On Irish TV, O'Reilly called Media Matters "an assassination website" that takes him "out of context"
On April 13, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly appeared on RTÉ One's The Late Late Show, a talk show based in Dublin, Ireland. During the interview, host Pat Kenny asked O'Reilly about his previous references to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and the Iraqi people as "prehistoric." When Kenny said that he found both remarks on Media Matters for America's website, O'Reilly responded by attacking Media Matters as "an assassination website" and a "far-left propaganda thing." O'Reilly further claimed that he didn't "remember saying" either of the statements pointed out by Kenny and added that Media Matters takes him "out of context." However, Media Matters provided documentation of O'Reilly referring to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and the Iraqi people as "prehistoric."
During the April 13 interview, Kenny asked O'Reilly about what Kenny called O'Reilly's "advice to the poor": "It's hard to do it because you've got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy, and who's going to do that?" When O'Reilly asked, "Well, where did you get that? Because I don't remember saying that." Kenny responded, "We got it off the website." O'Reilly quickly lashed out, saying, "OK. The website you got it off is called Media Matters, which is an assassination website. It's a far-left propaganda thing. ... They'll take two, three sentences; they'll put it on out of context." O'Reilly added: "[B]e very careful when buying into the American website factory, because they're set up to assassinate people with whom they disagree. That's where you got it, and we know that game. They play it all the time."
However, in documenting O'Reilly's June 11, 2004, description of poor people as "irresponsible and lazy," Media Matters provided more than simply "two, three sentences":
O'REILLY: Reagan was not a confrontational guy, didn't like confrontation, much rather be your pal ... doesn't want to get involved with the really nasty stuff, the tough stuff, and that's what racial politics is -- nasty and tough. ... It's hard to do it because you gotta look people in the eye and tell 'em they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's gonna wanna do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country, you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period. Period. I mean I know people from Haiti, from the Ukraine from eh, -- we got callers all day long on The Factor. From Romania. You come here, you get educated, you work hard, you'll make a buck. You get addicted, you don't know anything, you'll be poor. But Reagan did not want to confront the issue. And that's the truth about it.
During the interview, Kenny also noted: "But you do have views, say, on the Iraqi people. Did you say that thing about the Iraqi people, that they're prehistoric?" O'Reilly responded: "No. I don't remember saying that at all. And, again, taken out of context." O'Reilly did not explain the apparent contradiction between his simultaneous claims that he could not remember saying the Iraqi people were "prehistoric" and that Media Matters took him "out of context."
Following is the transcript originally provided by Media Matters of O'Reilly's June 17, 2004, comments regarding the Iraqi people:
O'REILLY: Because look ... when 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it, you're not going to win. You're not going to win. And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.
Sure, they're terrorized, they've never known freedom, all of that. There's excuses. I understand. But I don't have to respect them because you know when you have Americans dying trying to you know institute some kind of democracy there, and 2 percent of the people appreciate it, you know, it's time to -- time to wise up.
And this teaches us a big lesson, that we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work.
Later in the interview, O'Reilly said to Kenny: "I will tell you this. Those cards you have in your hand came from one of the most vicious websites on earth. All right? And there are a hundred of them. And if you run for office in America, or you're me and you go on every night, those people will assassinate your character every single day. They will lie about you, they will defame you, they will slander you." O'Reilly claimed that politics is now "a vicious game," adding, "It used to be in our country where people shook hands and this, that, and the other thing. Now, it's like the Mafia: 'Let's kill them.' And that has driven good people away."
In his April 19 column, O'Reilly complained about his visit to Ireland, and in particular, the Irish news outlets. O'Reilly wrote:
Last Friday, I appeared on Ireland's version of "The Tonight Show" and the host had scores of cue cards from "Media Matters," the far-left internet smear-factory.
When I asked the man why he was quoting from an obviously biased source, he blinked nervously and put down the cards.
From the April 13 broadcast of RTÉ One's The Late Late Show:
KENNY: Yeah. Some of the things that you've said and -- either on your radio show or on your TV show. Advice to the poor. "It's hard to do it because you've got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy, and who's going to do that?"
O'REILLY: Well, where did you get that? Because I don't remember saying that.
KENNY: That's Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly. 11-06-2004.
O'REILLY: By whom? Who put that out?
KENNY: We got it off the website.
O'REILLY: OK. The website you got it off is called Media Matters, which is an assassination website. It's a far-left propaganda thing.
Now, I do two hours -- you do radio, two hours as well. They'll take two, three sentences; they'll put it on out of context. I can't possibly answer that question. I don't know what the discussion was.
But be very careful when buying into the American website factory, because they're set up to assassinate people with whom they disagree. That's where you got it, and we know that game. They play it all the time.
KENNY: But you do have views on, say, the Iraqi people. Did you say that thing about the Iraqi people, that they're "prehistoric?"
O'REILLY: No. I don't remember saying that at all. And, again, taken out of context. And if you want to ask me a question about the Iraqi people or about American poverty --
KENNY: Which I will.
O'REILLY: I'll be happy to answer it. But be careful about this.
[...]
KENNY: But there's another problem. Maybe it's true of all Western democracies. And maybe democracy is not the only way you can rule a people.
O'REILLY: True.
KENNY: There have been other ways.
O'REILLY: True.
KENNY: But when I look at the caliber of the people who are running for the United States presidency, without running any of them particularly down, I mean, it's not exactly a glittering field, is it?
O'REILLY: You know, I'm not going to say that. I admire and respect people who put themselves out for public service. But I will tell you this.
KENNY: But do you know what I mean?
O'REILLY: Those cards you have in your hand came from one of the most vicious websites on earth. All right? And there are a hundred of them. And if you run for office in America, or you're me and you go on every night, those people will assassinate your character every single day. They will lie about you, they will defame you, they will slander you. And we can't sue, unlike the British system. If you're famous in America, you can't sue.
