O'Reilly to viewer: "Your so-called compassion helped kill those children" in Bronx fire
On the March 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly responded to an email from a viewer complaining about his statement the previous day that the victims of a March 7 fire in the Bronx in which one adult and eight children were killed "may be illegal aliens" by stating: "Your so-called compassion helped kill those kids." He later added: "It's people like you, [viewer], who promote that kind of chaos in the name of compassion, who look the other way while poor workers and children are exploited by greedy landlords and businesses because you don't like the immigration laws."
Later in the program, Fox News host Geraldo Rivera chastised O'Reilly, claiming that "to make the connection between illegal immigration and that horrific fire in the Bronx two days ago is an injustice to the victims of that fire."
On both March 8 and March 9, O'Reilly complained that New York City policies regarding illegal immigrants made it impossible to determine if the fire victims were illegal immigrants because New York "is a sanctuary city." According to a March 2004 Congressional Research Service report titled "Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement," which lists New York among "[c]ities and counties currently that have sanctuary policies," "Most cities that are considered sanctuary cities have adopted a 'don't ask-don't tell' policy where they don't require their employees, including law enforcement officers, to report to federal officials aliens who may be illegally present in the country."
From the March 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, a new tactic by the pro-amnesty, open-border crowd: using children to demand sanctuary for illegal aliens.
In New York City, eight children were killed last night after a fire broke out in the Bronx. Twenty-two people were living in just two apartments, 17 of them children.
Those involved are from the West African nation of Mali and may be illegal aliens. The city of New York is a sanctuary city and does not give out that information.
Four New York City firefighters were hurt trying to save people in the blaze.
From the March 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: And then there is that terrible fire here in New York City, where eight children were killed, children of parents born in Mali, West Africa. Because New York is a sanctuary city that protects illegal aliens, The Factor cannot confirm whether or not all these children were in the USA legally.
What we can confirm is that 17 children were living in a rowhouse, along with five adults, that one of the men in the house had two wives -- one upstairs, one downstairs -- and that living conditions were chaotic and dangerous.
After our report last night, I received this letter from [viewer] in Houston. "O'Reilly, it was despicable to hear you question the status of those children. I was a big fan of yours but I'll never watch you again and urge others who feel compassion for immigrants not to watch you as well."
OK, [viewer], but here's the no-spin truth, so listen up. Your so-called compassion helped kill those children. They should have never been in that circumstance. If the authorities had investigated as they should have, those kids might be alive right now, legal or not.
It is against the law to overcrowd a dwelling. It is against the law to have two wives. If any one of those people were here illegally, that is another infraction. But New York City looks the other way. It doesn't want to know.
It is people like you, [viewer], who promote that kind of chaos in the name of compassion, who look the other way while poor workers and children are exploited by greedy landlords and businesses because you don't like the immigration laws.
Yeah, it's great to be compassionate sitting at home watching the tube. But for decades, our government has allowed people from all over the world to walk in here without supervision. That's why these children are dead -- because their chaotic situation was ignored by New York City authorities.
[...]
O'REILLY: I'm basically saying that we must get this situation of illegal immigration under control. The chaos is killing children. Go.
RIVERA: I think to draw -- to make the connection between illegal immigration and that horrific fire in the Bronx two days ago is an injustice to the victims of that fire. Why did they die?
There's no code violations that they found. There were no required, you know -- everything in the building so far --
O'REILLY: Twenty-two people in the house.
RIVERA: There were two batteries missing in the fire alarm.
O'REILLY: Twenty-two people in a house.
RIVERA: But, Bill, the status of the immigration is not relevant.
My legal nanny has children in school with three of those victims. It is the human cause. And if you --
O'REILLY: This is what you missed. I'm going to give you the last word. But this is what you missed. This is a sanctuary city. That means the authorities do not ask any questions about anybody's status or anybody's condition.
RIVERA: Bill, they're dead children, for God's sake, they're dead children.
O'REILLY: If they had been American children --
RIVERA: They'd still be dead children. It would still be heartbreaking.
O'REILLY: No, the authorities would have gone in and checked them out.
RIVERA: No, please. That's not so.
O'REILLY: Yes, it is.
RIVERA: You don't know that to be a fact.
O'REILLY: Yes, I do.
RIVERA: You don't --
O'REILLY: You know it is.
RIVERA: -- there are little babies dead. There are people -- mothers throwing babies out the window. They're dying. Falling onto the -- you've got to be compassionate, brother. You've got to be compassionate.
O'REILLY: Twenty-two people in a rowhouse. They don't let people do that.
RIVERA: You gotta take a step back and say, "Wait a second, this isn't about illegal immigration. This is about the human cost of a terrible tragedy."
O'REILLY: This is about a system --
RIVERA: Those firemen were crying. They were crying because the babies died.
O'REILLY: Four of the firemen were almost killed.
RIVERA: That's right.
O'REILLY: And that situation never should have existed. Never.
RIVERA: Please, I've covered poverty in this country for 35 years. I've seen legal poor people living under conditions far more squalid than that. That was a working family at a good school. You've gotta divorce their status from their victimization.
O'REILLY: They have to be supervised. And they weren't.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I don't think it was illegal or improper for that many members of the SAME family to live in one house. Most jurisdictions do not have any regulation regarding numbers when it involves family members. There are regulations in the case of unrelated persons, and this is another matter. O'Reilly blows hard again.
I have to hand it to Geraldo. His reaction to Bill-O's latest insane rant was smart, and rational.
I also have to hand it to Mr. Rivera for having the restraint not to reach across the table and smack O'Reilly, whom I am seriously beginning to think is wading into senility.
The man is out of his mind.
What a waste of flesh. This man is a disgrace.
Heaven forbid he lose any of his family members to a fire. How dare he turn this into a political issue. I never thought I would be more disgusted by the man than I already am.
This is despicable even by O'Reilly's standards. He's shamelessly exploiting the deaths of 10 children in order to serve his own (completely unrelated) agenda. It will come as no surprise if we learn that Mamadou Soumare and Moussa Magassa are legal immigrants. And it will also come as no surprise when O'Reilly refuses to apologize.
