O'Reilly named "Worst Person" for claiming Americans don't want Mexicans "clustering in neighborhoods"
On the August 2 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host Bill O'Reilly the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for comments he made about Mexican immigrants during the July 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, which Media Matters for America documented. Olbermann quoted O'Reilly, saying: "Most Americans don't want to hurt any poor Mexican people. 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 whole tempo of the neighborhood." Olbermann added: "You know, the same way the anti-immigrant bigots didn't want my immigrant German ancestors changing the tempo of the whole neighborhood in 1900. The same way the anti-immigrant bigots didn't want Bill's immigrant Irish ancestors changing the whole tempo of the neighborhood in 1850."
On July 18, Olbermann named O'Reilly the "winner" of the "Worst Person" segment for defending his earlier comparison of Daily Kos to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. As Media Matters has documented (here, here, here, and here), Olbermann frequently names O'Reilly in his "Worst Person" segment.
Additionally, Olbermann awarded syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh the "bronze" in the August 2 "Worst Person" segment for claiming that the "Democrats have, quote, 'aligned themselves with the enemy. The enemy kills more soldiers, their spokesman here in America are the Democrats. When we kill more of the enemy, the Democrats are silent and they say nothing. But when you have reports of, you know, another IED or a picture of a car on fire, then the Democrats assume the role of media PR spokespeople for Al Qaeda.' " Media Matters also noted Limbaugh's statements, which he made on the July 31 broadcast of his radio program.
Limbaugh also frequently appears on Olbermann's list, as Media Matters has noted (here, here, here, here and here). On May 17, Olbermann named Limbaugh the "winner" for complaining that Democrats are not asked "why there are no women and minorities on stage" during presidential debates.
From the August 2 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: The bronze to comedian Rush Limbaugh, was back carrying the water and mixing it with the Bush dust and drinking the resultant Kool-Aid. He has actually said, Democrats have, quote, "aligned themselves with the enemy. The enemy kills more soldiers, their spokesman here in U.S. are the Democrats. When we kill more of the enemy, the Democrats are silent and they say nothing. But when you have reports of, you know, another IED or pictures of a car on fire, then the Democrats assume the role of media PR spokespeople for Al Qaeda." Unquote.
Serious question: Have you had a thorough neurological workup lately? Seriously.
[...]
OLBERMANN: Our winner, Bill-O, explaining his stance on immigration reform. And remember, that is code for, "We don't like Mexican people." So Bill-O says, quote, "Most Americans don't want to hurt any poor Mexican people. 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."
You know, the same way the anti-immigrant bigots didn't want my immigrant German ancestors changing the tempo of the whole neighborhood in 1900. The same way the anti-immigrant bigots didn't want Bill's immigrant Irish ancestors changing the tempo of the whole neighborhood in 1850.
Bill O'Reilly, today's "Worst Person in the World."
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
Nothing like a little inflammatory rhetorical garbage there Olbermann, regarding those who want secure borders and tough immigration laws as code for "We don't like Mexican people". You ought to be ashamed.
Your Worst person award should be done in a mirror after that gem.
Exactly Tommy.
Let's be sure to shame Olbermann for also giving the "worser" award to DKos blogger Mike Stark for the stunt he pulled at O'Reilly's house.
You promised to say "so what" if this was posted. Will you live up to your promise?
Hook, line and sinker.
You said, "Will you repeat "So What" tommorow when MMFA has that as a headline promoting Olbermann?"
Date of original MMFA item: July 31st
"tomorrow" = August 1st.
Statute of limitations has run out, just like I anticipated.
Gotta choose those words a little more carefully next time.
Well the bridge collapse was more significant for Olberman to cover than this, that was why there was a delay.
Oh come on, let me have a little fun here. ;-)
Yes, that was pretty disturbing. KO had it right: There's a line the good guys do not cross, ever, no matter what. And Starkers done it. Bad.
Except, of course, Olbermann didn't say what you said he did. He said that O'Reilly's immigration stance was code for "We don't like Mexican people." You know, the position that you don't want them "clustering" in your neighborhood.
I thought about that too, but I don't agree. If that were the case he would have said "I", not "We". I believe he was making a blanket statement about those in favor of immigration reform.
Olbermann: "Our winner, BillO, explaining his stance on immigration reform, and remember that is code for 'We don't like Mexican people'..."
That's pretty clear.
I agree Tommy....
As much as I despise the lying sack of Garbage known as O'Reilly, I believe Olberman unfairly attacked those who supported secure borders. I personally have pondered about how I feel in regards to border control, but recently have been agreeing more and more with the right on it. I do however believe closed fences are not enough...things must be done internally to illeviate the problem. I recomend eliminating that ridiculous citizenship test(which ironically most Americans can't pass) and speeding up the process(some immigrants have to wait over 5 YEARS to obtain legal citizenship). I really believe the left and right can come to a resonable compromise(not the Bill that failed a while ago lol) and we can actually do something about this...Its just this harsh rhetoric coming from both extremes that is getting in our way...
Becuase Olbermann is pandering to members of the extreme left who hate America. The man has no credibility since he let Imus spew racist hate for years without saying a word and in 1998 calling Imus "My Morning Diety" . disgraceful and phony.
I agree Sue...
Olbermann was once my favorite News Related program...however his show has become a joke, Keith has become nearly as stuck up as Billo and company. In my opinion pandering to either the far left or far right is very bad...as you can never please them...I prefer to stay in the Centrist camp...