So, put yourself in a position of, "Do you want that kind of life? Do you want your family threatened every day, like my family is? Do you want that?" So the good people say, "We don't want this."
KENNY: Yeah. And if they've ever done anything remotely sinful or wrong or --
O'REILLY: Oh, they'll make it up. They'll make it up. You don't have to do anything. They'll make it up. So, good people --
KENNY: But is there any way to reform that kind of system?
O'REILLY: There has to -- there should be.
KENNY: Because if it's a --
O'REILLY: There should be tort reform in the United States.
KENNY: What does Hillary Clinton got? Forty-four million bucks so far?
O'REILLY: Well, that's fine. That's a different measure --
KENNY: No, but do you know what I mean? If that's what it takes to get elected --
O'REILLY: That's what it takes.
KENNY: It means that some campaigner, someone who leads with his or her heart, unless they have the cash, they can't do it.
O'REILLY: Well, that's true. America, you have to buy TV time. You have to campaign coast to coast. You've gotta have to have a private jet. You've gotta be everywhere.
But the money doesn't bother me as much as the defamation. Because now politics is a vicious game. It used to be in our country where people shook hands and this, that, and the other thing. Now, it's like the Mafia: "Let's kill them." And that has driven good people away.
Shouldn't this be on "Media Matters for Ireland"?
shouldn't your post be on "tommy find a life"?
shouldn't the TRUTH be TOLD and repeated ad nauseum to people in other countries who might get the impression from lying liars that FACTUAL web sites are the most evil entities on the planet...??
he complains about his family being threatened, but he had no problem with limbaugh saying that tom daschle, then the senate majority leader, and his fellow democrats wanted another 9-11 so they could benefit from it politically. and those comments brought a big spike in death threats to daschle.
Can this website not be dialed up on the world wide web? In Ireland, for example?
Good thing O'Reilly gave MMFA a plug while he was there.
Well then let's start a planetary drive to rename it to
"Media Matters for the Universe". I could use some good juicy misinformation from say, the Pacific rim, Mars, or Thailand.
apparently when o'reilly is overseas he's not a member of the u.s. media. not that tommy seems to disagree with the point of the article. it's just the fact it was said in ireland that has tommy in his "why is this here" mode.
It's not misinformation from Mars, but here's one where Mars is pimped to foward BS about global warming.
O'Reilly is an American pundit representing America. MMFA can still document this.
It figures...
That BO would say "I don't remember saying that at all."
Just like his hero Ronnie (Makes-new-friends-everyday) Raygun.
? If you are famous in America, you can't sue...???? O'Lielly-land property values are plummeting...
Didn't O'Reilly counter sue Andrea Mackris?
Apples and oranges. As you pointed out, O'Reilly was countersuing.
On an initial libel suit, public figures have a tough time with suits in the US, because they're legally considered fair game, and they must prove actual malice.
In Britain and Ireland the libel laws are much tougher on defendants, although there is some talk about making them even-handed.
Bill and his ilk have driven the good people away.... to MMFA!!
You're a poet. Do you know it?
but his feet show it, they're Longfellows.
Oh happy day. Let's all be gay.
Where we all can stay.......above the fray.
Then we can say...Tommy, go away!
Come on Tommy, please do not play the "why is this here" game with this post. This is classic. O'Reilly speaks crap. MMFA prints it. O'Reilly denies it and attacks MMFA. Then MMFA gives a detailed description of what he said, when he said it, and the context in which it was said. Once again, O'Reilly cannot get away with lying about what he said, and his attacks on MMFA are shown (as ususal) to be unfounded. This post is exactly what MMFA states as its mission: to expose the lying, and to not allow the liars to claim they did not say what they obviously said.
Mark,
For crying out loud, it was a joke......whew.
but aren't all your posts a......
..........joke? I am trying to cut back on responding to yours, that should satisfy it alot, however.
you'd love me to stop assisting you while you paint yourself into a corner, but ...nah
Tommy: I apologize for not recognizing your initial post (which is what I was responding to) as a joke, but since you often ask why something is posted on this site, I thought that you were asking that about this post. I was just trying to point out that this post is a great one, and it also shows how uncomfortable O'Reilly is with MMFA actually getting people to read and listen to O'Reilly's actual words on a subject. What could be more unfair than actually being called out on your own statements? No wonder O'Reilly is so miffed.
O'Reilly is the biggest whiner on TV or radio today.....bar none. Frankly, he is an insufferable bore - he repeats the same schtick day after day.
Nothing he says surprises me.
So I'm on the most vicious web site on the earth. Man whats the scale and units on that? Whats the competition, no don't tell me. I hope no one tells my mom where I've been.
please stop yer' blatant sinning and turn yer' telly tube to Fox *News* and thy shall be forgivin'...
Orielly reminds me of a child. A child that will throw rocks and think it is the funniest thing in the world and will mock the tears of the other children he hits. But ever confront him on his actions and he will scream bloody murder and claim he is innocent and that the world is out to get him.
He will also rather believe a lie then the truth as they might destory his little fantasy world he has lived in. 'What there is no easter bunny?'.. yes, only cruel people would say such a thing.
They might also ask questions and seem to have less trouble understanding the most ridiculous stories as, again, the truth would bear to much for them. Not to mention the truth would be to complex for their yet untaught minds. The simpler the better. But dare you question the ultimate truth of daddys word.
And less we forget about the boogeymen! Those feared creatures from beyond the bedcorner. Those that daddy had warned about if the little boy did not do as daddy said. Willing to leap up and hurt the little boy if they ever turned their back and doubted daddy. Interestingly enough the monsters are of daddy's own design, created and used when he needed them, but disposed of when they had worn their use, but alas they still haunt the nights, waiting to pay back daddy and his little boy for the way they were abused. Forgotten but never gone. Lurking in the back of the mind for a window they can use to come back again. Oh how they wait for their day when they can return the horror they have felt.
And they will grow up like daddy. The fluids they need, their education gained from an electric box, the hate of all not like themselves permanently branded in their minds and willing to do what the great father asks of them.
