O'Reilly opposes "clustering" of not only gays -- but Mexicans, too
During the July 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that "despite the heated rhetoric" regarding immigration, "most Americans ... don't want to hurt any poor Mexican people. ... [T]hey want to know who they are. They want to know where they are, what they're doing. They don't want them clustering in neighborhoods and changing the tempo of the whole neighborhood."
As Media Matters for America documented, O'Reilly has previously expressed concern over the "clustering" of gays and lesbians in public places. On the July 11 edition of his program, while discussing a gay pride event hosted by the San Diego Padres at Petco Park, O'Reilly argued that it is "insane" to "cluster" gay men and lesbians during a "hat giveaway for any kid under 12." O'Reilly claimed that the problem with the event was "focusing in and putting more homosexuals into an area." On July 12, O'Reilly responded to a viewer email pointing out that "kids are around gays every day" by stating, "But not thousands of them, sir. That can be confusing to children."
Just as O'Reilly did not explain how many gay people a child can be around without becoming "confus[ed]," he did not clarify how many Mexicans it takes to "chang[e] the tempo of the whole neighborhood."
From the July 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: The only reason the federal government would allow a situation to descend into the chaos that it's in is because big business profits from it. And the economy profits from it. And they look the other way.
But, you know, look, I think most Americans, despite the heated rhetoric on this issue, most people watching us right now, Mr. Bermudez, don't want to hurt any poor Mexican people. They don't want to hurt them.
You know, they want to know who they are. They want to know where they are, what they're doing. They don't want them clustering in neighborhoods and changing the tempo of the whole neighborhood. They don't want certainly crimes being committed by people here illegally. That can't happen. That's got to be zero tolerance there.
But most Americans are open to immigration. It's just the matter that we want to do it in an orderly fashion, in an orderly way. You don't disagree with that, do you?
ELIAS BERMUDEZ (Immigrants Without Borders founder and CEO): Not at all, sir.
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
Guaranteed that Keith" Media Matters for America" Olbermann will name O'Reilly Worst Person in the World tonight after this one.
Sueeld, I would agree with you and go one step closer. Tommorow on MMFA we will see the following headline .
"Olberman names O"Reilly Worst Person in the World for saying Mexicans should be clustered"
And the merry-go round continues.
I would also agree with you, KO will make these story number 2 on the "Countdown".
Yeah Number 2 on the Countdown and then Worst Person in the World. We may even get another segment tonight on why Fox Noise is so bad, yet he still worships Fox property like "Family Guy" and the "Simpsons". Strange man.
Let's all chant the GOP Freeper Mantra:
"Why is this here?"
"Why is this here?"
"Why is this here?"
Now, what was the topic? I forgot...
I think it is here becuase O'Reilly is a horrible person, right?
Exactly, I guess we all need to be clear.
O'Reilly is a horrible person and a liar and a hater.
Read O'Reilly's book Those Who Tresspass: A Novel of Murder for Television, the get back to me. Thanks.
I read the book and thought it was Garbage. Also hateful.
i see jlyons has made his/her reappearance. claims to be a supporter of mmfa, but sure has a load of criticism to dish out. i guess a lot of people have forgotten it but when the abc 9-11 "docudrama" was set to be aired, jlyons wondered why david brock and george soros were "desperate" to stop it.
check it out. second page of comments. under name of "jlyon". but same m.o., "i am a big supporter of mmfa", followed by criticism.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609100001?offset=20&show=1#comments
What if anything does your post have to do with the topic? Why are you discussing ABC and September of 2006? Or are you trying to alter the discussion?
The topic was already "altered". Here's JLyons first comment on this thread. Please remember what the subject is.
"Sueeld, I would agree with you and go one step closer. Tommorow on MMFA we will see the following headline .
"Olberman names O"Reilly Worst Person in the World for saying Mexicans should be clustered"
And the merry-go round continues."
His comment has nothing to do with the post that MMfA made. When and if Keith Olbermann comments on this and then MMfA covers it, then that would be an appropriate comment. If JLyons has an issue with Media Matters covering Olbermann WPITW stories, then JLyons should complain to MMfA itself. Instead of doing that, she made a post that has nothing to do with this subject. Complaining about how MMfA often repeats what Olbermann covers has nothing to do with this subject,
Sue/Ellie/notthatgeorge
The topic was discussed, O'Reilly and his horrible comments and how a media figure who has discussed them in the past may or may not discuss them in the future. Why that is a problem is beyond me.
.
I agree Casey, the topic was discussed , we all agree O'Reillys comments were horrible but discussing how they would be interpeted by another member of the media is on topic. Shame on mefirst , and nomobush for being dictators .
Casey and Sue, beg both your pardons, but the topic was NOT discussed at the time Sue and JLyons made their comments, which are first and second on the thread(how could the topic be discussed if the first two comments are off-topic?), so you're both wrong. THAT'S the problem.
Pete as I stated earlier, I do not see this as being an issue, if we are subjected to only discussing the topic and not the results of the topic that means I have to stop discussing this horrible war , since the topics really have to do with the coverage of the war not the war. I of course do not feel that posters should be limited to only exactly what is the topic but the topic and its relation to other events and media types.
Overall it is an attempt to prevent other views or opinions. It is wrong and we should all speak out against it.