Well said BarryGoldWater. I do not know what has happened to the middle ground in America and why extremist are running things, very bad in 10 years we could be like Iran, a nation Olby loves.
As scary as it sounds Sue, I think you are correct. We lost middle ground when the Ann Coulters, and Keith Olbermanns came into the public spotlight, with no sense of dignity or respect for others views...What Americans have seemed to have forgotten is that we can accomplish more things if we work TOGETHER instead of bickering about garbage issues like Gay Marriage and Flag Burning...
You now have my attention with that statement...
You know I was willing to let you lump Keith with Ann which is ridiculous but bickering about gay marriage is not garbage. We as a nation should grant equal rights to all individuals and that includes the right to marry. The law does not say you can get away with this or that because you’re straight. This country has a history of ignorance and we don’t need to continue down the path of ignorance by not allowing gay people equal rights and that includes marriage.
You're right. Keith is far worse in my opinion. Again, playing the race card.
let me say it too. I don't want the town i live in to become largely Mexican overnight(I exagerate a little ofcourse). This makes me racist? look, if I wanted to live in Mexico with their culture, language etc I'D MOVE THERE.
Nothing against Hispanics or any other group but I like our English speaking, American culture.
let me say it too. I don't want the town i live in to become largely Mexican overnight(I exagerate a little ofcourse). This makes me racist? look, if I wanted to live in Mexico with their culture, language etc I'D MOVE THERE.
Nothing against Hispanics or any other group but I like our English speaking, American culture.
Along time ago I, as an African Americans experienced what we called “white flight”. You know where more than one family of non-white move into a neighborhood and then the “for sale” signs appeared. I used to think, what are they afraid of? We are hard working, want our children to have a good education and want to be a part of the community. We are good people who want for our family, the same thing everyone else wants. I was not concerned about how many of one race lived in my neighborhood, but if they people who lived there had the same concerns (community, schools) as I did. Are you a racists ? You can make assumptions about people based simply on there race, so yeah I that’s racists. I guess you also don’t want Germans, Armeinans or Italians living in your neighborhood if they don’t speak English either.
And marriage isn't a "right."
Let’s see a man and a woman have the “right” under law to get married. Two men or women don’t have the “right” under law to get married. Yeah you’re right that’s another topic.
How low can Lolo go?
And marriage isn't a "right." But that's another topic.
Lower.
"And marriage isn't a "right." But that's another topic."--lolo
That's good for you, because you are completely wrong. In the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, it is written:
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
You may not like KO, and that's your perogative, but to equate him with Ann Coulter is just ignorant.
How can you POSSIBLY call yourself a "centrist" with a handle like "Barry Goldwater Conservative"?
"Becuase Olbermann is pandering to members of the extreme left who hate America."
That's a pretty extreme comment, Sue. What leads you to believe that anyone really "hates America"? I'm curious.
Sueeld, if Keith said the sky was blue you'd have a problem with it. You simply have a problem with Keith.
As I recall, KO was among the first to condemn Imus over the Ho comments.
I would say YOU have no credibility left with your incredibly moronic claim about hating America but then since you never had any, why bother.
Solon, you're always calling people stupid. moronic, etc. Maybe you're right and maybe I'll be next on your list but do you think such comments really add anything to the discourse?
Or do they just detract from a proper tone of civility and open-mindedness ?
What am I missing? Where did Olbermann attack anybody but O'Reilly?
Or did you just make it up?
I believe that he was making a blanket statement about people who use the immigration issue as a justification for their white supremicist feelings.
Olbermann should be shamed for not choosing his words more carefully. Having said that, "immigration reform" IS code for many people who just don't want their neighborhood de-gentrifying, and to pretend otherwise is to be intentionally naive, or just plain argumentative. Additionally, BO's spew regarding those darned clustering Mexicans reveals his "immigration reform" rhetoric to be no more than race-baiting in disguise.
Come on Tommy
You don't sense a little bigotry coming from this douche bag. I have more respect for the KKK. At least they tell you who they hate. Not like these closet bigots who disguise there bigotry with political agendas. And about the borders...I don't give a sh**.
I opined on his "clustering" comment on the previous thread on this. And below as well.
Then why aren't any of you guys screaming for a more secure "Northern" border?
Since your post wasn't serious i'll give you a non-serious reply. That's where the better weed comes from.
Let me first start by saying that I do respect your post Tommy but you are dead wrong. The rhetorical garbage is issued by Bill. His comment was:
O'Reilly, saying: "Most Americans don't want to hurt any poor Mexican people. 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 whole tempo of the neighborhood."
As a minority I have heard these “code words” issued in various forms but still meaning the same thing “We don’t want too many of you in our neighborhood and we don’t want your culture to change the “mom and applie pie makeup of our neighborhood”. You may not understand and you may think that I am too sensitive but you are wrong. The fault is not with Keith for pointing out Bill’s bigotry but for Bill and all those who assume that “he didn’t mean anything racists by what he said” or “he was speaking about illegals“. Bill said exactly what he meant. “We don’t want too many of you and we don’t want too many of you in one place, changing our neighbors”. Who the he** is Bill or anyone else to decide what ethnicity is too much.
If Bill and yourself want to secure our borders, go where the $$ is. It’s not with the actual illegal immigrants but the corporations and small business’s who hire them. They, would not be here if someone did not want them. The people who want them is where your fight should be, not with illegal immigrants who simply would do the same thing as you and I if faced with no jobs and no ability to feed our families.
Why does Bill have that right?