Yes, a true child he is.
Same old thing from BO
He really is insane, and I do not pay attention to him anymore.
This buffoon goes on America's Late Show, w/ David Letterman, and Dave says right to the buffoon's face:
"60% of what you say is CRAP."
...which probably underestimates the CRAP about two-fifth's worth.
Now the buffoon goes to Ireland, to make a fresh, CRAP-free start of it... and says:
o'reilly: "...assassination website" "But be very careful when buying into the American website factory, because they're set up to assassinate people..." "...one of the most vicious websites on earth."
"Do you want your family threatened every day, like my family is? Do you want that?"
"Now, it's like the Mafia: "Let's kill them." And that has driven good people away."
So the buffoon blasts way, to the Irish late night TV audience...
...and even in the foreign language of Irish, I bet they didn't have too much trouble translating the proportion of CRAP in this buffoon's speech.
Just what is the Irish word for CRAP... O'CRAP?
It's just another one of his running-to-the-teacher-in-the-schoolyard tantrums.
He is incredibly thin-skinned and can't take criticism like a man.
I've never seen anyone who makes so much money whine and cry about how difficult life is, how he's the victim and everyone else is to blame for his woes.
Is anyone other than his most dimwitted and devoted fans playing the violin for this crybaby?
I second everything Pete just said.
Well, we may find out. I've just emailed this to an online acquaintance in Ireland, a journalist in the North. He'll probably be checking it out in a few hours, so let's raise the level of discourse, OK? We're now under an international microscope.
Uh, Demo?
O'Reilly's in Ireland. Irish isn't a "foreign" language there, in spite of the fact that the Brits outlawed it when they tried to run the place.
uh, concho... I guess the humor of referring to Irish (or even English) as a language foreign to Americans... I guess the humor of it went right over your head.
(The difference between the 'American' language and the 'English' language is, as you know, immortalized humorously in the quip: "America and England are two nations, separated by a common language.")
Whoops! Is my face red. I was clearly up too late. Sorry to underestimate you.
Trying desperately to recover, may I point out that you're quoting an Irishman, George Bernard Shaw?
Ha Ha, and much thanks, as to informing me of GBS being the source of that quip... and you know, I thought of that immediately, when I typed out (correctly I think) the quip... I thought "Is there an individual credited with being the source of that funny observation?"
And I was going to 'word-search' the quote, to find out for sure (I loving the power of this Internet Wire so much, as a research tool among many other things)...
But I didn't 'word search' it... but so what, you provided the answer just as quickly and as well...
Thanks.
(The Internet Wire: LORD, what a tool it is You provide us LORD... or was it Al Gore? I don't know... I'll 'word search', and find out for sure, I guess.)
By George, I think you've got it.
If you want to see the quote in the original, check a script of Pygmalion or My Fair Lady. The line is spoken by Henry Higgins, very early in the play.
I sent Billo this email, which you might find interesting/amusing.
Irish Whines
Jaysus Bill, your constant carping about being attacked by blood-thirsty liberals is good for a chuckle over here, (as is your absurd claim that you don't engage in ad hominem attacks) but keep it in the family, can't ya? As an American, an Irish American, I'm embarrassed. You're supposed to be our radio tough guy, and you go back to the ancestral home and cry about being bullied? Have you no shame? Show a little backbone, laddie.
Very well and good. My knowledge should be, and will be, better, regarding GSB, and his works and plays.
As for where my Irish leads me, it's the same place so many other Irish are led:
To an utter and absolute hatred of INJUSTICE.
I do believe it marks the male of that Irish species, if not the entire.
LORD how do the Irish hate INJUSTICE...
LORD how do the male of that species, bruise their knuckles in a joyous pursuit of JUSTICE...
LORD forgive us (we Irish) our bruises ... we love to fight the devil, our LORD.
We make good cops.
I think He forgives us, Our LORD does, for our wicked fighting aginst the demons and the devils, who so presently control our U.S. Federal Government...
And I hope so... because I think it within ourselves (and to be Irish) to fight INJUSTICE naturallry...
(I don't know many other sure marks of the Irish Clan, than to fight this thing, than)
...to fight the devil.
George W. Bush is now known to the world... he is no secret, and despite all his efforts, he is a failure as a fraud.
We know (Irish and the world's folk alike)... we know the devil... and we fight him.
I love it, I love the fight...
...aginst INJUSTICE.
LORD help me and my Brothers and Sisters, LORD help us.
Much Thanks.
Hi Conchobhar:
This is off topic but since you have asked more than once:
I was out of town this weekend and missed your question about my handle and any relation it may have to the work of the First Earl of Beaconsfield. I am afraid there is none--although I am flattered to be thought of as that clever by anyone. Disraeli--now there is a real Conservative--not at all like the wankers who call themselves Conservatives today. Can you ever imagine Bush coming up with,"a Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy"? I cannot. I am afraid my handle has a meaner origin. My mother was French Canadian and as you know the colours (sorry about the spelling it is probably genetic) of the Quebec flag are Blue and White. It is,from here on, a long complicated story partially alluded to in this Wikipedia article (see the section on Political Slurs).
I thin, according to our president, what you did was "misunderestimate." Just wanted to clear that up.
There may have been a booking SNAFU, with BilldO not understanding that in Eire, the Republicans are the ones not supporting an oppressive and alien government.
Doesn't it seem like O'Reilly is fostering a lot of hostility toward America in general during this appearance?
Isn't he emboldening our enemies by going to a foreign land and bad-mouthing America? Wasn't there a prominent member of Congress who recently got accused of that very same thing? Who was that....?
O'Reilly should be Dixie Chicked, pronto.
It seems that BilldO is very hurt by the nasty nature of the media, politics and websites.
It must be very disturbing as he settles in to do his honest, loving little show to know that there are mean people out there, bent on destroying him.
I hope they stripped him of his Hibernian credentials right there on TV.