Correct. Shameless self-promotion of O'Reilly's already spurious arguments.
Or, is this just more right-wing sarcasm? I get confused...
And of course it turns out that they were legal immigrants. The New York Times actually did what a responsible journalist is supposed to do. I'm sure it just took a phone call, but O'Reilly can't let anything as trivial as ethics and journalistic integrity get in the way of his evil rantings. From the Times:
"For many here [the family compound in Mali], the shock was heightened because Malians like Mamadou Soumare and his wife were considered among the most fortunate. They were the ones who had managed to get American visas, whose children were American citizens. They had escaped a life of toil and low pay in Mali, one of the poorest countries in the world."
I think you missed his point entirely. He did not say they died because they were illegals. He said they died because they lived in dangerous conditions. Can you deny that the conditions were dangerous for 17 children to live in? If you've got 17 children living in one home, there is a failure somewhere. Whether they are or are not legal doesn't even matter, they were living in dangerous conditions and the "compassionate" ones are the ones who allow it to happen. Shame on all of you who missed his entire point! Shame on all of you who promote living conditions like that!
Who on this thread is promoting unsafe living conditions you knuckle dragger. YOu done some very selective reading at the very least.
What was his whole diatribe about Illegal immigration then?
O'REILLY: If they had been American children --
RIVERA: They'd still be dead children. It would still be heartbreaking.
O'REILLY: No, the authorities would have gone in and checked them out.
They were American children and they were not checked out.
O'REILLY: I'm basically saying that we must get this situation of illegal immigration under control. The chaos is killing children.This tragedy had nothing to do with illegal immigration!
Shame on you for cherry picking, shame on you for being an apologist for this douchebag.
" OK, [viewer], but here's the no-spin truth, so listen up. Your so-called compassion helped kill those children. They should have never been in that circumstance. If the authorities had investigated as they should have, those kids might be alive right now, legal or not.
It is against the law to overcrowd a dwelling. It is against the law to have two wives. If any one of those people were here illegally, that is another infraction. But New York City looks the other way. It doesn't want to know. "
Shame on you for "cherry picking" your reading and skipping over this statement. The CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES!! What part of that do you NOT understand? By argueing they can be allowed to live in those circumstances, you are doing what you claim you are not. You are the compassionate one who BOR aimed his diatribe at, and it hit a bulls-eye, didn't it? Your compassion just got children killed and you lash out at those who bring the danger of that compassion to light. OVERCROWDING is illegal. If the home was not overcrowded, the children would not have died, is what BOR is saying.
What part don't you understand you moron, Of course i wish they had been in better circumstances, but none the less they weren't and until you point to any indication of what part of their living conditions was illegal you don't have a pot to p!ss in.
You still have not explained what any of this has to do with their immigration status and what grounds he had for bringing it up.
Please qoute me where I said that their living conditions were acceptable.
If you feel we should outlaw poverty, why are you a chicken---- nutjub neocon (sane republicans excluded)?
Your issue seems to be that these people were poor. It is a tragaedy what happened, space heaters are dangerous, overcrowding is dangerous, no fire alarms are dangerous and the adults should have taken better precautions.
None the less show some compassion you spineless apologist. o'reily was dead wrong to bring there immigration status into question and should rightly be called on it. People like you make me sick.
What compassion killed those kids? When has compassion killed anyone? How dare you!
What grounds did the authorites have to investigate this families homes? Do you want the police popping in on your family to make sure you don't have an overcrowded home. If they were here legally there is nothing the authorites could have done unless the family had been reported to social services or broken any laws.
" Your issue seems to be that these people were poor. "
NO, that is your excuse for argueing on the subject.
" It is a tragaedy what happened, space heaters are dangerous, overcrowding is dangerous, no fire alarms are dangerous and the adults should have taken better precautions. "
Now, we get to the meat of the subject. Being the compassionate person you so very eloquantly exhibit, which of those do YOU approve of?? Are you so blind that you make my arguement for me, then call me a moron for thinking it? Next time don't use my arguement to complain about my arguement. You just want to blame BOR for something (anything) and let the dangers you just listed be ignored. Let the parents off the hook for putting their kids in that situation, let the city off the hook for allowing it to be possible and let the compassionate ones off the hook because they SCREWED up with their stupid ideals and now have to blame someone else. Personal accountability...you don't even know what the words mean, do you? Blame everyone but the people at fault. Now, you blame me for telling you that you are one of those who created the conditions that allow this to happen. Well, thank you for being so compassionate! I'm sure all the children living 17 deep in single family homes just love that you allow them to live in the dangerous conditions you just listed because they can blame BOR for getting them killed when disaster happens.
I'm confused. Since when is having a lot of children a crime? Since when does the size of ones family determine whether they're deserving of our compassion? In the neighborhood where I grew up a family with more than ten children was not uncommon.
In fact three of my best friends came from families with thirteen children in each family. There were families nearby with fifteen children. My parents had a larger than average sized family with only seven children but they were closer to average than you'd think.
We all lived in crowded conditions. Our families were working class, Catholic families. Are you condemning them too or is it just the families with darker complexions that are to be held accountable?
My thoughts exactly. O'Reilly and his defenders are bending over backwards in order to find some reason--any reason--to blame the victims here. The much larger point that they are missing is that even if the whole family were illegal and squatting in a closet in an abandoned building, O'Reilly's attempts to exploit the deaths of these children in order to push their political agendas would still be completely reprehensible.
I say kick them ALL out, and JAIL all that employ Illegals. It is like driving without a valid license. If you had NOT been on the road at the time of the accident, you would not be invloved. If these children had NOT been here illegaly, they may not have died such a horrible death. Yes, compassion for the act of illegals is stupid. Compassion for the human they are, understood. But the have broke the law, and I have no compassion for their sad sad storries.
Yes, we know.
Mighty Christian of you there.
I dare hope that nobody that you love dies in a horrible building fire.
I am not Christian. And I did say that they dies a horrible death. I do not find their deaths funny.
Maybe you should be a Christian.....at least you would have somekind of direction.