Could it be because he's an American? Here legally? We all have the right to express our opinion about how "many" is too many. If I think 1 is too many then the problem is clearly mine. If I think a 10-20% increase is too many and you call me a racist i have a problem with that.
The "you" have a problem.
Lolo just went lower. She must be dynamite at the limbo stick.
That is because OLBERMANN lives in a all White neighborehood. If he has any idea what went on outside the fairytale he resides in, he would shut his trap.
And if you dont like the term, "Poor Mexicans".... then do some reading. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/SR9.cfm
By all means lets all do some reading.
Hey, it just occurred to me. Do you want perverts clustering around and changing the tempo (whatever the hell that means) of our beloved neighborhoods?
I think not. Standing around is one thing...but clustering?? We, as good Americans should not stand...er...cluster for it.
United we Cluster!
E Clusterus Unum !
Carmal nut clusters for all non allergic types!
Just wait until Gen. Cluster fights the next battle against those who've declared a War on Xmas. His forces have gathered near the Little Big Loofah.
That is because OLBERMANN lives in a all White neighborehood. If he has any idea what went on outside the fairytale he resides in, he would shut his trap.
I can only assume to for you living in an all "white neighborhood" would be like living in a "fairytale".
Now I as an African American live in a great neighborhood. We have white, black, Hispanics, Asian American and people from India. I'm sure there are other's as well. I consider mind neighborhood pretty damn good and thank god it's not all white.
One could consider that ending statement racist. Seems hypocritical when viewed along your other posts. You wouldn't want "too many" white people, right?
No I don't think your a racist Pearl.
One could consider that ending statement racist. Seems hypocritical when viewed along your other posts. You wouldn't want "too many" white people, right?
Lolo you seem to miss my point on purpose but here it is again. The previous poster, Norotornomotor, equated “fairytale” neighborhood with “white neighborhood”. I simply explain that my “fairytale” would not be an “all white” neighborhood. Since “white” people are the majority race, not “wanting too many” is fairly impossible.
No I don't think your a racist Pearl.
Lolo, if you have read any of my posts I don’t determine whether I like or dislike someone based on race. In short and simple terms, I dislike ignorance with a passion.
Do some reading from the rightwing Heritige foundation why dont you shut YOUR trap.
Right on Keith, once again Bill-O is hysterical but what do you expect from the far right.
I understand, (Yeah....right) why some of you will refute the numbers below. My point is look at the clustering of illegal immigration presented in the figures below. The states mostly affected are along the border. They illegals are clustering in California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona, and the crime rates are out of control.
95 % of Warrants in LOS ANGELES are for ILLEGAL ALIENS 83 % of Warrants for MURDER in Phoenix Arizona are FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS 86 % of Warrants for MURDER in Albuquerque New Mexico are for ILLEGAL ALIENS 75 % of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Albuquerque are ILLEGAL ALIENS 24.9 % OF ALL INMATES in California detention centers are Mexican Nationals here ILLEGALLY 40.1 % of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican Nationals here ILLEGALLY 29 % (630,000) Convicted ILLEGAL ALIENS felons fill our state and federal prisons at the cost of $1.5 Billion Annually 53 % Plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by ILLEGAL ALIENS 50 % Plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are ILLEGAL ALIENS 71 % Plus of all apprehended Cars stolen in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California were stolen by ILLEGAL ALIENS or "Transport Coyotes " 47 % of cited / stopped Drivers in California have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for the vehicle of that 47 %, over 92 % were ILLEGAL ALIENS 63 % of cited / stopped Drivers in Arizona have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for the vehicle of that 63 %, over 97 % are ILLEGAL ALIENS 66 % of cited / stopped Drivers in New Mexico have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for the vehicle Of that 66 %, over 98 % were ILLEGAL ALIENS
You mean you know we'll dismiss this inflated drivel because we know for a fact that the heritage foundation is an ultra conservative lobbying firm that employs public policy analysts vs. scholars and ex-politicians?
I noticed you are not disputing the figures.
If you mean I'm not providing alternate data, you're right. But I am disputing the figures because of the known bias of the source.
Snoopy,
I find that rather amusing, seeing as how you regularly read the threads here. Are you as circumspect with MMFA?
No need to answer.
One can be biased toward a particular viewpoint, but to dismiss statistics like these out of hand, just because of political affiliation does not speak well for you objectivity either.
It is a well known trial lawyer ploy. When you have the facts, argue the facts. When you don't, argue the law. Or as Al Gore says, "Holler". It seems to me that is what you are doing here. IMHO, yours, although sincere, is not a very strong rebuttal.
You are right, I'm probably being a bit blunt. I will have to do some digging to provide a better answer, but I do remember similar arguments put out by Tancredo in regards to the number of illegals incarcerated jail and I recall that it was proven mathematically impossible for his percentages to be correct. I do recall Tancredo gave the heritage foundation credit for his information.
You're right to be suspicious. This LA Times item notes issues with some of those statistics.
These statistics appear to have a number of sources, not just the Heritage Foundation. However, they've been repeated so often that tracing the original source is challenging. Some have been attributed to FBI and INS numbers, but for obvious reasons, this is doubtful. My take is that they seem to have either been based on some real statistics that was misrepeated to the point of being unrecognizable or someone just pulled them out their arse.
Needless to say, I don't feel inclined to try to refute every statistic individually. I've got better things to do than to supply attributions that should be supplied by those quoting the numbers.
Another reason to be skeptical/suspicious of these stats is the mere use of the figures on driving without a license, insurance or registration. Undocumented immigrants/workers are barred from obtaining a driver's license, insurance or registration; so, the stats serve no purpose other than to inflame the ill-informed and bigoted.