I'm sure "narrowback" O'Reilly's visit makes them as uncomfortable as we feel listening to him whine.
LOL,
Swiftboat style.
Too good for him. Chicksie dicked, maybe.
I've always found Media Matters to be far superior to similar sites in terms of giving full quotations
Dear Bill,
That would be vicious,gay, psychotic vermin to you my dear man.
And what I just wrote isn't what I just wrote. Just because it is exactly written this way does not mean anything. The folks at MMFA distorted what I wrote even though it is exactly what I wrote. I have adapted this logic from my heros Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you for not reading exactly what is written.
P.S. Mr. O'Reilly, I think you should post here and debate your points with these vicious people. And be careful of the HBL person. But the Col and Dr. and LT. will be here to protect you
princeofwheels, are you warning BilldO of my alleged "trolliness"? Or my "stalking"? Either way, I must plead guilty to a little borderline flaming.Just before going to bed a few nights ago, and in the wake of all of the recent brand new right wing posters here, I did throw out some red meat mixed up with a little BS bait to a poster called jason (and some numbers).
He eventually came off as a decent and intelligent guy, after DTrain took the time to address his loooooong list of questions.(Thanks, DTrain,you're very patient and thorough), but I think I was just exhausted, as entertaining as it was, with the hordes of righty posters coming here with an initial post of condescending,insulting BS, followed by the shock of not being treated as visiting professors.
Seemed funny at the time, my exploratory chumming, but I expect some copy/pasting to come back a-haunting me.Looking forward to it.;0)
Billshite!
It's apparent from looking at the well-fed gasbags of the right that O'Reilly (and Limbaugh) have as little relevance to the issues as Oscar the Grouch, and with less talented puppeteers. In any case, Keith Olbermann is kicking their asses by providing true "fair-and-balanced" information, leaving O'Reilly and company with no option other than to become ever more apoplectic until they piss their pants and get spanked by the market.
Thank you for putting the "MJ" in your handle. I can only imagine the confusion with my handle that would have ensued otherwise.
"And, again, taken out of context."
The context in which Bill O'Reilly wishes all of his statements to be taken is "I am the great and infallible Bill O'Reilly. I am never wrong."
LOL,
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The great and powerful 'O' has spoken."
When O'Really attacks Media Matters, I love it because he only harms himself. The result is more interest generated for Media Matters. More people visit the WebSite to see the truth spoken to this ugly, powerful excuse for a man.
O'Really would be wiser if he never uttered a single word about Media Matters. That way less people would find out the truth about him, his lies and his horrible style of broadcasting.
Wow Media Matters must be the topic of the fax mill issued this week.
Hey, Bonehead. Your president Mr. Bush, has a political advisor named Karl Rove. He has done more to divide this country with his insidious evil than anyone could have forseen. So, STFU, O'Reilly.
I believe everything Bill "sexual harasser" O'Reilly says and he is right, MMFA is a vicious website that attacks him with straight, undoctored quotes.
The truth hurts.
You make a great point. The problem is not whether someone attacks or "name calls," as O'Reilly like to pontificate. The problem is someone is honest or not. To BO fans, the only thing that he has to prove is that he is being attacked and automatically that makes MMFA the bad guy. The will just ignore the fact that he is being attacked with facts. Actually MMFA doesn't even name call.
Notice how every time someone brings up specifics (facts) and concrete examples of an issue or article to BO that hurts BO, BO quickly tries turn the discussion towards making general accusations that he never has to back up with any specifics or concrete examples. Why? Because concrete examples of false attacks on BO by MMFA (at least not that I have ever seen) don't exist.
I'm still waiting for one of these Media Matter critics who play the "they take me out of context" card to actually explain it. Not once have they said "here's what I said, here's the context I said it in, and what they left out to make it look bad." Without such an explaination, it really is an ineffective defense.
It's a great trick actually to claim that something is "out of context" and then not present an explanation of a context.
1. It allows BO to not have to paint himself into a corner by lying about specifics. In this case, he didn't have to make up a lie about his "prehistoric" quote. http://mediamatters.org/items/200406180005
2. Not presenting an explanation allows his loyal listeners to invent and retionalize a context of their choosing that fits them individually if they even bother to even investigate the facts for themselves.
3. In many cases, those listeners know the true context of O'Reilly's his quotes and actually agree with his often bigoted views.
Actually, he did lie about the "prehistoric" quote. When the show's host asked him if he had said it, Bill said, "No." A total lie.
Did he say..we are not going to win....now if we take that out of context,ala Sen. Reid, wouldn't the agree with one another
Media Matters to Mr. O’Reilly With all due respect sir, “I know you are, but what am I?” I have to admit that I have not heard O’Reilly do this, but I just spent the day going driving through rural Virginia listening to the omnipresent Clear Channel Right-Wing Demagogues. I heard Rush and Hannity play Harry Reid’s “Iraq is Lost” clip at least 10 times each with no context. It would be difficult to imagine a greater sense of outrage. Then O’Reilly accuses Media Matters of doctoring clips and taking them out of context. Another major topic of conversation was the Alex Baldwin tape, which both Hannity and Rush used as an indictment of liberalism. That was a very unpleasant message to leave and I don’t condone it, but for Hannity and Rush to build up so much outrage over the issue and to use it as an indictment of liberals is a touch hypocritical. Weekly, both of these guys lament that the liberal influences on child rearing has left children with no respect for their parents or authority. Weekly Hannity opines for the halcyon days of yester year and how tough his father was on him. Today he responded to a caller who questioned him along a similar line and said something along the lines of “His father hit him with a belt, but words like these can hurt even more and that he fears for the child’s safety.” Once again, I don’t condone Baldwin’s actions but Hannity’s outrage is so hypocritical when he regularly thanks his father on air for the same kind of fear inspiring tough love. Back to O’Reilly, this is quote that really got my attention. “And if you run for office in America, or you're me and you go on every night, those people will assassinate your character every single day. They will lie about you, they will defame you, they will slander you.” You would think that someone had defamed O’Reilly’s decorated military services, and depicted him as a spineless French flip flopping windsurfer. Or someone had mischaracterized something that he had never even said to imply that he had taken too much credit for O’Reilly’s contribution to one of the biggest innovations of the last 20 years and turned it into a handicap.
