer” and say “nigger” instead. Fuck him. Even if was an accident, he still didn’t seem to know that he had used an offensive word.
Who exactly decides what the official racial slurs are? I gave an example of Chavez using the term to apply to specific Mexicans. Anyway, when did Mexican become a race?
What do you mean by “race?” Race is an ethnic, socio-political term not a biological one. Mexicans and other Hispanics are routinely referred to as “mud people” by Stormfront types. Is it incorrect to call that term racist.
The Chavez example is kind of specious too, since you can always find members of any ethnic group who will use their own slurs. I would also say that the intent is important. The immigrants in question are three dimensional human beings. They are families. They are desparate. It is dehumanizing and impersonal to dismiss them as "wetbacks.
How about ethnic slur then? Non-official of course. Kinda like faggot isn’t used as a sexuality slur anymore, especially by newscasters or commentators.
How 'bout them Redskins.
After reading this thread, and other threads and articles about Bill O’Reilly, it really seems like all he does is trade in spectacle. So I would have to think he would secretly (or maybe not so secretly) relish being eviscerated in a mass irate mailing telling him what an asshole he is.
It’s doubtful the man’s going to become enlightened by angry missives, and all the letters will do is contribute to him getting a raise for being so “controversial”.
Why not just ignore him. Even if ignoring him doesn’t get him off the airwaves, at least it will minimize his perceived power.
There are plenty of valid targets in the world for one’s disdain. This one doesn’t seem worth the effort or likely to change anything.
He should have said ---- The extremely recent undocumented workers from Mexico and undocumented Mexican worker transport person. But it easier to say wetback which means fresh over the border. When I moved me from New Jersey to Texas they called me Yankee even the extremely recent undocumented workers from Mexico called me that. So should I demand victim status and a free lawyer?
He should have said ---- The extremely recent undocumented workers from Mexico and undocumented Mexican worker transport person. But it easier to say wetback which means fresh over the border. When I moved me from New Jersey to Texas they called me Yankee even the extremely recent undocumented workers from Mexico called me that. So should I demand victim status and a free lawyer?
When is Bill O’Reilly going to be kicked off T.V like when the Grease-man was kicked off of Radio.
Did anyone happen to notice what Bill O’Reilly had to say tonight? :dubious:
Lets forget he said “wetback”…after all that word can mean different things in different settings. Living on or near the Mexican border for much of my life, the word has many nuances. I doubt if O’Reilly appreciates those nuances, or even thought clearly about the use of that word. I suppose if he said “illegals” some people would have taken offense. Perhaps using a phrase like “undocumented migrant”, while unoffensive, just doesn’t roll of the tongue that easily.
The real issue, to me, is Bill O’Reilly’s one dimensional view of the issue of immigration or migration. There is more to it than Mexicans (and many other nationalities) “sneaking across the border”. What about Tyson foods and all the smaller non-name companies that gladly hire (or exploit) them. Where I live, a lot of middle class people hire casual workers to do their yards, do housecleaning, and other things…without making much of a fuss over the worker’s status. That has been a part of life here for decades, and probably will be until as long as there are less developed nations in this hemisphere. People are going to cross whether Bill O’Reilly likes it or not.
Meanwhile perfectly able bodied American citizen transients will come down here to escape the cold of the north; but never consider performing such “stoop labor”, preferring to panhandle instead.
This is exactly right. O’Reilly uses the demagoguic tactic of identifying border crossers as “invader” who need to be confronted with military force. Not only is this ignorant and insensitive on a human rights level, (not mention ignorant of Posse Comitatus) it is hypocritical in that he blames the most powerless people involved for America’s insatiable demand for drugs and cheap labor.
Back in the 1950s, the US government had an official program called “Operation Wetback”. It was a sweep of illegal aliens, and the Feds deported millions of them.
So yes, I guess the term was once considered acceptable when refering to illegal aliens.
Wetback is a valid term for a border swimmer.
Get over it.
Yep, it looks like the context is what I suspected. He had a brain fart. He was trying to dredge up the “slang” word for the guys who help the immigrants get over the border illegally, and came up with the wrong one. And he corrected himself almost immediately.
I think this puts a whole different light on the whole thing. It seems obvious that I he was mainly trying to slam the “coyotes”—the creeps who take advantage of the people trying to get across the border, sometimes leaving them to die. O’Reilly has focused on them before, and I believe a lot of his ire is directed at them, because they clearly victimize these impoverished people who so desperately want to get across the border. They want to get across so bad, that they’ll put up with the abuse that these “coyotes” dish out, (including, so I hear, rape and death).