"My take is that they seem to have either been based on some real statistics that was misrepeated to the point of being unrecognizable or someone just pulled them out their arse."--CD
After my experiences trying to track down the origins of information in the conservative echosphere, I think you have managed to describe it perfectly.
Well AA
I am somewhat suspicious of the numbers myself; Heritage Foundation has an obvious bias and info recieved through them must be taken with a dash of suspicion. Plus what are these numbers infering exactly? That hispanics(primarily Mexicans) are more likely to commit horrible crimes than whites? If so then I consider these "stats" to be zenophobic and a tad bit white supremecist....Kinda reminds me of the whole Lou Dobbs incident...
Statistics(if correct), don't infer anything. They're just facts.
If the numbers are correct we don't need to infer, we know, there's a big problem with not knowing whose in this country.
I can't dispute these numbers because I don't know what sources were used or the methodology behind it. Right now the first statistic that says 95 percent of all warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal immigrants seems outlandish to me.
So you are waiting for some one to refute those statistics?
How about these:
MMFA
Brookings Institute
Colorado Media Matters?
RightWingWatch
Southern Poverty Law Center
I can go on and on. There are hundreds of researchers, law enforcement agencies, and experts in various fields; each says it is clear that the Heritage Foundation pulled these figures out of their back ends.
We have discussed and refuted these numbers on MMFA before, its funny you bring it up again.
Fair enough. Thanks!
Or let me put it this way. Statistics are very funny and can be twisted in any way the writer wishes.
Like did you know in a survey of heterosexual men when asked whether they would rape a woman only 38% said no?
"101 Hite, Shere. The Hite Report on Male Sexuality. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1981): 1123. (See steps 5 and 14.) This was not a representative sample. See note 9. The combined results for the eight subpopulations listed are as follow: “Have you ever wanted to rape a woman?” — “Yes”: 19%; “No”: 37%; “Sometimes”: 33%; “Fantasies of Rape”: 10%; “Mock rape”: 2%." -Box Turtle Bulletin
Which is still a disturbing figure, but not as terrible as the 37% say "no" figure suggests.
I agree with you that statistics can be misleading. I was simply curious as to why Snoopy rejected them out of hand.
Maybe those links showed the inaccuracy of the figures regarding illegal immigrants, I did not check. The first link (I think it was to the Brookings Institute,) showed me someone who worked there. I decided I didn't want to spend the time trying clicking all over their website hunting for their figures, so I stopped there.
I did not participate in the earlier discussion regarding the veracity of those statistics, so accept the stipulation that there is supporting evidence that says they are inaccurate.
I hope you saw my response, I agree I should have been a little more reasoned.
Well I rejected them after reading the first stat: "95% of all warrants in LA are for illegals". To come up this large a number, most of the people in LA would have to be illegals or more realistically since by far most of the city is legal, that means LA has the most law abiding legal citizens on the globe. Any which way, at face value, it's ludicrus.
As well as not passing the logic test, it doesn't pass the smell test. The reason illegals are so desirable to employers in this country, is not because they're criminals, but because they have an extraordinary work ethic to go along with being easy on the payroll. And just to pile on, hard working people are what make America great.
Hi Barney ! Only because they've mostly been disputed years ago.Here's a breakdown by Snopes.
Some figures are fairly accurate (or hard to prove one way or another), but meaningless unless presented in the racist paranoid context in which I'm guessing most Republicans get them.
Because they can't dispute the figures.
Please please a link to your statistics.
What is the sources of these stats? Without a source, how do I know that you're not just making this sh*t up?
Nailed it, Keith. My wife, who came here LEGALLY, really likes it when bigots like O'Reilly demand to see proof of her citizenship when she's out in public regardless of the fact that she speaks perfect english.
Then your wife should be as incensed as any other legal immigrant who waded through the process in an honorable and legal way, instead of cutting in line illegaly in front of others.
Well Tommy, she isn't because she understands that the "line" is long because of all the fraudulent red tape and beaurocratic bungling one must put up with to do it the "legal" way. She'd rather see our congressmen fixing the problems and streamlining the system rather than generating fear of the invasion of the brown people.
For honest people who want our borders enforced and our laws followed, it has nothing to do with "fear of brown people". That is a race baiting slur propped up by those who have no problem with open borders, for a host of reasons.
The entire immigration process needs overhauling, to be sure. First, secure the borders
Of course there are people out there on my side of the issue who don't like "brown people", that is undeniable. But they are not representative of the rest of us and to lump us all in together is blatantly unfair.
We've had this conversation before, and you know for a fact that I'm not lumping y'all together. But I am stating loud and clear that there certainly are a lot of people who do fit in that boat. I'm also saying that your claim that most legal immigrants are angry at illegals for "cutting in line" isn't as true as you claim. I get the same message from my wife, all of her brothers and sisters, relatives, and the 3 office workers who came here on the worker visa (one who just got permission to bring his wife and family over from Vietnam - after 10 years of waiting!) and that message is the only illegals they are worried about are criminals. They are more concerned about getting the process fixed, and about the patent racism that they feel has been generated in part because of this fear generated by the likes of O'Reilly and Buchanan.
It is unfair. It also helps to make it clear that "honest people" and people like Michelle "Reconquista" Malkin are two very different breeds.
"For honest people who want our borders enforced and our laws followed, it has nothing to do with "fear of brown people"."
It's a shame that so few of these honest people seem to be voicing their opinions, as it is the vocal majority that are committing such acts as demanding an unwarranted proof of citizenship from legal citizens such as his wife.