I havent listened to Baldwins tirade because I dont care. Alec is a very smart man and a committed liberal who knows his politics. He is also a jerk with a temper. Neither of these is a secret and they are not mutually exclusive. SO WHAT? His problems with his daughter are THEIR PROBLEMS and the only thing they say about liberalism in general is that Conservatives dont have the exclusive franchise on jerks.
The right-wing so-called media seem to have gone utterly mad in the last few weeks. So have conservative politicians and members of the Bush administration. O'Reilly's remarks remind me of Gonzales' testimony to the Senate and McCain's remarks about how calm and safe Baghdad has become.
Any sane person's response to this nonsense has got to be "are you KIDDING me?"
It is very disturbing to see so many people in American public life exhibiting so many pathological symptoms--- denial, projection, narcisism-- not to mention pathological lying and the evidence of substance abuse. You can only hope that they will all soon be exiting the public stage for the good of the country.
I don't understand what the problem is with O'Reilly's comments about poor people. Most poor people are uneducated, or lazy, or irresponsible with their money/lives. Not all of course, but most. Is that not true?? ? People always try to look at the comparison of what blacks earn to what whites earn and cite that as evidence of poverty due to discrimination. But if you compare blacks & whites who have finished high school, college (i.e. educated), get a job (i.e. not lazy) and gotten married before having kids (i.e. responsible), they make virtually the same amount of money.
It's not about amounts of what an individual black person makes against an individiual white person in that situation. It's the proportion of black people who are poor compared to white people. Obviously that's the more relevant comparison.
"It's not about amounts of what an individual black person makes against an individiual white person in that situation. "
The point (which apparently you didn't understand) is that a large number of black (and people of other minorities) are poor due to circumstances that they have control over (graduating high school, having kids before getting a job/graduating high school or college, etc..) NOT due to discrimination.
"It's the proportion of black people who are poor compared to white people. "
Only 50% of black children graduate high school. 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock (as compared to 35% of white children). Think those have something to do with it??
You're assuming that they have total control. If you don't think that poverty breeds poverty, or that environment and educational infrastructure strongly influence dropout and pregnancy rates, then I'm curious what you do believe.
Is your point that black people are genetically lazier, less responsible, or less ambitious? Do you think that if the roles were reversed, a la "White Man's Burden", that there would be much less poverty?
In our economy there's going to be a certain number of people who are poor. It doesn't matter if everyone in the country is a hard-working genius, some people are going to be poor. When you've got systemic discrimination against black people, the results will be obvious. The factors you cite are just as easily a result of poverty as a cause, which is what makes it something of a vicious cycle.
"You're assuming that they have total control."
Yes, graduating high school and having a child are 2 things that are in someone's control. One can control whether or not they graduate high school. One can control whether or not they get pregnant. One can NOT control things such as medical illness or getting into a car accident. Those things (which may result in someone being poor) are not controllable (unless you give up driving).
"Is your point that black people are genetically lazier, less responsible, or less ambitious?"No, my point is that poor people are generally less educated and mroe irresponsible with their lives. However, given that the out of wedlock birth rate is much much higher for blacks (70%) than for other races (Whites 35%, Hispance 40%, Asian 25%), that could be cited as evidence that Yes, they are less responsible with their lives. Also, only 50% of blacks graduate high school. That is another stat which would back up that point. "In our economy there's going to be a certain number of people who are poor."Yes, because there is always going to be a certain % of the population that is lazy, uneducated, or affected by some tragedy outside their control (medical illness, etc..). Many of these people don't have to be in poverty though; they are in poverty because of their own choices, not because of the heartless government or greedy capitalists.
Look obviously some people have much harder circumstances to deal with in their lives than others, but every person has the choice, do I go to school or not? do I engage in unsafe irresponsible behavior or not? Many people answer Yes to these questions and as a result are poor.
Also, on a completely unrelated note, many people manage their money so terribly that they deserve no sympathy. Read this article
http://www.miamiherald.com/103/story/81934.html
A person with thousands of dollars in college debts, and a fairly low paying job (i.e. poor) chooses to buy a brand new $22,000 SUV. And we are supposed to feel sorry for this person??
"Yes, graduating high school and having a child are 2 things that are in someone's control. One can control whether or not they graduate high school. One can control whether or not they get pregnant."
A basic understanding of life will allow you to realize that as a group, those who are poor are going to have these issues more than others. Even in middle-class communities people don't always lead exemplary lives, so poverty is obviously going to magnify that. People aren't perfect, everyone has their problems, and living in difficult circumstances is going to increase self-destructive behavior, clearly. And even more obviously, those who are poor may have to drop out of school to work.
"No, my point is that poor people are generally less educated and mroe irresponsible with their lives."
Why are they less educated though? Are there so many poor black people because they're stupid and lazy and irresponsible? What makes them that way, if so? These are not questions you can blow off, if you want to make your point. Either the cause of this is genetic or societal. If it's societal, then your point is shot because you're admitting systemic discrimination. If it's genetic...well, that seems to be something you don't want to address. Again, if the racial roles were reversed, do you think those numbers would be any different? If so, why?
"Yes, because there is always going to be a certain % of the population that is lazy, uneducated, or affected by some tragedy outside their control (medical illness, etc..). Many of these people don't have to be in poverty though; they are in poverty because of their own choices, not because of the heartless government or greedy capitalists."
Um, what? Did you not read my post? Even if everyone, I mean everyone was a hard-working genius, you're still going to have janitors. You're still going to have fast-food workers. Your suggestion is that if people chose to act in a certain way they'd be successful. That's clearly idiotic, since this is a captitalist society which dictates differences in social standing. If everyone can be an executive or own their own business by behaving a certain way in your little fantasy world, maybe you should lay off "The Sims" for a bit.