Who are you talking about, you raving idiot? They were LEGAL immigrants. From the New York Times:
"For many here [the family compound in Mali], the shock was heightened because Malians like Mamadou Soumare and his wife were considered among the most fortunate. They were the ones who had managed to get American visas, whose children were American citizens. They had escaped a life of toil and low pay in Mali, one of the poorest countries in the world."
I hope you don't expect a reply.
Compassion for the human they are, understood. But the have broke the law, and I have no compassion for their sad sad storries.
You gotta help me out with that one. Are you saying you understand compassion, but you have none, toward these victims? Let's set aside the immigration debate for just a second - I am just trying to see if you think the crime of illegal migration trumps human compassion.
Evil,
I understand, and share, your fervor to protect our borders and crack down on illegal aliens and those that benefit off of them......but this O'Reilly tirade is pure conjecture on his part. He rightly criticizes the sanctuary city policy that certain cities have, but to relate this horrible tragedy to that is nonexistant. You, nor he, can assume these people were here illegally - and if they were here legally there is nothing to say that NY authorities could have prevented this fire and the loss of life.
I understand Tommy, to a point.
You forgot to add that this piece is "silly".
Maybe we should burn them all. Would that make you and the kernal happy, Evil?
Don't you have any compassion or empathy for any person who is here illegally?
Not that these families were here illegally.
Yes I do have compassion. For those that are slaved by company owners, those that are trucked over here against their will. But none, what so ever for those that steal SS#'s, use the achor baby law to stay in the usa, then suck wealfare, those that are in jail for breaking more laws then just coming over, those that EXPECT amnesty because this is THEIR land, and for that association called, "The Race"...... You imagine if there was a White Group called, "The Race"? You libs would have a heart attack.
Evil, what does any of that have to do with the deaths of legal Malian immigrants?
I'll try to answer.
Nothing?
Hey Evil...
Could you please site any factual evidence that illegals " suck welfare" from America? Just show me some numbers.
"Compassion for the human they are, understood. But the have broke the law, and I have no compassion for their sad sad storries."
No compassion for anyone who breaks the law? I hope you're not a Judge because in the American judicial system justice and compassion are not mutually exclusive.
BTW, do you believe Scooter Libby should be pardoned? He broke the law. Any compassion for Scooter Libby?
"BTW, do you believe Scooter Libby should be pardoned? He broke the law. Any compassion for Scooter Libby?"
Hell F'ing no.
I guess Evil is the only one in the crowd "who cast the first stone". Remember " Let thee cast the first stone who has not sin among you". Evil must be a saint.
" BTW, do you believe Scooter Libby should be pardoned? He broke the law. Any compassion for Scooter Libby? "
Why not? The government is trying to figure a way to give 12 million illegal immagrants amnesty after breaking the law, why not him? Heck, we might as well not pay taxes and expect amnesty. I'll bet if 12 million people decided not to pay taxes that the government would bend over backwards trying to get us amnesty, don't you??
Diatribe from another right wing robot. Egg on face now, they were legal.
In any event, doesn't matter even if the were illegal, we're talking dead children. Bad taste to make a right wing crusade out of it. But I guess bad taste is O'Reilly's MO.
Excellent point, I'm going to take what you said and combine it with Bill's logic. I am currently driving without a valid license (expired on my birthday). If for whatever reason I am involved in an accident and someone or myself is injured, I should sue the state. After all, I'm legal so shouldn't the authorities have came in and checked me out by now and stopped me from driving.
credit where it's due-good for geraldo.he didn't back down at all.
o'reilly is an unbelievably viscious man!
the bile in his response to the veiwer is breathtaking!
I have to say, as much as Horrendo Revolver is a pain in the ass when he talks about Keith Olberman or anyone else who makes fun of him, his reports about the kids suffering after Katrina were wrenching. Nobody can do melodrama quite like Geraldo when "the babies" are involved, and good on him...
Agree with Clams on this one. Never heard Bill go off on the useless killing of children living in their own country and being victims of an occupation. Iraq. What is the difference between those children and these children? Did they get "in the way"? Bill, you have reached an all-time low but I am quite sure that you will outdo yourself to continue your "down spin" into hell.
Fire safety as a gateway to immigration policy. Only Bill-Doh could blend two totally unrelated subjects into a bully pulpit for political pomposity.
Randy
that is true, if those kids didnt come here illegally they'd be alive today.this further proves illegal immigration is UNSAFE and kids shouldnt be put at risk (if an adult wants to take the risk that's up to them)
1) the trip crossing is dangerous
2) if youre poor you end up living in dangerous conditions like this
3) theyre lives can get ruined as they grow up
Col,
Many legal immigrants and citizens live in conditions similar to this - their immigration status is unrelated to this tragedy. I can't for the life of me figure out how O'Reilly got there?
And THAT is BOR's point. They should NOT be living in dangerous conditions like that. Tommy, are you saying that since other people live in the same conditions that means it is ok? It sounds like all of you are saying the same thing. That it's ok to let 22 people live in one home with no safety equipment available. Very compassionate of you all to say it's OK to put children in danger like that!
"And THAT is BOR's point. They should NOT be living in dangerous conditions like that. Tommy, are you saying that since other people live in the same conditions that means it is ok? It sounds like all of you are saying the same thing. That it's ok to let 22 people live in one home with no safety equipment available. Very compassionate of you all to say it's OK to put children in danger like that!"
Wrong again you nitwit. NO one is saying that this article was posted to highlight BO's ignorance by implying that the family was here illegally. If that was his point he should have stayed in that realm, but he didn't. When Geraldo chastised him he should have fallen back , but he didn't because he is an arrogant pr!ck.
Reading comprehension is your friend try it out sometime.
I just replied to your first inacurate reply. Test your reading comprehension.
I see you may be related to others on this site, all you do is call people hateful, derogatory names.
NO one is saying that this article was posted to highlight BO's ignorance by implying that the family was here illegally. If that was his point he should have stayed in that realm, but he didn't. When Geraldo chastised him he should have fallen back , but he didn't because he is an arrogant pr!ck.
Is that easier? I underlined the text and set it to bold.