I find it hard to believe that anyone's asking his wife for proof of citizenship. Doesn't happen to my wife. or anyone else i know for that matter. I've never seen it happen, nor had anyone tell me they've been through it.
National ID card would solve some of this. I find the opposition to one strange but I spose that's off topic.
Yes, let's just have a tatoo stamped on our hides like cattle. That would solve the problem.
Snoopy,
I agree with you that I'd like to see Congress streamline the immigration process.
If you don't mind me asking, who is it in Congress that you say is generating fear about the invasion of brown people?
Tom Delay comes to mind, his latest view that illegal immigration causes abortion wasn't one of his finer moments. (though I understand it would have sounded better if he had said some come here to have abortions, but I don't think he was going there)
Tom Delay is still in Congress?
Doh! That's right! He's under indictment for being a corrupt slimeball.
93% of the outstanding warrants in Washington are for Bush Administrators, the other 7% for Congressmem/Women.....Ref: The Prince Files compiled through no particular system. Just a Hertigious guess.
Pete,
Lets discus this when and if Delay is convicted.
Just like those Duke boys, it could be a case of a rouge prosecutor. ;-)
rouge = rogue
sorry.
I think it is fair to call nyfong "rouge". Considering the embarrassment he brought upon himself, it appears to be apt.
Fair enough. He'll likely OJ his way out of it. Even if justice isn't done, he's still a corrupt slimeball. You need to look no further than what he's done for meaning of the "Made in USA" label.
Any member of Congress who described the path to citizenship for illegals laid out in the Immigration Bill as "amnesty" is, I believe, guilty of fear-mongering. I don't know if any have specifically labeled it as such.
Simple, Rep Virgil Goode(R-VA) , who made those horrible comments about Keith Ellison...
Hey, Another American? Wanted you to see this post about Rep Allen (R) Fla. That's the guy who got busted recently for "soliciting gay sex" in Florida. His defense?
"This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen, who is white, told police in a taped statement after his arrest. Allen said he feared he "was about to be a statistic" and would have said anything just to get away.
I admit, even though I'm a white guy, watching what my wife periodically goes through does bias me. And when you see elected reps like this try to blame their crimes on colored people, I just shake my head and tell myself I am totally justified being biased.
Then your wife should be as incensed as any other legal immigrant who waded through the process in an honorable and legal way, instead of cutting in line illegaly in front of others.
That makes for a nice talking point, but doesn't convey an accurate picture of the current immigration system.
Talking point? So you are in favor of illegal immigrants cutting in line?
Which line? It's a simplistic view or even - and I'm sure you'll like this - a fallacy. I guess that's what makes it a good talking point.
Thank you for not answering my question. Or what is about illegal immigrants who remain here illegally that is a talking point to you? Please enlighten me.
You're welcome. I'm pleased to not answer a question based on a false premise.
Or what is about illegal immigrants who remain here illegally that is a talking point to you?
Nothing.
And by the way, I read your linked article - it's the most idiotic open border amnesty-for-all bunch of baloney I have ever read. Try again.
Would that be Oscar Mayer? Of course, the focus of the article - which isn't open borders - is not why I referenced it.
It applauds amnesty and calls those who want our immigration laws enforced "immigrant bashers".
They, and you, are entitled to that point of view, but it doesn't change the fact that those who thumb their nose at our laws and enter our country illegally slap those who have gone through the process directly in the face.
If you call that a talking point, you and the author of this article are sadly mistaken.
It applauds amnesty
Yes, I suppose it does...makes a case for it anyway. Of course, that's not arguing for open-borders.
and calls those who want our immigration laws enforced "immigrant bashers"
I thought for a moment you were actually quoting the article. But now I realize, you made that up.
the fact that those who thumb their nose at our laws and enter our country illegally slap those who have gone through the process directly in the face.
Do you base that fact on any poll? personal knowledge? just guessing?
It doesn't seem to be the greatest concern to Snoopy's wife. I can also say it isn't a concern of my wife, who also came here legally. In fact, I can't think of a single foreign national friend who came here legally ever expressing a concern about this.
Of course, that's not to say that they support illegal immigration. (I don't either.) I just think they tend to think more critically about the issues and solutions.
Your answers just show your naivete when it comes to this issue. First off, read the first line of this article, it definitely says "immigrant bashers", so I did not make it up.
As for amnesty not being for open borders, you are again naive. If we embrace amnesty as the author of this article wants, don't you think that just encourages more people to cross our borders illegally? Of course it does. If they know there will be no retribution for entering and staying illegally, there is a huge carrot waiting for them, and no stick.
And who do you think suffers most with this influx of unskilled workers into our country? You?, No. Me?, No. The poorest among us suffers, those on the bottom of the ecomomic scale that you and many liberals claim to care about so much - they are the ones whose wages will be driven down, that is a fact. It is happening all over. Why do you think Bush and his corporatist buddies want the cheap labor?
Also, the guest worker program creates a permanent underclass in this society, are you for that as well?
Tell your "Reason" buddy to think through all of this before another one of his thoughtless and open border advocacy article is written. He would serve his fellow citizens far better.
it definitely says "immigrant bashers"
No...it doesn't. But it really doesn't matter, because that has nothing to do with why I referenced it.
As for amnesty not being for open borders...
Conflating amnesty with open borders is just that. Barring any other practical solution, some sort of amnesty may be necessary to address the already present ~ 12 million (5% of workforce) illegal aliens. At least that would be a positive step toward addressing exploitation and its negative effects on wages.