"Look obviously some people have much harder circumstances to deal with in their lives than others, but every person has the choice, do I go to school or not? do I engage in unsafe irresponsible behavior or not? Many people answer Yes to these questions and as a result are poor."
Now it's many, before it was most. Many people in every social class, in every racial group make mistakes. That's life, like it or not. The difference is that if you're poor, it's much, much more difficult to recover from that sort of thing. It's not that poor people just don't have the character to succeed, it's the same behaviors everyone engages in are going to be magnified in frequency and in consequence. The choice that I had between going to school or not or engaging in irresponsible behavior or not is not similar in nature to the same choices faced by people in other circumstances.
The problem with your point is you're differentiating between cause and effect when the behavior is both at the same time. It's not like everyone starts off like in Monopoly with the same amount of money, and from there on it's just how good you play. The standing you inherit affects your choices, and the very nature of those choices to begin with.
"A person with thousands of dollars in college debts, and a fairly low paying job (i.e. poor) chooses to buy a brand new $22,000 SUV. And we are supposed to feel sorry for this person??"
No, of course not. So what? And Ken Lay proves that most executives are corrupt, is that right?
That was very long, let me sum up. If there is a disparity between races, the cause is genetic or societal. Your suggestion is that black people just make worse choices, tend to be lazier and less responsible. They're poor because of their own actions, nothing more, nothing less. Black people are more prone to taking those actions which results in their disproportionate lack of affluence.
It's no wonder you're fond of the idea that if someone calls you a bigot, they must be losing the argument...
"If there is a disparity between races, the cause is genetic or societal. "
Neither. Cultural, specifically inner-city culture. You have men that continually impregnate women, commit crimes and dont' care for their children and then the whole cycle repeats itself.
"Your suggestion is that black people just make worse choices, tend to be lazier and less responsible. "
Yes, they do if you look at things such as out of wedlock birthrate and high school graduation rate, 2 factors which STRONGLY correlate with one's income/wealth. I don't know so much about the "lazy" part per say, but in terms of making worse choices (single mothers having babies) and being less responsible (not finishing high school) then yes.
"They're poor because of their own actions,"
Yes, exactly, that's my entire point. Most people are poor due to their own actions and choices NOT due to society or capitalism or the White man.
"Black people are more prone to taking those actions which results in their disproportionate lack of affluence."
They are...are you telling me that those stats cited above are made up??????
I'm not saying your stats are made up. What I'm saying is that you're attributing it to a racial character flaw, where there are other explanations. Incidentally, in the first paragraph I'm describing your position, not making those arguments myself. That should have been obvious.
I'll ask you again;do you think that if the racial roles were reversed, would it be any different? Would disproportionately poor white people still have a lower dropout or pregnancy rate than black people, do you think? I think you must, if you believe that it's merely a cultural thing that has nothing to do with current economic status or systemic discrimination.
Its not true in my experience. The majority of the poor people I know arent the way O'falafel opines. The agenda of course is to say the poor deserve their problems they are morally inferior and being punished by God so we shouldnt help them. Its a way that Ebeneezer Scrooge worshipping conservatives can get up on their pedestal and piously announce how much better they are than those who might need help. It is a furtherance of the search for the Holy Grail of conservative philosophy. The rationale for why selfishness and greed are the eptiome of societal accomplishment and morally superior to empathy. Good luck with that. By the way YOUR repeating such baseless assertions doesnt make them any truer than when O'falafel said them. Repitition is NOT a magic formula to make things true, and if Billy REALLY thought they WERE true why did he deny saying it?
Solon: I agree with your posting and find O'reiley ridiculous and tiresome... but of course he's dangerous as well. Apparently there is a significant part of our population who thrive on his brand of ignorance. These are indeed the dark ages in the USA.
Though I'm lathe to bring religion into this.. once again I am not only struck by O'Lyley hate and delusion, but the sheer hypocrisy of what he claims to be.
As a Roman Catholic who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ ( and as we know rails against the war on Christmas) he has spit in the face of the basic teachings of Jesus in the new Testament.
He needs to revisit "Blessed are the Poor"
I wish there were more confrontations with those who can stand up to him like the recent one's he's had with Geraldo Rivera on his obvious bigotry.
Media matters is generating form real heat and attacks form O'Reiley and a number of the circus ringmasters who have been given a free pass in the media for years now. It's amazing that they are taking such heat for simply printing the truth of what is said in full context.
I'm hoping the "age of enlightenment" is not too far away.
Yes, Salon. It seems like the Cons suffer from the dual symptoms of Calvinism (thinking only moral and deserving people are blessed with riches) and post modernism (thinking that wishing really hard will alter realty). And they are so morally superior aren't they (sic)?
"The majority of the poor people I know arent the way O'falafel opines."
Well, if they are anything like you, then they deserve to be poor, because they are completely uneducated and moronic..But seriously, 50% of black kids graduate high school. 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. Do you think those affect the povery rate at all? Gonna try to claim that those aren't accurate statistics...Yea, go back to hanging out with your poor stupid liberal friends.
But I am not poor. I make very good money. Then again I am not a complete moron, like you obviously are. You really dont have to try so hard to show us how stupid you are. We already know. I dont dispute the figures but its a chicken egg situation. Are those reflections of the inequities were are talking about? What am I asking? That would take actual thought and higher brain function for you to think about. Since your brain is only capable of repeating whatever Hannity or Limbaugh told you its far beyond your weak capacities. You are ignorant RINO. Sadly, pathetically, abjectly ignorant. You are O'falafels demographic. This is why he feels free to just spew this nonsense since he is talking to morons like you. Stew in your ignorance and bigotry. Us stupid liberals will shake our heads in pity feeling compassion even for a soulless moronic fool such as you.