You seem to have still missed Bill mistake in this whole situation.
auto,
I'm sorry but you are the biggest idiot currently on MMFA. You seem to always defend the cons with the same BS argument, "you liberals don't get the real point, that (blank) was making."
Well unlike you, we can read and/or listen to people and understand what they are saying.
"O'REILLY: And then there is that terrible fire here in New York City, where eight children were killed, children of parents born in Mali, West Africa. Because New York is a sanctuary city that protects illegal aliens, The Factor cannot confirm whether or not all these children were in the USA legally.
What we can confirm is that 17 children were living in a rowhouse, along with five adults, that one of the men in the house had two wives -- one upstairs, one downstairs -- and that living conditions were chaotic and dangerous."
"O'REILLY: I'm basically saying that we must get this situation of illegal immigration under control. The chaos is killing children. Go."
While O'Reilly does talk about the living conditions a couple of times that was not his main point. Basically it comes down to
A. The number of times you mention the subject within a speach.
B. When you say "I'm basically saying" (thats usually a good clue to the subject being covered.)
So while he mentions the living conditions, that is not what he is talking about. I don't use this a lot, but in this case it fits. You are a troll, go find another bridge to live under.
Unless you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation (or I feel like engaging in discussion with a troll) I'm done with you, go back to freerepublic or whatever GOP hole you climbed out of.
They were LEGAL immigrants, you self-righteous blowhard.
More so, since the "Colonel" was talking about the kids, the kids were citizens of this country. CITIZENS.
They weren't illegal you Dip****!
What proof do you have to the contrary?
Why, how dare you ask the 'Col' for proof! He is way to busy sitting on the veranda sipping his burbon and branch and dreaming of his granddaddy's days of whipping the darkies and raping their women.
Tell us, Colonel Genius, why do some put themselves at such great risk to reach America?
Often it's because living in their own country puts them at an even greater risk.
That would be like saying someone you knew, or someone you loved perished in a house fire. Then you could say that they wouldn't have died if they hadn't purchased or rented that certain house. Your logic, is, well, illogical.
And in this case, wrong, as they were LEGAL immigrants.
Well you are obviously spectacularly WRONG since they DIDNT come here illegally and they are NOT alive. I dont really see how you could have been MORE wrong.
So what did cause the fire? Faulty wiring? Or smoking in bed? If this was another fine example of poor conditions created by a negligent landlord, where is the right wing outrage then? Maybe they were the landlords?
I heard the fire was started by an overloaded circuit because they had a space heater on a power strip. Could have been as simple as somebody had the wrong size fuse in the fuse box. Also, they had pulled the batteries out of the smoke detector, a real common problem. MAYBE the landlord was negligent, but perhaps not.
It's a shame that whatever the real factor was it will be buried under a mountain of rhetoric and spin now thanks to O'Reilly.
I've heard that one household member ran a business (African American Import Export) out of the house. I hate to think that the overloaded circuitry was caused by one of the adults trying to make a buck at the expense of safety. Something like that might "be buried under a mountain of rhetoric and spin" from the compassionate ones who blame BOR for this tragedy.
O'Reilly has hit rock boottom...
A person (O'Reilly) could not sink much lower than when next to him, in comparison, Geraldo Rivera comes across as the decent and rational human being of the two.
O'Reilly and his apologists in these comments highlight what is probably the most dangerous aspect of the modern American hard-Right - ideology trumps humanity. Human suffering - be it in Iraq, New Orleans, or a tenement in the Bronx - fails to move them if it brings their ideology into question.
Absolutly. Your comment is insightful and absolutly spot on.
Whatever happened to 'give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses"? That doesn't go anymore in this post-9/11 world? To support O'Reilly's statements here is just an excuse to hate on immigrants. Period.
In the words of Lou Reed, "Give me your hungry, your tired, your poor, I'll piss on 'em. That's what the Statue of Bigotry says. Your poor huddled masses, let's club 'em to death and get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard."
Nice one Clams, I was going to post the same line.
that should be 'on the dirty boulevard'...big fan.
I believe the GOP has been lobbying to get that changed to, "Give us your cash, your bribes, your overseas investors yearning to impact our foreign policy decisions."
that explains why Haliburton is moving their corporate offices to dubai.
I thought it was the weather.
I hear it's beautiful in Dubai this time of year.
at least our tax money will be put to good use putting the corporate heads up at that swank $1000 a minute hotel they have.
Actually, at least we will know where it's gone instead of having a few billion dollars do a Kizer Sose.
I salute Geraldo for pointing out the obvious to the idiot O'Reilly and the dipsticks who are taking his side; there are legal Americans who are poor and living in equally squalid conditions. Their immigration status is IRRELEVANT in this case.
Compassionate Conservatism is exposed once again as an empty campaign slogan.
To these cons, poor American and poor imigrant are basically the same thing.
I suppose we can be thankful that O'Reilly isn't a firefighter. O'Reilly: 'Before I go in to save your children, mam, you need to prove you're here legally.'
I'm thinking most firefighters would take offense at O'Reilly's comment. I've never heard of a firefighter, policeman or paramedic refusing to help a fellow human in need because they were of the wrong "class".
On a semi-related subject, if any Helliburton employees dies because of their Hq move to the Middle East should we mourn for them. COL. JERK, do you agree that it is their own fault, just like the non-military deaths in IRAQ....if they didn't go there, they wouldn't have died. This is by far the dumbest logic I have ever read on this thought.
Didn't understand your point here, but suffice to say that when we have (what looks like) a longterm policy of no additional exploration and development of oil resources in this country, companies such as Halliburton and many others will locate in areas where they have more prospects for work.
G'bye payrolls, tax base, etc. Wonder why?
I say good bye government contracts for hellburton as well.
They don't need the gov't contracts. Somebody (maybe your employer) will take the contracts. Who do you suggest?
I think the cons are regrouping. After their initial tirade regarding this family being "illegals" was shown to be completely barren of both decency and basic truth, they'll try to find another angle to prop up O'Reilly. Be prepared.
Maybe they'll drag out that old saw about welfare creating poverty.
They can try, but: "That was a working family at a good school." Doesn't sound like a welfare case to be.
But wait...haven't you heard? According to troglodtyes like Rush Limbaugh, there are no "working poor".