Also, the guest worker program...are you for that as well?
Not particularly.
Tell your "Reason" buddy to think through all of this before another one of his thoughtless and open border advocacy article is written.
He's not my buddy and his article is far more thoughtful than your posts. However, I don't consent to all of his arguments.
Tommy, I think I'm starting to understand why you have so many problems with Liberals. I've narrowed it down to either poor reading comprehension, or you need glasses. I read the article. It does NOT say "immigrant bashers." ;-)
However much it pains me to do this, tommy is right. In the very first lines of the article:
"For two decades, immigration bashers have stymied any attempt to regularize the status of illegal aliens in this country by employing one, single trope against them:" -- Reason Magazine
I have had a lot of fun with tommy's posts today, but I can't sit idly by and deny him the satisfaction of the one thing it seems he's gotten right today no matter how irrelevant it may seem to the conversation.
Open-Mind - immigration bashers is correct, but that's not what Tommy wrote. It's a small, but still meaningful difference.
Open Mind and Christian Cemocrat,
I don't think the distinction is subtle. It's a big difference.
Tommy wrote "Immigrant bashers" the article says "Immigration bashers."
"Immigrant bashers" leads readers to believe that people are bashing immigrants.
"Immigration bashers" refers to those who are against immigration.
I agree with you. I didn't notice the distinction at first, but CD is right. It is a subtle distinction, but a significant one. It is still irrelevant to CD's point and the point of the article - which is that tommy's argument about line-jumping is a strawman argument.
I am sorry for my part in allowing tommy to derail the thread with his little red herring.
Splitting hairs don't you think?
I don't think so. One could be sympathetic to immigrants, yet still he dead set against immigration.
It's not a simplistic view at all. It's an accurate description of what those here illegally want to do. there is a line. They don't want to wait in it.
Then you should read CD's link which describes that characterization as a fallacy. I would love to read your response to that.
"Then your wife should be as incensed..."--tommy
There tommy goes again telling people how they should feel. Is there no end to your self-centered projection? Can you even consider that other people can figure that out for themselves?
I remember you did this before regarding apologizing for slavery. You ironically told Lynn black people should feel patronized by an apology, but neglected to notice how patronizing you were in telling Lynn how black people should feel about the issue.
That was a classic.
People care when it affects them If you wife is already legal and has already been through the process she probably won't care. What about those not done with the process, some of which have been going through it for years, at the cost of thousands of dollars?
Here's a simplistic analogy. If you go to great America and you're waiting in the 3 hour line for a roller coaster do you care if someone cuts in line ahead of you? probably. Do you care if someone cuts in line behind you? maybe, but not as much. What if you just got off the coaster and you see someone cutting in line?
Thank God the immigration bill died.
Again, I don't think you have read CD's link. Claiming it is "line jumping" is a mischaracterization. It still doesn't excuse tommy for his attempts to tell people how they should feel as if what is important to tommy should necessarily be important to all.
Snoopy,
Has anyone ever asked her in public to provide proof of citizenship?
ps. I'm sure she is a beautiful and loving spouse. Congratulations.
Several times. When we visited my mom in northwestern Michigan. Small towns seem to be a defining characteristic of where she gets asked.
Remember, when in Michigan, the further north you go, the further south you get.
That must explain how I ended up in Texas after having grown up there!
Most people just pass through Hell.
Ha! Our senior classes used to walk to Hell (MI) every year. So I've been there and back! :-)
While Hell is my favorite name for a town in MI, I do have a close second, Badaxe.
Ahh.. then you've never journeyed to Climax?
;-)
I'd try it, but here in Minnesota I can't get past Embarrass.
I'm not disputing you, but that seems like an odd place to be asking.
I grew up in Southeastern Michigan in a small town that had many, many Mexican Americans who settled here during WWII. I'm guessing as much as 20% of the town's population was Chicano. We all went to the same schools, the same churches, lived together in integrated areas, dated and hung out together, even buried next to each other, and I cannot recall any overt racist incident with either Chicano or Blacks. I've been back many times since and it is still the same, at least is far as I can see.
I'm sorry your wife was exposed to that insensitive racial profiling by some know nothing idiots.
However, the problem your wife encountered exists only because of the massive influx of illegals. I can't blame them from coming. I would want to do the same. However I realize that the influx of illegals has caused a host of problems that need to be addressed.
Where I grew up was nothing like that. Benzie county was like 90%+ white, the only time we saw anyone of a different color was during cherry harvesting season. I won't deny that might have had something to do with it, but good grief, it's almost 50 years later and it's like nothing has changed!
Beautiful part of the country. I've vacationed on Crystal Lake, Glenn Lake, and Torch Lake and have relatives in TC.
I grew up in Lenawee Co. down near Toledo.
You must be familiar with the Michigan-Ohio war then? They fought over who would own and control Toledo.
Ohio lost.
I'm sure I've told that one before, but I still love it. If you've been through Toledo, you understand.
They do have a real nice fair similar to 6 flags there if I recall. That's gotta count for something?
Is that Cedar Point you're referring to? That's in Sandusky, a couple of hours away, but that is a hell of a place. Quite possibly the world's greatest place for roller coaster fans.
That's the name! Man, it's been years since I've been there. We used to drive down from Frankfort in my dad's stationwagon, and at the end of the day we'd drive back home. Man, I guess I had a pretty decent childhood after all.
Yeah, I know all about it. Michigan got the UP as a consolation prize when Toledo and a border strip went to Ohio.