And as I stated before, Doris, side topics are okay, but if the same poster keeps bringing up the same unrelated topic in almost every thread, it gets old, boring, annoying, and irrelevant. And if I can't point that out, you're doing the same thing to me that you accuse me of doing.
i think my post and link to the 9-11 movie were pretty clear, even for those who like to pretend they don't understand. jlyons is a troll who pretends to be a supporter of mmfa, but is always throwing potshots and innuendo. for instance, the comment about wondering why brock and soros were "desperate" to stop the 9-11 movie, as if to suggest there was some truth to it. just my opinion, but when a pattern repeats itself....
Your opinion is noted however irrelevant to the topic. If you want to smear a fellow poster why not do it on the smear fellow poster thread?
and your reason for starting in with all the off topic sue/ellie stuff was what?
and the reason you are smearing JLyons by bring up something that JLyon said is what? Two different people, unless you have proof?
you do understand the word troll? someone who is here to disrupt and deflect while pretending to be someone else. it's just rather curious that you jlyons and sueeld are all in on the sue/ellie/notthatgeorge kick. i just pointed out what jlyons has actually said. why are you so upset over that? any reason?
why are you so obsessed with jlyons?
why are you?
you can have the last word. this is silly.
Should I assume from your silence on the topic at hand that you agree with with BOR comments?
Absoultely not. However its old news, this hater has been saying this for years. I get it O'Reilly is a racist and homophobic. Do we all get it?
We also "get it" about what you think about this Olberman-MMFA thing...but that doesn't seem to stop you either. Wheeeeeeee...
Point is, Sue, he's not just the crazy old man who lives down the block who you tell your kids to stay away from. He has a successful show on cable, and a not very successful radio show. Racism and bigotry shouldn't have corporate sponsorship.
I agree , but please explain to me where I can not comment on how another member of the MSM will report this by using MFMA materia and getting MMFA promotions?
Sueeld
I think the reality is there are posters on here that if you dare to even remotely mention Keith Olbermann in this context you are attacked as a supporter of O'Reilly, a conservative, a racist. There is only black and white when it comes to O'Reilly either you have to hate him and must follow the Olbermann line or you will be excomunicated. Nice isnt it?
I take issue when individuals come to this site and keep harping on other "side" issues without acknowledging the topic at hand.
Is it that hard for you to acknowledge that before you start in on your Keith O fixation? I don't watch or care for KO, but that really isn't the point of this is it?
BOR is constantly brining up divisive issues and framing them in a way that make it impossible to have a constructive dialog on serious issues that need to be addressed.
MHK the point however is that it is related because MMFA is always stating how Olbermann names O'Reilly Worst Person in the World for a story that appeared on MMFA. If you do not see the relationship then you are not being honest.
CS - I'm not being honest? I think you're having reading comprehension issues.
"I take issue when individuals come to this site and keep harping on other "side" issues without acknowledging the topic at hand."
BOR being a bigot and the MMFA/KO love fest isn't what this item is about. If your going to waste bandwidth at least acknowledge BOR comments before you run off on your tangent.
Comprende?
I comprehende but stand by my statements. MMFA opened the door to the relationship.
i think he is saying its irrelevant to the topic and to be honest its gotten very boring
But tommorow it will have its own thread, we can just combine them and MMFA can have an UPDATED story instead of forming a new thread.
To all those who find this topic "boring" and "unnecessary" feel free to not post.
I know i;m done after this post. :)
Hansome, I'm done with the Keith/Sueeld/Jlyons business. :-)
I second that
I third it ;-)
Aw, I can't leave it alone. For your pleasure, here is Bill getting a taste of his own medicine!
I know I read that this morning. Too funny!
Snoopy, it's not Friday but this does call for a drink ;)
Hmm...personal attacks instead of the issues.
I'll drink to that!
Good god. Why is this so difficult. Call the cops and tell them that there is a guy pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to click on articles that are boring and redundant or just admit that your purpose is to be boring and redundant. sheesh!
I do not see it being irrelvant, considering MMFA always reports on how Olbermann has named BO the WPITW.
If this was a topic about Olberman's award, you'd at least have a relevant point. Heck, if Olberman had covered this, then at least you'd have half a point. However, it isn't and he hasn't - not yet anyway. With all of the attention this prediction is getting, it seems to be more an attempt to distract than anything else.
What is the distraction, we all agree O'Reilly is horrible?
Says the person who had the first post that mentions nothing but Olbermann.
Get over your fixation, Sue.
Handsome, the only fixation is that you feel I can only discuss O'Reilly and not how another member of the media will react to this story based on the past. That is sad that you do not support freedom of expression.
You brought up Olbermann, unsolicited, in a thread that made no mention of him. The fixation is yours.
And I never said you can't express yourself (Example? evidence?), but not all "expression" is healthy, and yours is getting old.
So we are not allowed to ever discuss another media figure inside a thread unless the story is about that figure? Is that right? Is that the rule?
So no evidence, then?
Side topics are okay, but this one's been argued to death, and I'm not even a frequent poster here. I can only imagine the "Sueeld-Olbermann-obsession" fatigue that's set in with some of the regulars.
I am just reading from the start and I am so confused as to why there seems to be outrage that Olbermann has been mentioned . It is very much on topic as he makes Oreilly an important part of his daily show.
No, it's not on topic.
it is on topic.
So any thread whatsoever relating to Bill O'Reilly also has to do with Keith Olbermann?
Sure, they both share a timeslot and have a personal feud.
I didn't know Olbermann mocking O'Reilly because of the incredibly stupid crap he says constitutes a feud.
The media reports it is a feud. O'Reilly has a section on his site to bring Phil Donahue back, i am not sure what you want to call it.