Yes and all minimum wage jobs are held by kids in high school!
Or poverty causing crime...
Let's not forget where that same ilk has been pushing the (howbeit faulty) illogic suggesting where dependency upon State welfare leads to "tolerance for Communistic, Socialistic or otherwise un-American ideologies" among the Lower Classes, howbeit without substantiation.
And, consistent with the prevailing conservative fondness for doublethink, implying that free-market capitalism with American characteristics, once granted "complete and final regulatory relief," is the Great White Hope as will "save the Lower Classes from themselves" and "promote a New Golden Age of empowerment, self-reliance, personal responsibility and thrift."
Unfortunately, that gospel is only through the warped Arcadia known as rose-coloured glasses that conservative Zealots and True Believers unswevingly accept as hard-wired doctrine. They should consider seeing things through beer goggles to understand Reality.
Would it be a crime for a family member of the deceased to just go up and slap this commentator? ( don't know how to make the letters smaller because this man is small.)
You can count on the fact that o'reilly would not have the courage or human decency to face the parents.
Yeah, remember how he jumped all over the son of one of the World Trade Center victims because he didn't like his politics?
Hey, that's unfair. Bill-doh obviously knew what the guest's father thought better than the guest did.
Are you sure that wasn't Ward Churchill, Nertzog?
Had this been a working class family in the midwest with 5 kids and taking care of there ederly parents, fox would be singing an entirely different tune.
Conservative Motto:
"If they look, smell, talk, walk, believe, or act different from us they deserve our contempt."
I wonder if Mr. O'Reilly will backpeddle now that it is out that they were he LEGALLY. I won't hold my breath.
What a bitter man...
What's even more astounding is that O'Reilly poured more fuel on the fire by responding to a viewer's criticism contained in an e-mail that would have otherwise remained confidential... and then he attacked that viewer as well. What a bizarre, bitter man...
It is getting very echoey in here. I guess the truth scared away our conservative friends...
Yeah, kinda funny, facts appeared and they ran away...gosh what a surprise!
No,
We're here, just listening and marveling at your ability to generalize about everybody who isn't of YOUR mindset being in lockstep with O'Reilly.
Does your kind of thinking, generalizing, and name-calling (several of you) truly represent Progressives?
In any case..
It is entertaining in the extreme to come into this Liberal moshpit and spend some time.
Haven't had this much fun since my last Ted Nugent concert.
Lemoc,
Do you ever make comments when people are actually posting or do you wait until a day later so no one can respond to you?
Val wait another hour or 15 posts (whichever comes last) and the cons will be back on. They have to regroup and rethink their strategy.
it will be either:
1. ignore the fact that these people were legal immigrants/not read any of the posts before, and follow that with the exact same BS they posted before.
or
2. Attack us "liberals" because we don't get some hidden joke or message only they can see (they are probably re-watching the show 2 or 3 times to try to find secret clues, like a odd blink, or word, to "prove" their point.)
How can someone who just three short months ago ranted and raved about how the forces of evil were at war with his religious beliefs and it's sacred holidays, justify this outburst with the core beliefs of his church?
If I've ever seen evil, this is it. Pure, unadulterated, evil.
Don't forget for O'Reilly and his followers, this was also a Muslim family. I'm sure that played into his head as well although he didn't say it.
What it all boils down to is that this was a tragic accident, and it's ultimately incredibly sad for the family members who survived to have their loved ones killed in such a tragic way. I'm still not sure how Bill O' took a turn to politics town to go from tragic death, to illegal immigration and politics. I wonder if he'll make an apology tonight on the 'no spin zone'. Not going to hold my breath of course.
Better yet, do you think his pal Oprah will call him on this?
Oprah will never call O'Reilly out because she enjoys the fact that he sucks up to her. When he went on her show he did nothing but stroke her ego and gave her titles such as "the most powerful woman in America". Even on his show he praises her and says she's so noble to this great country.
Oprah basks and feeds off such lionizations, so regardless of the outrageous statements by O'Reilly and others of his ilk, she'll never chastise him over them because she enjoys having her ego stroke.
Thats it, you got it. They were obviously terrorists and God struck them down in a preemptive strike. On Planet Wingnut that passes for logic.
Now why is this a surprise from the guy who savaged the kidnapped Shawn Hornsbeck so much he was barred from speaking from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children?
Yeah.. way to go Bill.
"I wonder if he'll make an apology tonight on the 'no spin zone'."
Ha! Yea, right... that's gonna happen.
However, don't be surprised if O'Reilly blames the "lunatic left" for dishonestly attacking him again as his comments were clealry motivated out of concern for these poor chilfren whose deaths can be attributed to liberal policies. Watch for it...
Wow, just when I thought O'Reilly couldn't stoop lower than his comments about Shawn Hornbeck "enjoyed staying with his kidnapper because he has a lip ring" a few months ago, this is by far O'Reilly's low point. How ANYONE can defend these comments are beyond me.
Rivera can be an over-the-top journalist at times, but when it comes to covering about the poor – notably Katrina victims – he's pretty astute with his reportage. I applaud him for setting O'Reilly straight and debunking him on this issue.
Whatever your thoughts are on immigration, children don't walk over the border alone, whether they are legal or illegal. When a fire is burning someone, it is beyond cruel for O'Reilly to stand on his high horse and condemn them the way he has.
You're partly right, miti. Sometimes they hop on trains in Central America, Mexico, etc., head to "El Norte" and walk across the border alone. Sometimes they're smuggled across by coyotes for a fee of several thousand dollars and dropped off by themselves. California spends more than $70,000,000 per year sheltering, feeding, educating and providing medical care for these teenaged invaders who come to the US alone and are caught by immigration officials. When it's determined who their lousy excuses for "parents" are, they're sent back to their home country or are sent to legal relatives in the US. America...what a country.
Bill-O just can't seen to keep his big mouth shut. This was tragedy and what does this idiot knows about poverty. Bill-O has no compassion.
OReilly is just plain disgusting.
Even though, Geraldo can be over the top sometime, I am glad he put O'JERKO in his place.