Yea, I'm the moron, yet you are the person who keeps referring to someone as O'falafel (unsubstantiated allegations which were never shown to be true) and claims that most conservatives belief that the poor are morally inferior and thus deserve to be punished by God. Yea....
"Since your brain is only capable of repeating whatever Hannity or Limbaugh told you its far beyond your weak capacities."Can you cite one time where I used a Limbaugh or Hannity talking point? Didn't think so..
"You are ignorant RINO."
Now you're trying to tell me that I'm a Republican in Name Only..Hah.
"Stew in your ignorance and bigotry."
Name calling..Now I know that you've got no argument and have admitted it. This is the official sign that a liberal has lost an argument: calling someone a bigot. Seriously dude, you are a moron and an idiot incapable of logical thought and reasoning. I've stated facts and reasons to back up my claims but all you do is resort to name-calling and hatred. Which is fine, that's what "idiot liberals" (to borrow a David Obey term) do. Just stop trying to pretend that you're some intellectual interested in an honest discussino when you're clearly aren't.
The point is that:
The majority of poor people are uneducated and irresponsible with those own lives and with their money. You can go ahead trying to blame that on Capitalism, the Christian religion, and the Republican party, but none of those people are impregnating single mothers or forcing kids to drop out from high school. Get a clue..
"Can you cite one time where I used a Limbaugh or Hannity talking point? Didn't think so.."
"This is the official sign that a liberal has lost an argument: calling someone a bigot."
Didn't Rush Limbaugh say "A bigot is someone who wins an argument with a liberal", or some very similar phrasing?
There it is!
I don't know, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.........Apparently you do, since you found the exact quote.
You're talking a lot, but you're not providing the stats or links to wherever you received this information.
you imply, that all things being equal, there is no such thing as discrimination today in America.
If you can say what you did about the poor, can I say that rich Republicans are arrogant, whining, cowardly draft dodging, tax evading, hypocrites?
...and classist. I think when Bill Cosby's statements came under criticism it wasn't because he wasn't making valid points, but it was that he came off as being quite classist. All things he chastises "those people" about are are indeed things responsible for their plight, but calling people names and belittling them is completely non-effective. When you have kids living in an environment where all the adults they encounter are dysfunctional and irresponsible why would you expect the children to grow up and behave any differently? When parents aren't doing their jobs the village (society) has to step in. It's the only way to break that cycle. My employers have a program where they are hiring women though welfare to work programs. These women have been trained in basic office skills and software applications, etc. I must admit they aren't the nicest people I've encountered, and they act like they don't want to be here, which they probably don't. In Maryland to receive social service benefits you must be involved in job training and your time to receive benefits is as long as it takes to train you for viable employment. Now I don't mine dealing with these women and their attitudes for the limited interaction that I have with them because I know that their children seeing them out and working will have a positive effect on them and will ultimately break that cycle of subsistence on a meager government check. Their children will know that they have to work, and I do believe that in the long wrong these women will see for themselves that wow in the work place the more education you have the more money you make. That message too will get passed on to their kids. Whether they like it or not they are the conduits we can use to reach their children. This problem didn’t happen over night but with the smart societal intervention we can help reduce these poverty levels that are due to an ignorance of how to live a life to achieve a different outcome. King you are quite right, I believe that some of these wingers who consistently denigrate poor people are just happy to have people to feel superior too, they don’t realize that most of us where blessed to be raised by responsible people and our success in life is due to them teaching us responsibility and giving us a stable and nurturing environment to grow up in.
"and classist. I think when Bill Cosby's statements came under criticism it wasn't because he wasn't making valid points, but it was that he came off as being quite classist"
Sorry, but it's the Democrats who engage in class warfare. They are the ones who try to create class envy and pit the rich against the poor. Republicans and conservatives simply want everyone treated equally. We want equality of opportunity for all, but not equality of results. We want a free country in which every person has the freedom to pursue their own destiny. We don't play these class warfare games that the liberals play. It's only the liberals who are classist. They want to punish the rich in order to try to help the poor. This is counter productive and only makes the economic pie smaller.
I always hark back to the experiment proposed by my own father: so, let's paint you black, refuse to hire you for any job even approaching minumum wage (because, as you are now black, "you can't be trusted"), allow you access only to less-than-equal housing, less than equal educators, not as many of either as if you were not painted black, roust you if you walk or drive anywhere in town, thow you in jail every time you express your resultant unhappiness, foil your efforts to register to vote, and thwart your efforts to apply the franchise if you do manage to register; and see whether you still believe you got a fair shake?
Works quite as well if one substitutes "brown" for "black"; or even "Moslem", although my color pallette doesn't reach that far.
Crapola RINO, Again with the parroting of Republican Talking Points. Traditionally the Republican Party has placed a higher measure on the upper classes which is why until recently they were peopled by those classes. More recently your pals in the right wing noise machine have started a disgraceful smear campaign to try to convince people to hate poor people. They have had quite a degree of success in that and particularly among Kansans or whatever you call yourselves, which is why I see so many right wingers coming to these boards and making the most insensitive and cruel comments about people who are poor. You can't tell me that at least a big segment of your party isn't engaging in class warfare. They want to pit the middle-class against poor people. If we're busy hating the poor and blaming them for our tax burden well you can have all those corporate welfare programs passed unquestioned. You'll have the electorate looking the other way when Parma writes the Medicare prescription drug policy, the credit card industry writes bankruptcy legislation and implement policies that are kicking middle class people squarely in the ass, (read those credit card statements one-day if you can) You also had the energy lobby writing and conducting secret energy policy meetings that resulted in huge tax breaks for their industry. One day RHINO you're going to wake up and realized that you brought into a political movement that encourages an uninformed and and misinformed electorate. That way they can send you to the streets with torches to get all the evil liberals like me that encourage class warfare while they screw you out of house, home, and well being. And for the record I don't hate anyone not do I resent anyones success attained through honest and ethical means.