Going for the troll label on this topic?
Weak response. When you are unable to debate you resort to troll labeling. Nice
Just becuase one has a different view than us on subjects does not make them a troll.
I appreciate the difference between someone with a differing opinion and a troll. This isn't about a differing opinion; it is about an irrelevant one.
Calling these posters trolls, is weak . They have been posting for awhile.
First, "they?" Sueld is more than one person?
Second, how long someone has been posting doesn't preclude someone from engaging in trollish behavior. On this topic, Sueld seems to be angling that direction. Don't generalize my comments beyond that.
Calling me a troll is a distraction to get away from the topic.
Damn...and I thought for a moment I had you believing Olberman was the topic.
:}
Casey what does Keith have to do with the article? Where in this topic does it mention Keith? Like the sun rising the next day you can be assured that Sueeld will bring Keith into the conversation, topic or off topic.
Jlyons,
That’s a really funny statement coming from you since both you and Sueeld only have the “I hate Keith” down to an art form. Neither of you say Keith is OK but I hate his “Worst Person in the World” segment, you simply “hate” Keith. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
I do not hate anyone, being critical of ones segments does not equal hating someone. Thanks for the lie about me. I will not expect an apology.
No it's obvious you don't hate him. He's more like your Cialis. Only now you're premature, and bringing him up before MMFA even mentions him.
Start your own website if you don't like how MMFA conducts their business, We'll all take time not to visit it.
Please be specific in finding where I ever said I did not like the way MMFA runs this website. I will be waiting for specifics. In the meantime if you do not want to discuss how the media reports on O'Reilly that is fine. I do and some posters on here feel it is releveant.
Sueeld, I would agree with you and go one step closer. Tommorow on MMFA we will see the following headline .
"Olberman names O"Reilly Worst Person in the World for saying Mexicans should be clustered"
And the merry-go round continues. - JLyons
Not exactly complimentary, unless you're a merry-go-round entrepreneur, eh?
JLyons never mentioned that she hates Olbermann.
Thank you Doris, that is correct. I never said i hate olbermann or anyone.
Doris and JLyons, those two comments are great, except for:
1) They have nothing to do with the comment they respond to.
2) I actually didn't say JLyons hated Olbermann, but I do think she's obsessed, not quite as much as Sue, to be fair.
3) Mefirst actually provided an even better example of JlYons having a problem with how MMFA runs the website, re: the 9-11 movie. (thank you MF), which was what I was talking about.
pete, you're correct. these are people who are not who they seem to be. see my post on first page.
You are being very unfair and judgemental to JLyons. You are accusing Jlyons of being JLyons. I could go out tommorow and create a username called mefirsts and say things and go back and blame mefirst for it. If you do not want posters to be critical of Olbermann and only be critical of O'Reilly, just say so. Stop trying to smear others for your own political views.
"There is only black and white when it comes to O'Reilly either you have to hate him and must follow the Olbermann line or you will be excommunicated. Nice isn't it?"
Why do you read the articles here? And post? What is your point?
Olbermann is relentless is pointing out the absurdity of Faux News and O'Reiilley. But he doesn't make it up. They utter the material.
How do you know where and when he gets his information?
Do you think his staff might moniter Faux News?
There's a thought...
And so what if Media matters chooses to also highlight the absurd bias and misinformation of O'Reilley. This is why they are here.
If you and Suefield don't get it. Then why bother posting? Why waste your time here?
It's frustrating to see the same posts over and over again, that seem to miss the point of the article to start.
What do you disagree with on MM posting O'Reilley's comments on Mexicans "gathering""
And so what if KO uses O'Reilley's own words to point out what biased, racist, creep he is.
So don't watch Countdown.
Are you upset that KO has an audience?
I just don't get your points...
Wethepeople, I will try to respond
Why do you read the articles here? And post? What is your point? - I Support MMFA and the mission and hope we can have a nice discussion that stays above the hate and immaturity we see in the media world today.
Olbermann is relentless is pointing out the absurdity of Faux News and O'Reiilley. But he doesn't make it up. They utter the material.
Correct , not sure your point? I do know MMFA says something at times and Olbermann repeats it. More power to him
How do you know where and when he gets his information?
Again I would hope he gets it from MMFA , then we would agree it is correct, correct?
Do you think his staff might moniter Faux News?
I hope so
There's a thought...
And so what if Media matters chooses to also highlight the absurd bias and misinformation of O'Reilley. This is why they are here.
I never said it was absurd, are you trying to start a fight that is not here?
If you and Suefield don't get it. Then why bother posting? Why waste your time here?
So I am not allowed to post about what the reaction to this story will be?
It's frustrating to see the same posts over and over again, that seem to miss the point of the article to start.
I get the point of the article . Bill is a blowhard racist, we all get it i hope. Are we not allowed to expand on how the media will react to this story?
What do you disagree with on MM posting O'Reilley's comments on Mexicans "gathering""
There is nothing to disagree with, he said it plain and simple. Again are we not allowed to expand the topic on how a member of the MSM will react?
And so what if KO uses O'Reilley's own words to point out what biased, racist, creep he is.
There is no problem, who said there was?
So don't watch Countdown. Why? I like the stories on Countdown, what should I watch? Paula Zahn?
Are you upset that KO has an audience? Why would I be upset?
I just don't get your points...
I am not sure I got your point either, sorry.
According to Keitl Olbermann he is not successful, losing an audience and only old people watch him. So why should we care what O'Reilly says if most people watching him are old and dying?