O'ReillySlime
He's got to get off the air already. How can anyone sponsor his radio or Faux show with such cruel commentary? Of course his initial premise is wrong, and of course he didn't bother to take the time to find out if the victims of this horrific tragedy were here legally or illegally. Though common sense would dictate ( you'd think) that it is kind of ridiculous to think folks from Mali walked over our borders.
And anyone who knows anything about immigration form Africa, knows the incredible process and red tape that's involved and how few make it here, even from refugee camps since 9-11.
That said, O'Reilly is beyond idiotic and I'm beyond angry. It gets difficult to express the level of contempt I have for this creature.
He who claims hes' a "champion of children" though his hyprocricy has been exposed many times here- has the gall to blame NYC immigration sanctuary status on the children dying...
I actually saw the Rivera- O'Reilly exchange channel surfing while KO was on vacation last week. I though Geraldo was literally going to explode. I was hoping he'd deck the b*&^%$#. He was that angry.
And of course as you can see slime critter did get the last word. I hope Geraldo refuses to be on his show again, though that seems unlikely as he's sold his own soul to the Faux devil.
It was interesting to see someone with some ounce of true caring and compassion have to sit across from BO and deal with his crud.
For someone who also took on the pseudo "war on Christmas" I can say with certainty there is nothing c"hristian" or Catholic in O'Reilly.
Only Jesus could forgive him, because I certainly cannot. And you know I think Jesus might have a hard time with the whols firgiving thing in his case as well.
I think the cons are regrouping. After their initial tirade regarding this family being "illegals" was shown to be completely barren of both decency and basic truth, they'll try to find another angle to prop up O'Reilly. Be prepared.
-----------------
O'Reilly will ignore his own comments or, like in the case of Shawn Hornbeck, completely lie and transfer blame - in his TPM he accused others of jumping to conclusions about Stockholm Syndrome when he and his staff knew it was the children's version and he conveniently left that out during his rant.
Notice this rant regarding the fire happened on the same night he was to speak at the Missing and Exploited Children's conference. Obviously he was upset coming into work, probably threw coffee in the face of a subordinate temp.
This d--khead won't change, won't go away, he was voted #2 as most trusted news personalities in a recent Gallup poll. All one can hope is that one day, on his deathbed, he'll realize that he's a disingenuous scoundrel that has held his audience in contempt for years. I'm hoping someone whoops him in an alley before that, but that's just me.
Strange immigrants, dirt poor, living in horrible conditions with their strange languages, customs, and foods. Procreating like Bunny rabbit. Soiling the name of this country. Kick them out!
Its a good thing for Bill-o, that no one in charge of policy listened to the above the first two times it were said, or he would never have been born an American (if born at all with the poverty in Ireland being what it was).
I am amazed by the hypocrisies of people like him who are the products of immigrants, not too Farly displaced from these people in how they were perceived and the ways in which they lived.
Mr. o'reilly is one generation removed from an outhouse.....Too bad we can't track his ancestors to see if any were "illegal"..if so, the whole clan should be sent back.
Con defense for Bill: "Nobody understood what he meant during his tirade and those evil doers at MMFA can't take a joke."
Bill-oh doesn't seem to do the "can't take a joke" defense. Instead, he'll just rant about some "left wing smear site" that is trashing his good name.
"I am amazed by the hypocrisies of people like him who are the products of immigrants"
Like the most vile of them all, Michelle Malkin. I would give a pinky finger to see Malkin work a year picking grapes for $2.50 an hour, 12 hours on/12 off, starting at 5 am each morning.
I'm not necessarily a fan of ongoing illegal immigration but those here, that work harder in one month than O'Reilly and Malkin worked combined in their lifetimes, deserve amnesty and even respect for, if no other decent reason, working their as-es off that has resulted in low prices at the market.
Jeremy,
Isn't Malkin an "anchor baby" herself? Her parents were here on work visas when she was born, making her automatically a US citizen when they were not. If what Malkin would like to see - that is some amendment to the born citizenship status provided in the Constitution - were in effect in 1970, Malkin would have had to "return" to the Phillipines with her parents when their visa ended.
Under the conditions of work visas then and now, the grant to dependent family members is just an extension of legal residence and not liable to the conditions of the visa itself.
I am surprised to say this but...
I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH SOMETHING GERALDO RIVIERA SAID!
At least O'Reilly addresses his critics, unlike Olbermann (or as MMFA thinks of him: Ubermensch)
Address your critcs????
Simply live well and laugh at them.
O'Reilly doesn't address his critics. He attacks them. He sure as hell doesn't respond to the assertions made by his critics. And when proved wrong, he ignores what he himself said and tars the person or people who pointed out he was wrong.
If Olbermann had any substantive criticism about his work to respond to, he'd undoubtedly do a far better job.
Is there no end to BillO's stupidity? Seriously, can anyone on the planet be dumber?
BillO - listen up - you need to go back and do some puff pieces. On serious matters you are way out of your league and simply have no clue.
At least O'Reilly addresses his critics, unlike Olbermann (or as MMFA thinks of him: Ubermensch)
What? Did you get your names reversed? Assuming you didn't, I've heard Joe Scarborough call O'Reilly out numerous times in the past couple months. O'Reilly acts like it's not happening. Why? Cause when someone that's not a DINO paid Foxnews contributor shill responds to O'Reilly's BS O'Reilly shrivels like the coward he is.
I'm currently watching BOR attack this family again, who were here legally.
BRAVO!.......BRAVO!........BRAVO!
A fine morality play. Rivera plays the goody so well. And well O'Reilly, we are so conditioned already, he could hardly disappoint as the bady. I just wish Murdoch would join the fun ala Vince McMahon.
Another Gold for BillOrally in the Worst person in the world race!!! Hooo-rah!
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/12/88046.aspx
How many of the greedy landlords and employers who hire illegal aliens are Republicans?
The pertinent question is WHO ultimately benefits from the cheap labor.
That would be YOU, the consumer. As greedy as anybody else.
After I got over my shock at hearing Geraldo Rivera be the voice of reason I remembered something I read just today.