"They want to pit the middle-class against poor people"
Some might, but not me. I simply want the government to cut taxes for everyone and stay out of our lives. I want a smaller government that gives people ultimate freedom and lets them pursue their own course in life. However, I do agree with you that the Republicans in Congress have gone overboard with corporate welfare. I personally believe that all corporate welfare should be eliminated immediately. I'm a traditional conservative who believes in smaller government and individual freedom. I don't like a lot of things the Republican Congress did, but they're still a whole lot better than the Democrats. Basically, today's Republican party supports big government and the Democratic Party supports ENORMOUS government.
"But if you compare blacks & whites who have finished high school, college (i.e. educated), get a job (i.e. not lazy) and gotten married before having kids (i.e. responsible), they make virtually the same amount of money."
-- From a study conducted by the GPRC (Grhino's Pulled-it-out-of-my-butt Research Center).
Let's define the context. A war criminal adminstration and Congress four years into a senseless occupation, a fascist corporate media intent on selling us consumer products till we choke on them, and a conservative spin machine set up to protect both of them....I think we see the big picture backdrop on your little screen.
I think the GOP media is raising the white flag. Limbaugh and O'Reilly wouldn't unintentially actually mention Media Matters by name if their masters or their masters' masters (Rove, Ailes, etc.) hadn't come to a decision that they are going to have to alter their current methods of operation. They wouldn't give their own audiences the name of an outfit which regularly debunks them. They are effectively giving a warning to the people who really matter to them, such as GOP politicians, that they longer will protect them in the same outrageous ways. In effect, "don't count on us like you used to".
Their only other path would be to try to muzzle the internet like the Chinese.
Goobs: that very thought may well underlie the war about "Net Neutrality", even though the expressed motivation has to do with "safeguarding content providers".
all someone needs to do is go on the oreilley show and ask him what is he afraid of having david brock come on to defend this site . if he cuts it from the interview the person needs to go on all the shows and report it. its that simple. if someone calls me i name i want to confront them and if they dont i tell everyone.
ORIELLEY WILL HIDE BEHIND HIS DESK !!!!!!!!!!!! CALL HIM THE COWARD ON ALL THE SHOWS .GO PUBLIC WITH IT. IF HE DOES NOT ACCEPT IT TELL EVERYONE. UNTILLHE AND LIMBAUGH ARE CALLED ON THIS THEY WILL CONTINUE .
limbaugh called the vtech shooter a liberal that should have been on allllllll over the news. and he will get away with this agin. president bush hsould have been asked if he agrees with his best friend limbaugh if he agrees . delay should have been asked. hannity should have been asked. but no one has the courage to ask them if limbaugh is right.see until these poeple are confronted they will keep going
So what's your point? He said it, he meant it. I actually understand the context and I agree with it. The people saying that we shouldn't be in Iraq are making the same points, although not going as far as saying "prehistoric", though they might as well.
And politics has taken on a new life form, because of websites like this that take a few words and blow things completely out of proportion. Every story I read where I suppose I am supposed to be inflamed with rage, I just shrug my shoulders and say, "and"?? What's your point, for God's sake???? And please, be pithy...:)
Today he said it, he meant it . . . Tomorrow . . . he'll be castigating MMFA once again for taking him "out of context" YOU underst[oo]d . . . I guess when his job is to lie and demean, it becomes hard to find the "off" switch?
So if quoting them accurately is blowing everything out of proportion than what is O'falafels problem? If he agrees with what he said why deny it later? Maybe because he knows the majority of people DONT accept the dispicable rightwing propaganda as if it somehow represented reality. He feels fine saying it to his brainwashed base but when it is given wider exposure he obviously thinks it makes him look bad. There would be no other reason to deny it and attack people who ACCURATLY point out and expose what he says.
my point is these people are cowards hiding behind a mic. when they are confronted with what they said they cant remember and said they were taken out of context.that does not add up.
limbaugh said that the shooter was a liberal . u cant get through his show to chalenge him on that. thats the point .they hide behingd their comments
open ur mind
I only wish that a guy named Farrell interviewed O'Reilly. Farrell was/is one of those non- partisan journalists that is prepared and will not allow any "spin".
I watched this video and Kenny only said he got his information from "the web". O'Reilly automatically assumed he got the information from Media Matters, which he most likely did. This site is a pain in the behind to O'Reilly because he is exposed time and time again.
Extremism to me, be it far left or right is failure to recognize your own extremist viewpoints and assume you have the right to express and force those views on others; a form of brtain washing or Stockholm Syndrome, if you know what I mean. O'Reilly is one of those. He fabricates...lies directly and is "never incorrect"
Someday, sometime a real reporter will ask him a question and he will be forced to answer or walk out of the interview akin to , Novak, North and Coulter when they were confronted. Or go whining to another station (Faux news) ala Malkin when Matthews called her out.
<> The bile and vitriol they spew is pathetic and to see Coulter with a large crucifix around her neck really infuriates me. Anyone hear her diatribe about Darfur?
O'Reilly and his SP's are the enemy of his traditionalist points of view? Where does morals, tolerance, forgiveness and plain old humanity fit into his narrow little cranium.
Another made-up award? I just noticed this:
[link to www.newshounds.us]
O'Reilly claims he was in Ireland to receive a "big award" from Trinity College, but it doesn't appear as if he's actually recieved any award at all. He was only asked to speak at the College.
He needs another imaginary award to fill out his mantlepiece putting it between his two imaginary Peabodies.
This should inspire some limericks. Anyone?
well, juliajayne, if yer twisting arms--
There once was an old man from Fox
A bloviator on the Idiot Box
On the Emerald Isle
He whined a denial
about the No Spin Zone of Brock's
This should get Bill and the Republiclons in an uproar....the cute French socialist candidate is in the run-off for the presidency. We could see France with a liberal woman at the helm very shortly.
Hey Bill. What part of verbatim don't you understand?
Bill was in Dublin to speak at the invitation of a college debating society - no big award, but probably a pay check from their sponsors!