To show you how dull it was where I grew up, we'd go to Toledo for adventure.
I really liked Put-in-bay also. I believe it was South Bass Island near Sandusky. Lots of fun there as well. I really miss the midwest.
What a coincidence. I vacationed at Crystal Lake before when I was a kid in some cabins there. Beautiful area there. I remember going to Frankfort just down the road and fishing off of the breakwater there. Playing euchre with Grandma. Good times.
: )
AA perhaps you have not been back here (Michigan) in a while. And heard some of the hate being spewed by many of the anti-immigration folks. Have you heard of the Young Republican's "Catch an Illegal Day"? They went around Lansing looking for Hispanic looking people, and once they found them demanded proof they were US citizens. If the person could not do so, they called the police (I believe the police were a little unhappy about getting the moronic calls, BTW: no illegals found).
l ink
They should be ashamed.
"the problem your wife encountered exists only because of the massive influx of illegals."
Incorrect. The problem his wife encounters exists only because of the massive amount of idiots who equate skin color with citizenship. Illegal immigrants do not just come from Central and South America - they are truly global in their origins, but something tells me that Yun Kim down the street doesn't get his ID asked for as often as Jose Gonzales does.
It might be different if there were 12 million illegal Asian Americans here instead of Latin Americans. But your point is well taken.
AA, I want to relate another remembrance to you. When I went to school in Benzie, everyone of my classmates were white. I was in band (not band camp!). The very 1st time I saw a colored person was in my freshman year. I worked hard to go out into the country to solicit mag subscriptions for band. I found this out of the way driveway on my way to Crystal Lake, found a house that was about a football field back from the road, and knocked on the door. Maybe my parents taught me right, but I wasn't shocked when the door opened, and I was totally polite when I made the magazine pitch. I learned that respect drives equality that day.
"We all went to the same schools, the same churches, lived together in integrated areas, dated and hung out together, even buried next to each other..."- anotheramerican
Yikes, Barn, don't you have indoor plumbing back there? ;0)
This was predicited the other day , and yet me and other posters were attacked for being off topic. Olbermann is simply a disgrace, he continues with this petty feud. He needs to look in his own house before first and that includes both MSNBC and ESPN. MMFA, why on earth do you continue to promote the Olbermann show?
Well, guess the answer to that is because it is more popular and much higher rated than the Glenn Beck show.
MMFA is a non profit organization, I did not realize its mission was to boost ratings of a political hack in Olbermann who I put in the same league as Beck and OReilly.
This was predicited the other day , and yet me and other posters were attacked for being off topic.
You were off-topic. On this topic, you won't be.
We were on topic then becuase anytime MMFA discusses OReilly, the sports guy turns around and throws more venom on the fire by dividing and playing childish games like Worst Person in the World. Meanwhile he says nothing about Matthews and Carlson. Can you say phony?
If only there were more of you willing to come forward when O'Reilly had his online petition to get Olbermann off the air.
I do not sign petitions from OReilly , he is as bad as Olbermann
No, you weren't on topic the other day.
Repeating something's that not true several times doesn't magically make it become true, you know.
Notthatgeorge
Sorry but the topic was discussed.
Not before Sue brought KO up, hers was the first post, so you're wrong.
Why is OReilly being discussed on this thread if its about Olbermann and something he said?
Because it's about something Olberman said about O'Reilly. That was easy.
I was discussing the OReilly comment and how Olby would react, as we all see I was correct. The no talent Olbermann can not come up with his own material.
Casy, it's nomobush,not notthatgeorge, we covered that the other day as well.
Can you say ANYTHING that concerns something other than your obsessive hatred for Olbermann?
Tommy, you forgot, "Why is this here?"
The reason O'Reilly deserves this one is because it's bigoted vs. principled.
There is nothing ethically wrong with denying citizenship and/or amnesty to illegal aliens in this country, who violated laws and US sovereignity in order to come here. You hold a principle (although some conservatives are suspect in their application of said "principles") that law should be held above all else and justice be served regardless of emotional consequences.
There is something morally and ethically wrong in opposing a group of immigrants (assuming their status was legal) moving here or there because they are culturally different than you, in a way that is not detrimental to society or your family. Having a big family in one house is not wrong or decaying to society.
It's more of O'Reilly sticking his foot in his mouth and revealing himself. Is he racist against Mexican people? Who knows. I believe he is bigoted against gay people, so can his bigotry be extended elsewhere? - it would not be a surprise.
Not to mention that, due to his comments, he's become a completely unreliable and un-serious ally for those opposing rights for illegal immigrants based on legal principles.
I completely agree with you on this one. Well said.
Unrelated, but important to read in the wake of the minnisota bridge collapse. It's a list of the 20 most structurally unsafe bridges in the US. If you live in New Jersey, New York or California in particular you may want to take a look.
Yeah, it's a little scary in light of things.
My local radio show host had a Virginia DMV engineer on who called a local bridge the same rating as the minnesota one that collapsed, and said "No fear, it's on the list for 2008."
Yikes.
I live in a suburb of Minneapolis. The whole thing is kind of hard to believe.
I'm glad your safe!
There is a video out, sorry for not providing the link, but a security camera caught the whole thing. It just - fell. Weird.
Tommy noted yesterday in the "Rothenberg detects inconsistency" item that we hadn't heard from you and hoped you were ok. Knowing where you live I commented that it was unlikely you even use that bridge often. My office is less than two miles from the collapsed bridge and I almost never use it.
I am glad both of you are OK, it is a horrible tragedy.