I'm not a religious person but I often look up quoted verse for reference and am constantly amazed at the number of things I find in the bible that seem to go against the thinking of Mr. "War on Christmas" and the rest of his right-wing-Christian politicos. I happened to look up such a quote today and found this gem in the same chapter. I only wish I could have been able to quote this to Bill while he was ranting:
"You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt. I, the LORD, am your God." - Leviticus 19:34
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/leviticus/leviticus19.htm
I'm not religious but I think there is wisdom that can be found in all religious texts; and I think that verse is one such bit of wisdom.
WOW! I never thought I would like Geraldo Rivera. GO RIVERA!!
What I find amazing is Bill's rant against the sanctuary status of NYC. He basically says that if the police had looked into this possible illegal family lives could have been saved. But unknowingly Bill proved once again why these large cities are set up this way. Bigoted people like Bill O jump to the wrong conclusion. With so many legal immigrants in these cities they should not have to endure the constant barrage of questions from authorities regarding their status. In Bill's world anyone that looked or sounded different would be made to carry their papers to prove citizenship. I will do all I can not to let that happen.
I generally never agree with O'Reilly, but i think he may have a point. Unregulated poverty, which at times is related to immigration, often does create the ecological conditions for unintended harm.
Two points:
1) Bill-O wasn't talking about poverty, he was accusing these people wrongfully of being illegal immigrants.
2) Are you seriously suggesting that working families who are not on any kind of government subsidy be subject to regular inspections by the nanny state just because they don't make enough money per capita in the household to keep the government happy? There's no good reason to do that, and it would likely be stricken down with a lawsuit based on unreasonable search & seizure.
Look, I realize that as Americans we've grown to the point where we only have 1-2 kids on average per married household, and we've alienated ourselves to the point where we have "families" of 1-3 people taking up hundreds of square feet of living space, but just about all of us come from ancestors who had 5-10 kids per couple and lived in tight-knit groups, often in the same household, because it was economically advantageous and allowed for the sharing of tasks between the adults and children to keep the household running well. There is nothing wrong with this, and there's no good reason to regulate familial groups of this sort with government interference.
yeah. i guess you're right about families being disrcriminated against and being subject to unfair search and seizure. However, don't you think that it's a problem when families are pact in appartments that tight. Rooms in the Bronx can't be that spacious. As far as immigration goes, I'm all for helping your fellow man, but illegals don't have a given right to be there. If the community suffers dilapidation from overcrowding, don't you find that to be unacceptable. It is this kind of dilapdation that often leads to fires, and if there were less of them in the house, perhaps a smaller amount of tenants would be easier to save.
Thanks for wading through the hysteria and finally getting to the essentials here, Wolf--how can this kind of tragedy be avoided in the future.
BLR--"nothing wrong with large families". Try that one on Planned Parenthood.
You have a point, but these conditions persist regardless of immigration issues.
When all is said and done this tragedy had nothing to do with illegal immigrants.
P.S. Thanks for a different opinion that at least displays some form sanity.
Wolf says: don't you think that it's a problem when families are pact in appartments that tight.
I think it's a problem when people refuse to mow their lawns before it gets knee-high, but it's not my business and perhaps there are issues at play there that aren't readily apparent to short-sighted strangers and overly-critical neighbors.
Wolf says: ...If the community suffers dilapidation from overcrowding, don't you find that to be unacceptable. It is this kind of dilapdation that often leads to fires.
A community's aesthetic quality declines when city services and zoning regulations aren't enforced, I live in NY and I know for a fact there's no difference between the more desirable area of Park Slope and Bushwick (both in Brooklyn) except for city services and zoning enforcement laws. The residents are equally hardworking and deserving of the city services their tax dollars are supposed to pay for. However, with a more "colorful" population comes a definite reduction in city services like sending in street cleaners, providing trash cans on the corners, enforcing regulations that require property owners to maintain vacant property, etc. The diliapidation you're so concerned about is brought on by a myriad of factors, the last of which needs to be considered is the residents who just happen to be less wealthy than others.
Wolf says: if there were less of them in the house, perhaps a smaller amount of tenants would be easier to save.
Perhaps if people in California didn't buy homes in areas where there are brush fires it would be easier for the firefighters to put out the fires. I say that to say it's ridiculous to suggest that a family with dependent children shouldn't live together under one roof because there are too many of them. As others have pointed out, large families in areas that aren't considered urban live under one roof all the time and no one would dare imply that they shouldn't all be together.
Where do you think children from large families should live if their parents can't afford a brownstone all to themselves (keeping in mind 1) once a child is here the argument that the parents shouldn't have had so many is moot and 2) that even making a better than average salary a single family brownstone is a rarity.)?
I agree. Once families are living in tight spaces, there's really nothing you can do. I agree. The problem is with poverty, and there are practical solutions. I agree. Delapidation and social decay are brought about by a myriad of factors. All said and done, I guess you're right. All that I'm saying, and forgive me if I contradict myself, is this: overcrowding causes less safe, and particularly less desirable living conditions. This is certainly related to poverty, and to a certain degree, (although I'm not sure how much) poverty is linked to uninvited immigration. That being said, I do think that O'Reilly is saying a bit too much, as these types of fires can be caused by many mishaps with the element of illegal immigration... or without it.
Obviously Bill-O-hard is no longer a human with a beating heart. Hatred has not only made him cruel, but stupid as well.These were children, babies, who lost their lives. Humans, innocent humans, who laughed and played. Not criminals. Not degenerates. With all the tax cuts, and both war budgets, the Federal Government has cut the budgets of local Police and Fire departments, therefore wether they were legal or illegal, makes no difference AT ALL. The people set to protect us have seen their jobs and time cut down over the years this administration has been in office. So even if there was a law that said the Police or Fire Marshall had to visit every apartment that had more than 6 people residing there, their would not be the budget, or the manpower, to do the job.Next thing you know Bill-O-hard will be blaming the 101 year old lady who left her apartment to go to church on Sunday, and praising the mugger who beat her up.
Just think about how all that money spent in Iraq could help poverty here in the United States. As for immigrants, if an immigrant wants to work in the United States I don't see what the problem is. Bill O'Reilly needs to put his white-sheet back over his head and pray his Irish ancestor's were lucky enough to immigrate into America.