So you believe everything he says? I know, he's Viagra for the soul, isn't he?
Just admit it, you're totally gay for him.
Well I am a women , so I did not realize Keith was a women too. ;-)
You can still be totally gay for him. ;)
Absoultely not. However its old news, this hater has been saying this for years. I get it O'Reilly is a racist and homophobic. Do we all get it? SueEld
So, we're the problem for mentioning that he's doing this?
That's the same thing that Bay Buchanan said last night on Hannity and Colmes. That's the same thing that the "why is this here" crowd repeats over and over again.
What worked for the Republicans was repeating the lies over and over again until people believed that it was the truth.
Why should people and groups on the left not be able to repeat the truth over and over again until people believe that it's the truth? Why is that a bad thing, Sue?
Sue /Ellie you tell us, or NotthatGeorge or whatever your name is today. You are the expert on this subject.
Jlyons, it appear that his/her name is Nomobush not Sue/Ellie. Not too difficult is it?
They are on again with this crap about Sue/Ellie/Notthatgeorge again. It's pathetic, especially when they don't want to answer the post. I say Sueld, Jlyons and Taz are the same person. All hyperventilaters who add nothing to the conversation. Just MO
I am not Taz or JLyons. Sorry to disapoint. I do like your poems though.
I'm only disappointed because you all sound exactly the same. But of course I beleive you ;)
jlyons seems to operate under the same sue/ellie assumptions as "evilrepublicansnow".
Most of the liberal posters on this site are experts on the "why is this here" crowd.
This is the latest tactic by those on the right. They claim that the problem is us reporting on or commenting on this topic rather than the actual conservative information we're commenting on. Bay Buchanan did it last night on national TV, and we have posters who do it every day on this site.
Like Julia said, you make accusations and bring up strawmen arguments when you can't or won't address the subject at hand.
I have not read one poster ask why this is here. Where is that post, I missed it?I think we all agree O'Reilly is a very bad person and needs to be exposed. Please find one poster on here who feels this story should not be exposed, then I will debate them.
The term "Strawman" is back. I remember the days when Ellie used to say that all the time.
Does O'Reilly make Strawman comments? I think he does , correct?
Where have you been? The term "strawman" is used on this forum by many posters on a regular basis? Sheesh.
Ive been around along time Julia, and was abused by Ellie , that strawman term was her favorite. Of couse I know it is still around, there is no reason to be sarcastic. Sheesh.
You're the one abusing Nomobush now. Just sayin'.
I do not see how asking a question is abuse, there were no attacks no labels like the word "Numbskull" or "Sockpuppet".
Often the bullied become the bully. By pouncing on a poster that you may think is whatshername, you are engaging in the same treatment. Like it or not, sister, you are now the bully. But of course, please have the last word if you wish.
Julia, with all due respect I am not sure you were a witness and a victim of the hate that person performed on posters like me. I am not saying this current person is that, but the notthatgeorge targeted me with venom and would not stop. Stopping these people from gaining credibility is important in a debate forum like this.
Ive been around along time Julia, and was abused by Ellie , that strawman term was her favorite. Jlyons
Juliajayne we are back to the Ellie bs. Jlyons, you were not abused, you have a choice to respond or not to respond. Sometimes while posting things get heated, and some (myself included) say things in the heat of the moment. Stop the drama about abuse. When you get a response that you don’t like or makes you feel uncomfortable, DON’T RESPOND!
Notthatgeorge: Perhaps Bay Buchanan is a "numbskull"?
I would say most assuredly that Bay is a numbskull.
I second that one.
If you don't agree with Bill, and you think what he said was wrong, why not just say that instead of flaming the thread? THAT, is why it is here.
So we are all supposed to just say Bill is being a racist again? And not comment on the effect a story like this has on MSM reporting? Ok fine
Bill is being a racist again. I wish he would get off the air soon.
"Guaranteed that Keith" Media Matters for America" Olbermann will name O'Reilly Worst Person in the World tonight after this one. "
So what?
Will you repeat "So What" tommorow when MMFA has that as a headline promoting Olbermann? P
Yes, I will. Hold me to it.
I will Pete
We were correct but also had the wrong date, Olbermann named BO the worst person in the world last night Thursday. I wonder if we will be allowed to discuss Olbermann later ?
It'll only hurt a little...
Hell, BO, let's inject 'em all with an electronic tracer - you know, like we did with our cats.
That'll keep 'em from "clustering", right?
I doubt it. Our neighborhood has recently become invaded by gay mexican cats parading proudly through the streets terrorizing our dogs and stealing our yarn. The children can't even play in their sandboxes any more. We called animal control, but they say they can't do anything about it for fear of a lawsuit from the ACLU (american cat liberties union) who says any attempt to interfere with "el gatos llameante" right to congregate will be met with fierce resistance.
We heard that O'Really has expressed that he thinks the best way to attack the pussies is with a falafel, and we're willing to give it a try. Granted, it's nice to be rid of the rodent problem, but we're not willing to watch our neighborhood invaded just because they'll take the jobs that our dogs aren't willing to do.
Neon, you are on fire again today!
Don't "attack", attract...
Here's an idea:
- tie a few dozen falafels to an equal amount of sturdy pieces of twine (15-foot lengths should do)
- tie the pieces of twine to the rear bumper of your car
- drive slowly through the infected area
- when you've collected enough followers, head to BO's house
- when you arrive at BO's, stop, cut the strings and throw a few extra falafels into BO's front yard
Oops, you're right. O'Really was trying to ATTRACT one with a falafel, not attack. Our mistake.