Bruce,
This is what happens when people elect these Republican con-men.
The infrastructure decays. The common good is destroyed. The wealthy grow fabulously rich and the middle class shrinks. How many times do people have to get slapped in the face and kicked in the butt before they stop electing people with an (R) by their name?
How long will it take?
I would say it will take about as long as having someone else serious on the ballet without a (D) by their name.
I was wondering when I'd see the bridge collaspe blamed on Republicans.
If only Bush had checked the bridge sooner.
Sorry I'm just getting back here after a few days.
Debunked:
As you know, Minnesota is a traditional "Blue" State. While we do elect Republican Governors with some regularity, the State legislature has been controlled by Democrats the vast majority of the time. I think your argument would make more sense if you were talking about a traditional "Red" state.
And one more thing, despite the reports that the bridge definitely had some problems, we (the "experts") have not made a determination as to why that bridge came down. Perhaps the "blame game" can be delayed until we have some concrete answers?
80% of the roads and bridges are federally financed. That's where the fault lies. Just think what could be done in our schools and infrastructure if we weren't spending a half trillion in Iraq and borrowing money to finance tax cuts for the hyper wealthy.
The war in Iraq has basically been financed out of thin air. The money would not have been spent otherwise, IMO, so I find that argument to be a non-starter. The tax structure for our citizens is one that will forever be debated.
Bruce, I think Juliajayne’s point was if were are going to go into debt or as you say pull $$ out of thin air it would be better to go into debit by investing the $$ in our schools and infrastructure. In other words if you have $20.00 and you need food but you also have a tip on a horse, food would be the better bet.
Of course, schools and infrastructure are a part of basic government service. I agree with that.
And a little more about Michigan. It was found a while back (before the bridge collapse) that the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan after all these years has less than 5% deterioration. No more than a couple of spots of rust.
How do you define it as a petty feud SUE. KO's the only MSMer that exposes the BS. Feud possibly, petty no.
In addition, the silver went to Mike Stark for going to Billo's house and harassing him.
It is simple Sue, what ever scoring method kieth uses, Carlson has never been able to out score BillO. Carlson is not as smart as BillO (that's not a compliment by the way). Carlson is a lazy little boy who got where is by nepotism.
another day, another bogeyman conjured up by another paranoid right-wing hack carrying Murdoch's and Rove's marching orders in his pocket.
How big of Olbermann
Our runner-up, with great regret, blogger Mike Stark, who went to the home of Bill O‘Reilly as a surprise and posted signs around his neighborhood reading “Bill O‘Reilly Pervert” and videotaped it and posted the videotape online. Mr. Stark is the man to whom O‘Reilly threatened to sick Fox security and send him a little surprise at his home.
No, not acceptable. Whatever you think of him, whatever threats he has made, whatever threat he represents, whether or not he would happily go to your home or his sheep happily come to mine, no matter how he has had his employees stalk politicians or newspaper reporters, there is a line and the good guys are not supposed to cross it. Same if it‘s Ann Coulter. Same if it‘s Melanie Morgan. Same if it‘s comedian Rush Limbaugh. Leave them alone in private. In public?
OK, we get it. You don't like KO. So what? Many of us here DO. KO is intelligent and fair. He is outspoken, but is not a blowhard like Billdo. To equate KO with Billdo or Ann Coultergeist is just ignorant. Thanks for playing.
I don't think Sue was being sracastic here. She wrote (maybe word for word) what Keith said. Anyway, LOVE THAT OLBERMAN !!!!
He's fair? Funny how he and Bill both couldn't be less fair but to you, one is fair and one isn't. Interesting.
I'm totally against the clustering of illiterates. Illiterates pose a huge threat to our way of life. There are more than 12 million illiterates here already:
http://pics.livejournal.com/mitdasein/pic/000264d5http://pics.livejournal.com/mitdasein/pic/000264d5/
There should also be laws against clustering of Republican's, Conservatives, Rats, Weasle's and Skunks.
Actually a good American would want all those and more "clustered" so that when the time comes and the barbed wire goes up, they will be easier to control (NOT). ;). A well deserved KO(D)y, in this instance, Bull.
Did anyone see the segment on O’Reilly the other night where he was trying to be hip by giving a pop-culture quiz to Steve Doocy and one of Fox’s indistinguishably attractive female reporters? It was pretty standard fair, recent tabloid stuff, until the final question where O’Reilly pulled out a question about a lyric from a Turtles song. Way to nail down that money demographic with a question about a British invasion also ran. It had to be an appeal to an advertiser of denture cream or the clapper. O’Reilly went on to rave brag that he had seen them a couple of nights earlier. They must have been playing the opening of an Author Treacher’s.
Grand summary: some people understand and adhere to values that are respected and understood for centuries as "for the good of the public", while others do not.
No matter how many times I read through these discussions, I cannot imagine myself sitting and having a chat with people who can argue, for example, that BillO was anything other than racist. For those who think otherwise, we get a deluge of nonsensical word-play that dances around the real subject. Reminds me of almost every Billo, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld interview -- the subject is placed on the back burner while some offshoot issue sends the host into a aneurysm-popping tantrum.
"They don't want them clustering in neighborhoods and changing the tempo of the whole neighborhood."
If you do not hear these words or read them without thinking that BillO was pandering to the racist crowd (most of his audience) who does not like Mexican people, then maybe you have not been outside of your angry white neighborhood enough. Please go out, travel, gain some experience and perspective, then cme back and talk about the real issue, not Olberman's choice of winners.