Not that it makes O’Reilly a saint—I often think he’s an arrogant blowhard. Sometimes he’s OK, sometimes he’s not. I think his fame is getting to him and he’s getting more and more arrogant and that’s a shame.
But I will say again—he had a brain fart and he was not deliberately calling all Mexicans “wetbacks”. His dumb brain fart made him use a completely inappropriate word, though, and he needs to clear that up for everyone.
In context, it certainly is not irrelevant to me. He was meaning to insult the creeps who take advantage of the people trying to get across the border. That was the only context of his statement.
Like I said before, he’s no saint, but I think you are stretching a little bit here. He was looking for a negative word, a “slur”, in other words, and he came up with the wrong slur. And I will say right here, I’ve done the same thing. I doubt I’m the first.
If you want to point out some substantive asshole and jerk things O’Reilly has done, I know that there is plenty of evidence of that out there. But I think the case here is weak. In your OP, you didn’t even get the context of his statement right!
Racial slurs don’t slip out by accident unless they’re already part of your vocabulary. He did not apologize for the garbage that came out of his mouth or acknowledge that it was garbage. I think the context is irrelevant.
I also think that is extremely disingenuous for O’Reilly to feign concern for the “victims” of coyotes on the one hand and then to call for the military to shoot them on the other hand. The totality of what I have heard from this shit-weasel over the years when he rants and screams and bitches about Mexico is so over the top and obsessive (similar to his festering fixation on Jesse Jackson) that I can’t help but think he’s got some kind of problem with brown people.
:rolleyes: Oh really? You know that for a fact? I have uttered words that I have heard others say over and over. They slip out. (I remember one time calling “flip flop” shoes “Jap Flaps”, because I was constantly hearing other people say it. It was a brain fart.) Also bear in mind, he was intending to use a “bad word”. (“Coyote”.) He’s old fart so he got the wrong “bad word”. This is not the same as uttering the term “wetback” when discussing all Mexican Americans. Find me a cite where he does that, and you’ve got something. (And I’m not all that doubtful that you can find a cite. I don’t think he’s a saint.)
I remember this part. He seemed to falter and pause for a moment after he made the mistake (at least it looked to me) and then he pushed on. I think he made a judgment call. Hoping, I suppose, that most of us would understand the context, and figure out what he meant. I remember being a bit shocked, but then I figured out his “brain fart” thing and let it go. I think it would be appropriate that he bring it up in his next show and clarify what happened, though.
It is irrelevant because you want it to be irrelevant. Your whole OP was based on an incorrect quote, after all. You despise O’Reilly and want to see evil in all he utters. And I say, there is plenty of legitimate stuff to slam him on—this is pretty weak.
Where is he advocating him shooting anyone crossing the border? I am not saying you are incorrect in this, it’s just that I have never heard him suggest this. Cite, please?
I don’t know. I think he is concerned about the problem with illegal immigration. This concern has heightened after 9/11. He feels like no one else is addressing the situation. And a “porous border” not only lets Mexicans in, but also potential terrorists. Frankly, that scares me.
He’s not the only one who has a problem with Jesse Jackson. Many people believe that Jackson has earned some of the ire he now gets, and O’Reilly isn’t the only one who is targeting him. (Remember the book “Shakedown”?)
I’m confused by your post. You rationalize illegal immigration by bringing up the old “Americans won’t do these jobs” argument but then accuse Tyson et al. of exploitation. So is it right or wrong for illegal immigrants to work in the U.S.? If it’s exploitation, then the illegals are victims, but my common sense tells me that people don’t brave the elements and dodge the Border Patrol because they want to be victimized. They’re coming because life in the U.S. is a pretty good deal.
The existence of a less-developed nation next door to a more-developed nation does not make illegal immigration inevitable. For instance, Mexico protects its border with Guatemala aggressively - seems they don’t like Central American Indians coming across. In fact, when one looks at the brown and angular facial features of the typical new Mexican immigrant in comparison with the rounded and white facial features of the typical Mexican soap opera star or politician, one might conclude that Mexico has a race relations problem that it is trying to solve by exporting those it considers undesirable to the U.S.
**
Meanwhile perfectly able bodied American citizen transients will come down here to escape the cold of the north; but never consider performing such “stoop labor”, preferring to panhandle instead. **
If you don’t like bums, you can choose not to give them money. In contrast, you have no choice but to give money to illegal immigrants. Your taxes pay to educate their kids, give them health care, subsidize their college tuition, and may soon be heading south of the border to pay Social Security benefits to Mexicans who illegally worked in the U.S. But the illegals pay taxes too! you protest. Not many of them do (day laborers usually get paid in cash), and of those who do, they are almost exclusively in the lower end of the income range, where less is paid in taxes than received in services.