I like your plan. Getting them in O'Reallys yard should confuse them. And according to this guy, Monty.....Monty....something, confuse-a-cat is the way to get them back to normal - hetero Homeland dog-fearing christian lap warmers.
Are these cats also able to predict who will be next to go in nursing homes?
Not the gay mexican cats. They're too wasted from their "tequila and creams" and lazing around smoking catnip to care about greeting the grim reaper down at the local geri-mart.
Pardon me, Drafted, but you're noticably on- topic. Don't you want to obsess about Olberman?
I'm going to sidetrack things with BilldO's New Chart.
HBL, you find the best stuff. That chart is hilarious.
I think your chart would be perfect if you could add a giant rainbow donkey piñata with the circle/slash sign through it.
http://www.partywedding.com/acc/viewprod.asp?prodID=10168
Awright, MHK, you better have come back here.I not only updated the chart, I had to open up another junkyard at work.
There wasn't much room for the piñata, but I got him in the lower left here.
You Rock!
I'm going to have to start the offical HuntingtonBeachLefty fan club!
I would join that fan club.
At last, a chart that even a ditto-head could understand! The pinata was a great touch...
I've offered to pay him to tutor me, but he did not respond.
I took his class. He was hardly ever there. Would strut in about once a week and give a 15 minute lecture, but left all the real instruction to student aides.
Still, as disappointing as the lack of one-on-one discourse was, I still can't shake my fond admiration for his gift.
I wish I could quit him...
Wait... are you 2 talking about me? I didn't realize there was a market for tutoring in primitive photoshopping of chaotic messes, but if there is, I'm in.
Can I call you Mr. Wobblyzombie?
If you enjoy Zombies then you should check this out.
http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupid=100009215&Mytoken=3786FAD4-4B56-4B0E-91CF32D9672202D681337438
HBL you are THE MAN!!!!! ;)
Another great chart HBL.
I like how what comes out of Bill's mouth gets spun before it takes it's circuitous route around the "fair & balance".
Bill should hire you as his chart maker.
You are all people of very discerning taste and the highest standards.
8^O
That chart is great, thanks for the laugh. Btw, is that a falafel backround?
I think it's a gravel roof. Almost as tasty as falafel.
Could we make The O'Reilly Factor a cluster free zone.
Do any of you above have any idea what he is getting at? It is a valid point.
Rrrrright...and we should also prevent people who agree with O'Reilly from clustering.
You have no idea what he is getting at, do you?
Why don't you tell us?
Baaaaaaa
The sheep bleats.
I wrote what I got from it below.
Yes we all understand what you and your fellow bigots are talking about when you discuss the danger of clustering minorities.
How in the world did you gather that statement above from the words I wrote? I will not pass judgment on you. I am speaking from what I have seen with my own eyes, and rational thinking.
Thank you Lynn.
Too Late. They clustered and took over the White House.
And we share a simlar opinion, go figure Lynn.
Would 3 - 5 people constitute a cluster?
Valid how?
You know, they want to know who they are. They want to know where they are, what they're doing. They don't want them clustering in neighborhoods and changing the tempo of the whole neighborhood.
Does O'Reilly also object to other ethnic groups "clustering" & changing the tempo of the whole neighborhood.?
IF he meant only Illegals clustering, then I'd give him a pass...but I'm not reading that here. I'd also like them to be found & deported, which of course is technically still the law.
I believe that O'Reilly was talking about illegals here. And he also takes a softer stance than you do on this issue. O'Reilly opposes deporting illegal immigrants and supports amnesty for illegal immigrants. He's definetely isn't anti-Mexican in any way.
RINO,
On a second read I believe you're right. He's talking about ILLEGAL immigrants. Once again, MMFA is being disingenuous in their use of "immigrants" to cover both legal & illigal.
My reading skills were off here too.
"They" was clearly defined 4 sentences earlier as "poor Mexican people".
I can only conclude that most of the Mexicans crossing the border are "Poor Mexican People"..... It is what it is.
If illegals is what he meant, then he needs to clarify it, because it's not what he said.
"They" was clearly defined 4 sentences earlier as "poor Mexican people".
He did not mention "people here illegally" until after the condemnation of poor Mexican people.
I think it is clear O'Reilly is a racist. This is not the first time he has targed immigrants, legal or illegal.
"They don't want them clustering in neighborhoods and changing the tempo of the whole neighborhood."To me it is very clear he is talking about Illegal Mexican Immigrants. Of course, I could be reading it wrong. Easly done. I have seen the neighborhoods changing first hand over the last 20 years. I do not agree with everything he said above, but he does make a valid point about the hoods.
No, you were correct. I scanned over the article too quickly.
Hmm...I suppose it's not clear. However, reading "they" in the context of the prior two sentences, my impression is O'Reilly was talking about requirements for legal immigration. I.e.,
1) Know who they are
2) Know where they are
3) Know what they're doing
4) Don't allow them to cluster
Maybe Bill will attempt a clarification now that MMFA has covered it. This could be entertaining.
I expect something along the lines of the "Malmedy Defense", citing the "heat of the discussion" as his impairment.
FYI - in Bill's May 17th Talking Points Memo, he reluctantly expressed acceptance of the then proposed immigration bill, but expressed concerns about how it would change "the landscape of America" with respect to whites vs. "minority" groups. That makes me think he was definitely talking about clustering in a general immigration context, not just of illegal immigrants.