Is it any wonder that Bill O'Reilly's comments in this vein and essentially giving aid and comfort to racists, white supremacists and anti-abortionists acting as an ur-United Front?
(There is always that possibility, folks.)
That, and the prospect that such could be fodder for the bigot element to call for poor, undereducated and easily-influenced "white trash" to "do their [racial] duty" and "make more babies" (after John Gibson) just to maintain a base of power for the likes of:
Which, in reality, seeks to only perpetuate deliberate ignorance and poverty under the guise of "defending [American] soverignty and soverign identity antient and pecuilar."
Am I on to something?
I think that Bill is wrong to attempt to tie illegal immigration to the death of these children. I just don't see the logic behind his reasoning as anything but making a political point (a point that I disagree with). However, I think it’s kind of funny that many of the libs on this board are calling him heartless and yet he gives more money to charity than any of them(I'd bet my pay check on it). Anything purchased from his horrid website, and he makes a donation to help support our troops, to the red cross, and to the Gates foundation. My point being, spewing hate at him makes you just as bad as O'Rielly manipulating the story to make a political point. Just state that the man is wrong and move on, name calling isn't neccessary.
"However, I think it’s kind of funny that many of the libs on this board are calling him heartless and yet he gives more money to charity than any of them(I'd bet my pay check on it)."
Wow. Bill-O makes a comment like this and you still find a reason to hate on those darn libs! There's some topical yoga going on in your brain, isn't there?
By the way, I can't speak for the rest of the lefties here, but I can assure you that Bilbo probably donates more to charity in a year that I actually earn in a year, so it's really not hard at ALL for him to donate more than I do, considering he's a well-paid celebrity and I'm struggling to reach that dream called "middle class America."
Florence,
When you point out hatred, it's just...well, hateful of you to do that, and I hated to point that hate out to you, you hateful hate hater.
Therefore, any facts you present
So I should ignore the hate in order to avoid being hateful? Right, great logic in that suggestion(I think Neville Chamberlain took that advice and well you know how that turned out). Calling someone out isn't hateful, its just correcting them on their mistake. Isn't that the point of Mediamatters? They correct misconceptions, and do so in a civilized manner. I'm just suggesting that some people act in the same manner.
As for the chairity remark, my point being the relative amount of money donanted to total income is an effective way to measure how "heartless" someone may or may not be. So using the "he makes more money than me" argument is useless. The relative percentage would give an accurate reading and allow two people of different incomes to be compared in a non bias manner.
So what percentage does he actually donate? I'm curious, please let me know or are you just taking a guess at it?
Well I can't give an exact number because I don't know, but when his Culture Warrior book came out last year, all of the profit was donated to support our troops. During xmas, he would match the amount of purchases(from his pocket) and donate the sum to charity. So I would think that would add up. Bottom line, I don't like the guy, and I disagree with his politics, but I respect the fact that he gives back.
Here is a link to his Charities list:
http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/billsfavorites/billscharities.jsp
Florence,
Was just kidding you about "hate"--everyone's favorite accusation around here, to the point of absurdity.
Actually thought your points were excellent.
Surely you jest, Lemoc. Hatred on MMFA??? No!!! None of that goes on here in this bastion of truth, light and "open-mindedness"...
BO has way more money than me so maybe he easily donates more than I can afford to donate, besides how do you know how much money anyone on this forum donates.
If does Darth Vader get a pass on being a prick because he also runs and animal shelter on the side?
Do you give B. Clinton a pass on his past indiscretions due to all of his charitble efforts?
I'm curious about how conservatives posting here would propose to solve the problem of poverty-stricken families living in squalid conditions. That seems to be the thrust of your support of O'Reilly's coments, right?
I mean, the family in question doesn't seem to have been here illegally (making the "illegal immigration" portion of Bill's rant even more absurd than usual). So Lemoc, Mwolfson and others have made great efforts to point out that the REAL problem is people living in conditions that shouldn't be allowed -- overcrowding, dilapidated tenements...
So, what do you propose as a solution?
Surely the dreaded "welfare state" isn't an option, nor really any kind of meaningful assistance, right? After all, that would only discourage these people from struggling to make their own lives better.
Do you support some form of added law enforecement? And new laws specifically geared to limit how many children families might have living in one space. or regulating how much space they are allowed to rent?
I'm just curious.
I hope you don't expect a coherent answer.
I don't understand. They would have been checked out on what basis? Does O'Reilly think that local police forces who don't have the policy of not communicating immigration status to the Feds go door to door looking for illegal aliens???
Prior to this fire, what WAS the issue to be checked out? Housing crowding? That's a building issue, not an immigration issue. Overcrowding deemed dangerous is still dangerous regardless of immigration status of residence. He supposedly had two wives? Again a state statute that really requires a complain from someone. How is it connected to either overcrowding or immigration status?
Are there RW's here who are attempting to translate Dildo speak? I haven't read the comments yet. I guess I'll find out.
Little help people. i am in an arguemtn where the following point is made. is it accurate?
This is what happens when people take their "facts" from sites that snip and clip and doctor quotes. O'Reilly opened by talking about a tactic used by immigration activisits. He next gave a summary report on the fire that had just occured. Then he went to his main story: a report out of Boston that immigration activists are complaining about detaining children brought over illegally by their parents. That was what the segment was all about, not the fire that was just given as a news update. But of course the spin doctors stop the quote after the few sentences regarding the fire.
IN FACT, the TRANCRIPT shows that when he got into the story of the Boston detentions and laid out the lawsuits and objections that were being filed, O'Reilly stated "THAT is the tactic". He went OUT OF HIS WAY to specifically state that the tactic he referenced was: objecting to detaining illegals with their children. Not anything to do with the fire. He couldn't have been clearer. Of course, it's only clear when you know the truth, and not the snippets that people like Olbermahn cherry pick.
How on earth did O'Reilly make Geraldo look like a sane and reasonable man?
I hate Bill O'Reilly. But every so often he is correct. Wrong topic I know but his putting down Tony Perkins for Perkins agreement with Gen. Pace's rotten comments tonight is fairly....noble.