Because the proposed immigration was dealing with illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. He was speaking about amnesty.
I do not see he was speaking about Amnesty Tommy, I think he really hates people of hispanic background.
If he's racist against hispanics then why does he want to give amnesty to the ones who are here illegally? It seems to me like he's going out of his way to cater to them just like our politicians do.
I'm not being sarcastic, but you lost me. How is amnesty relevant to ethnicity? Or - more clearly - how is ethnicity relevant only to amnesty?
Hmmm.... I wonder what Ethnicity the largest % of Illegal Immigratns are? Anybody?
...which isn't germane to the discussion. To recap, Tommy asserted that Bill was discussing only illegal immigration. However, Bill raised concerns about ethnicity which have nothing to do with legal status. Would not 20 million Mexicans entering legally have the same impact on the ethnic composition of America? I.e., at that point, Bill is discussing legal immigration as well, not just illegal immigration.
In any event, when mentioning ethnicity concerns in the May 17th Talking Points, Bill wasn't discussing only amnesty. Amnesty alone would not account for the "20-30 million new citizens" Bill mentioned.
I hope we can agree to disagree.
Umm...sure! (though I haven't a clue as to with what you disagree)
Unfortunately, it is NOT very clear, and O'Reilly should clarify. Of course, he's probably being intentionally ambiguous for the purpose of plausible deniability, like when he he called for Americans to not buy Pepsi while Ludacris was woking with them, then said "no boycott was ever called for by me". No, the word "boycott" was never said, that's all.
Yes, yes, yes.
We've heard this all before, and it has almost always been dangerous.
We don't want those Italians changing the face of a neighborhood.
We don't want those Irish changing the face of a neighborhood.
We don't want those Chinese changing the face of a neighborhood.
We don't want those Poles changing the face of a neighborhood.
We don't want all of those black folks changing the face of a neighborhood.
We don't want those native Americans changing the face of a neighborhood.
Pick any race / ethnic group that has come to the US in large numbers in the past, and we see the same nativist arguments time and again. We don't seem to really learn much from history do we? Give the new immigrants (legal and illegal) one generation, and they will be integrated into American society as a whole. But we do have fear mongers, like O'Reilly and others, who insist that clustering of these "groups" is somehow bad, and dangerous. What a farce.
One could possibly make the point that early clustering of the Irish did lead to Bull OhReally? as we know him today.
"Clusters" of various ethnicities is what America is all about. It has been happening for centuries. How about Little Italy, Chinatown, Polish neighborhoods, Black neighborhoods, etc.? While perhaps we'd prefer a bit more of a melting pot (integration), people arriving from a certain country and settling together in one place is the norm.
This is racism and homophobia, pure and simple. O'Reilly and his ilk simply don't want to be around people who are different from them. They don't want anyone threatening their precious WASP existence.
Not to mention this whole immigration issue is just a red herring for the conservatives to wring their hands about rather than focusing on things like the Iraq War, corruption in the Republican Party, soaring debts and deficits, and the whole sorry mess that is the Bush administration and it policies. Ever notice that immigration reform is all they talk about on their radio shows? And the issue provides a handy scapegoat (Mexicans, in the case of immigration) to blame for all their self-created woes.
I went to a local park the other weekend in a very nice town. Mostly upperclass. << not my hangout, im kinda poor in comparrison. Anyhow, I used to visit the park when I was a kid. Lots of White families, Black, Chinese, and Mexican. Mostly White back then IIRC. I have not been there in oh, probably 10-15 years. I went to a -Day party there for a freinds daughter. This time it looked like this. 90% Mexican. I heard NO English spoken. I saw sooooo many overweight young children, I almost fell into tears. And people say there are no ill affects from Illegal Immigration?
Of that 90%, how did you verify their country of origin? what percentage were illegal immigrants?
Didn't you know? ALL illegal immigrants in the US are Mexican!
When you see a group of people with darker skin / dark hair / dark eyes in a park speaking another language you've most defiantly found yourself a group of illegal Mexicans and should call the department of homeland security immediately.
Sorry you feel that way. A real shame.
Ring, Ring
It's the clue phone for norotornomotor9010
(I was being sarcastic)
My appologies
Common sense. I live in a area that is riddled with illegal immigration. A little common sense and awareness is enough to back up my statement.
Would you agree most of the Illegal Immigrants coming into America are from Mexico?
I would say that many of the illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, but since they're not standing around for a head count I'm not willing say where the majority of them are from.
What's your point?
You are not willing because?
I saw sooooo many overweight young children, I almost fell into tears. And people say there are no ill affects from Illegal Immigration?
What do overweight children have to do with illegal immigration? Does illegal immigration have something to so with all overweight people or just kids? How do the illegal immigrants cause kids to be overweight?
I was simply describing what I saw.
You saw what you concluded were Hispanic people with over weight children and it made you sad because you fear they will all get diabetes?
You saw what you concluded were Hispanic people with over weight children and it made you sad because you fear they will all get diabetes?
Concluded? Do you know what a Hispanic peson looksl ke Lynn?
Are you aware we have a Obesity problem here in the United States?
I saw what I saw. Many hispanic people eating poorly and thier overweiht children at thier side. The numbers where overwhelming. DOES HITS NOT CONCEARN YOU?
You can tell I have not typed for a whlie. Sorry for the typos.
YOU ARE WEIRD!
Why do you ask Lynn?
I saw sooooo many overweight young children, I almost fell into tears. And people say there are no ill affects from Illegal Immigration?
No actually you were equating overweight kids with illegal immigrants and you have not explained what the effects of illegal immigration have to do with the overweight kids who make you so sad.
No way they could be here legally, them hanging out with their friends, and speaking an entirely different language!! Oh no! Quick, call the police!
Overweight kids in the US in general is a bad thing, and has little, or nothing to do with illegal immigration, or immigration.
I hate that you had to share a park with people speaking a different language than you. God, that is SO HORRIBLE! THEY MUST BE STOPPED FROM CLUSTERING!!!
Why are you acting as if I am attacking anybody. I am not.
If all of these clustering people start breeding, would it be called a cluster f#&$?
I fail to see what point you are trying to make. Try again.
The thought of someone being Illegal seems to be a non-reality to many on here. Knowing where I live, and the problem we have being a Border State to Mexico, how can one ignore the truth. There are a estimated 12- 20 mill+ -illegal residents in this Country. Are you going to tell me that in a park filled with 400 Hispanic folks that nada one of them is a Illegal immigrant from Mexico?
O'Reily lives in a cluster free environment.
(I think it was a little over the line, to do this though.)
I agree this is bordering on harrassment. Even though O'rielly harasses people from the Factor, going to O'rielly's home is over the line.
O'Reilly's "clustering" comment can't be defended, at least not by me.
But the first sentence of this thread is misleading. It labels this topic on O'Reilly's program last night as about "immigration" - let's be clear, the "heated rhetoric" is about illegal immigration. Considering MMFA's intent on exact words and contextual information, leaving out illegal, whether intentional or not, is curious.
I feel the term "Clustering" can be defended. Damn people,
Clustering = A group of the same or similar elements gathered or occurring closely together; a bunch:
Tommy, I imagine you have seen the hoods in San Jose? Would you not describe these hoods as a cluster of illegal immigrants?
Heck, we've all seen it in Washington, and the deletirious effects clustering has had nationwide. Had we not allowed the neocons to cluster there for the past 13 years, the Homeland would likely be a much better place today.
No one has done much about it. Both parties are to blame.
Yeah but some deserve much more of the blame than others, like the party that questioned the patriotism of people who thought invading Iraq was wrong. It seems that the Republicans now want to engage in a little historical revisionism and down play their complicity with the neocons they brought to power and bolster. Too late, this war is theirs.
Keeping on topic Lynn?
Don't like it? Flag it.
No, I wont. I dislike PC.
Hmmm...I think you're picking the nit this time. In any event, clustering probably has as much or more to do with the general debate on immigration than with illegal immigration. I.e., one can envision an ordered system of immigration that doesn't impose clustering restrictions.
But the first sentence of this thread is misleading. It labels this topic on O'Reilly's program last night as about "immigration" - let's be clear, the "heated rhetoric" is about illegal immigration.
I agree Tommy. Didn't catch it on my first read. Went back & re-read it. Once again MMFA doesn't differentiate between ILLEGAL & LEGAL "immigrants"
Exactly. And if someone in the media did the same thing and MMFA didn't like it, it would slapped here immediately for "guilt by omission", just as the Steven's thread about his party affiliation.
Sometimes selective outrage comes back to bite.
"NO!" Ted Stevens (R)
And even when you see MMFA's issues on the right of this page, it says Immigration. That is misinformation in itself. The issue is, and always has been, illegal immigration - not legal immigration.
A very important distinction.
Except, as I've explained elsewhere, Bill doesn't appear to be talking about only illegal immigrants with respect to clustering. MMFA is accurate.
And as I responded earlier, since when is the context regarding immigration, especially recently, been about the inherent problems and costs of LEGAL immigration? It hasn't.
The discussions are about illegal immigrants and Congressional bills and plans to deal with this issue.
Christiandemocrat, I agree. I went back and played the clip and re-read the article and Bill never mentions "illegal" he only stated immigration
Hi Pearlene,
Actually O'Reilly does mention Illegal immigrants:
They don't want certainly crimes being committed by people here illegally. That can't happen. That's got to be zero tolerance there.
But most Americans are open to immigration. It's just the matter that we want to do it in an orderly fashion, in an orderly way.
Yes...which is why I haven't stated that it wasn't about illegal immigration, but it wasn't just about illegal immigration. O'Reilly (sheesh - I almost typed Olberman) was talking about aspects of legal immigration as well. So, it seems to me that the frequent picker of nit pickers (Tommy) is picking the nits on this one.
CD,
Even though O'Reilly didn't say Illegal Immigrants at the beginning of this transcript, what he did say, certainly indicates that's exactly what he was talking about:
The only reason the federal government would allow a situation to descend into the chaos that it's in is because big business profits from it.
despite the heated rhetoric on this issue
situation/big profits & heated rhetoric/issue are the key words.
He does not appear to be discussing Legal immigration in this instance
Now please don't ever make me defend Billy-Boy again. It's a dirty job I take no pleasure in doing
At that point, I agree. However, when it comes to "clustering," which is the topic here, that's an issue which seems to cross the legal/illegal boundary.
Jeter, I read that thing twice, maybe three times and I missed it. Would love to call myself "speed reading" but that would not be true I just missed that part. Sorry ;)
P.
The entire piece was about the national guard on the border. Do you think that was in the context of stopping legal immigrants from crossing our borders?
Tommy, I will admit this ONLY once, I had a "senior moment" while reading the article.
I would point out that not all of the illegal immigrants in the US are Mexican as the conversation between BOR and his guest implies. Does this mean that BOR is ok with other illegal clusters? This conversation sounds like he is against Mexican clustering in general. Why would he bring up poor Mexicans if this conversation was about illegal immigration only? Does BOR think that all poor mexicans are illegal or ?
Given his track record I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue.
Mexican make up the largest % of Illegal Immigrants. You afraid to call a Mexican a Mexican?
Right.
While we're at it, let's oppose the clustering of knuckle-dragging right-wingers. Too many of them drag down the IQ of a neighborhood.
I think there's too many CONtrarians and just plain CONS clustering on this thread.
Darn those intrusive contrarian opinions. They are such a nuisance and just muddy up a good unchallenged conversation, where every post parrots the MMFA article above it. Who let 'em in?
Well, I was joking, but thanks for coming in on cue ;)
Whew, it's so hard to tell though. Because so many rubberstampers here aren't too thrilled when another opinion surfaces, but I will take your word for it - humor tracking device ON!
;)
Hey, I WAS using the Jeter2 defense. But actually you cons seem to do your fair share of rubberstamping as well. That pot and kettle should really start dating, I think they doth protest too much.
Hey, I WAS using the Jeter2 defense
Wow I have a *defense* named in my honor?
Is it anything like the *Twinkie* defense ;-)
J2, the Italian stallion, you said you were trying to be funny earlier. I was too. So therefore the Jeter2 defense. I like it and will use it at will. Try and stop me handsome man......... ;)
Why Miss Julia are you flirting with me?
I hope you are :-)
So when someone says they were only joking, that's the Rush defense
But if one writes they were trying to be funny that's the *jeter2 defense*
Got it ;-)
Pretty lady from Texas I would be honored for you to use the *jeter2 defense* anytime your little heart desires [of course I know you would whether I gave you the OK or not]LOL
BTW I love your feisty attitude.
Pretty & feisty...who can resist that? ;-)
Don't try to outflirt me, mister! (blushing).
Amen friend. I agree 100%. I can not stand the neocons of today, or the opposite.
Bill provides confirmation to my theory that large numbers of minorities moving into previously White neighborhood (minority clustering- thanks Bill) creates White flight. The fact is that too many minorities make people like Bill O'rielly nervous, and they associate crime with the presence of minorities in large numbers. These guys don't seem to understand you can have large numbers of middle class Blacks and Hispanics and have comparable crime rates as any middle class White neighborhood. Bill O'rielly is a bigot, and he loves to compare other folks to the KKK. Well I never thought I'd ever use repsect and KKK in the same sentence, but I have more respect for the KKK than Bill O'Rielly. At least the KKK are upfront about their views on race.
Another difference between BO and the KKK is that, rather than dispersing them, the hooded cowards would prefer to collect the objects of their hate - you know, kinda' like the NAZIs did.
This is in my opinion more blatant racism from O'Reilly.
I wish Bill O'Reilley would go away but in lieu of that, whay so much time on what he has to say? I guess to keep us stirred up. Believe me, I don't need th elikes of him or Ann Coulter to prod me to the left. Keep up the excellent work.
I sincerely oppose the clustering of illiterates. Illiterates pose a grave threat to this country.
http://www.newsince.com/misc/amnety.htm
It's a terrifying cluster alright. I wonder if that guy with the stars and stripes so inappropriately tied around his head is RINO.
My bad:
http://www.newsince.com/misc/amnety.htm
Oh, my...I'm laughing so hard it hurts. Thanks for that.
Sure, the spelling could be better but she did stay within the lines when she colored her sign.
That was good.
Nice one, Jonny. I'm a huge fan of the spelling and/or grammar mistake that obviously had some time invested in it.The more time put into it, the funnier.
How do you color, outline, mount it on a stick and not notice a letter missing in the main word of your deeply held political position about language?
Two of my lifetime faves; An elaborate carved and painted wooden sign at a "restorant" in South Orange County, and a giant storefront billboard in Santa Ana (OK, heavily Spanish-speaking area, so the pronunciation would work) advertising "Levis - for Gays and Gals".
Bill is working for you, man. He is on team jesus. Not the Mexican Jesus...the cluster of white guys' jesus that hates the daily KOS and liberals. As he so eloquently told a Jewish caller to his radio show:
if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then. I mean because we live in a country founded on Judeo -- and that's your guys' -- Christian, that's my guys' philosophy.
Ah, classic Billo. Someone needs to get together a long line of clips from this guy's show that highlights all the unintentional comedy. I bet it would be a hoot. Anyone, HBL?
Beyond my tech. capabilities, JJ. I'm limited to child-like charts and red arrows. And the occasional piñata by request.
Best chart ever!
Okay, here's the bottom line. What the heck does BOR mean by "clustering." I think it important that he be asked to define his terms. The right is great at speaking in "code." The flaw is there code is so transparent to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. All immigrant and minority groups (and the majority) "cluster," including the Irish when they first immigrated -- as did the Italians, Asians, African Americans, etc.
I am convinced that they are simply ignorant (as a opposed to completely stupid). That's why there defenders don't tackle the substance of any topic but try to shift the debate to liberals are mean to them. Don't be baited, ignore them and they simply go away.
But we're fighting 'em over here so they won't go there. Got 'em here in a cluster!
What about gay Mexicans! Or Mexican lesbians gangs! Imagine the cluster!