O'Reilly, disputing Powers' accurate account of their exchange on immigration bill: "You're crazy"
On the May 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly disputed Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers' statement that the immigration bill sponsored by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) in 2006 contained several provisions aimed at improving border security. Powers recalled: "I sat on this show and read a list to you of the bill of all the different things he [Kennedy] wanted to do." O'Reilly responded: "You're crazy."
Powers was right: On the May 8, 2006, edition of the program, after O'Reilly asked Powers if she still supported the Kennedy-McCain bill, "[e]ven with no securing of the border" provision, Powers noted that in fact the bill included several provisions addressing border security: "They have tons of security on the border stuff. I can read it to you right now ... double border patrol, adds 12,000 more agents ... adds new technology ... construction of fences, provides additional border."
On March 27, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an immigration bill based on Kennedy and McCain's proposed legislation, "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act." In addition to providing a guest worker program and a path to citizenship, the Kennedy-McCain bill, according to a fact sheet provided by Kennedy, would have:
- Double interior enforcement by adding "1,000 investigators per year for next 5 years"
- Create a "[n]ew [s]ecurity [p]erimeter" by "add[ing] new technology at the border to create [a] 'virtual fence' "
- "Tighten[] [c]ontrols" by "expand[ing] exit-entry security system at all land borders and airports"
- Call for the "[c]onstruction of [b]arriers" by "mandat[ing] new roads and vehicle barriers at borders"
- Call for the "[c]onstruction of [f]ences" by "provid[ing] additional border fences at specific vulnerable sectors"
- "[A]uthorize new permanent highway checkpoints near border"
- Demand a "[c]omprehensive [s]urveillance [p]lan" that would "mandate[] new land and water surveillance plan[s]"
- "Create[] new crime for construction, financing, and use of unlawful tunnels."
From the May 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
POWERS: I don't think that that's where the disagreement is. I think the Democrats do want to secure the border, and I think that they've been very critical about the way --
O'REILLY: You think -- whoa, whoa. You think the Democrats want to secure the border?
POWERS: -- that they want to secure the border. I think where the real disagreement was, was on the [inaudible] on the path to citizenship.
O'REILLY: You think Ted Kennedy wants this? No, wait. You got to answer these questions, Kirsten. This isn't a school class. You think Ted Kennedy, who's sponsoring the bills --
POWERS: It doesn't -- you're just picking out Ted Kennedy as one person. She just went through --
O'REILLY: He's the sponsor of the bills.
POWERS: -- a whole list of people, Blue Dog --
O'REILLY: You think he wants to secure the border?
POWERS: No, she just went through a list of Blue Dog Democrats. There are Democrats who support --
O'REILLY: They don't sponsor the bill. Kennedy does.
POWERS: And in the bill that he --
O'REILLY: It's his leadership.
POWERS: And for that matter, in the bill that he sponsored, you're saying -- you're trying to tell me there was nothing in there about securing the border?
O'REILLY: Wait a minute, hold it. You think --
POWERS: There was all sorts of stuff in that bill about securing the border.
O'REILLY: I got to get this from you. I got to get this from you. You think Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid -- the three most powerful Democrats on the hill right now -- want to secure the border?
POWERS: Yes. They do want to secure the border.
O'REILLY: You do?
POWERS: They absolutely do want to secure the border.
O'REILLY: And you're pointing to what to back that up?
POWERS: And if you look at the Kennedy bill, there was a long list of things that he wanted to do, including increasing the number of --
O'REILLY: There was one thing: add more border patrol agents.
POWERS: Adding more border -- no, and adding other security measures.
O'REILLY: Like what?
POWERS: There was different -- I can't remember the specifics right now, but there was --
O'REILLY: You can't remember? There wasn't anything.
POWERS: Yes, there was, Bill.
O'REILLY: No, there was some little -- put more water --
POWERS: I sat on this show and read a list to you.
O'REILLY: -- fountains out there.
POWERS: That's not true. I sat on this show and read a list to you of the bill of all the different things he wanted to do.
O'REILLY: You're crazy.
POWERS: I am --
O'REILLY: You're crazy.
POWERS: OK, that's good. Now you're doing the name-calling.
O'REILLY: You're so crazy.
POWERS: Yeah. OK.
O'REILLY: All right. I'm just amazed that you think Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want to secure the border. I am just amazed.
From the May 8, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
POWERS: Well, I don't think -- the way Michelle just couched it is not accurate, at least in terms of what the Democrats have put forward -- what Kennedy supports. It's -- they would be put at the back of the line. Nobody's getting in front of the line in front of anybody, so it's not --
O'REILLY: But they wouldn't have to go back.
POWERS: They wouldn't have to go back. That's the difference. It's just that they're here, and they would be able to be put on a pattern -- on a path --.
O'REILLY: Do you support the Kennedy-McCain thing?
O'REILLY: Even with no securing of the border?
POWERS: No. They have tons of security on the border stuff. I can read it to you right now.
MALKIN: Good God!
POWERS: -- double border patrol, adds 12,000 new agents. You know, adds new technology, create a virtual --
O'REILLY: Twelve thousand new agents over a period of 10 years. Come on.
MALKIN: Are you kidding?
POWERS: ... vehicle borders. Construction of fences, provides additional border -
O'REILLY: Kirsten, we're going to send you down -- we're going to send you down -- we're going to send her down to see how secure the border will be under McCain-Kennedy.
All right, ladies, thanks very much. As always, we appreciate it.
I think a "crazy" diagnosis from Dr. O'Reilly is like the mental health Seal of Approval.I'm assuming it means that you don't agree with him.
Why do people, non Rightwing nutbags, even bother going on that show?
kristen powers is getting paid real well to put up with oreilly so is leis weihl i think thats her name. she sits there knowing oreilly is lying and she must be careful or she will lose her job. thats sad.i knew he was lying.i remember taht episode.oreilly should go on tonight and apoligize but he wont.
until some one faces him head up with no editing he will continue. .
I'd like to see him sweat out an interview where he has to watch his own clips and then defend them without being able to shout the host down
Until then he's got no grapes
You forget so soon, grasshopper! Remember him going mano y mano with Geraldo? Geraldo wiped the floor with O'Reilly's butt.
grasshopper...LOL....that made me smile Mr Snoopagi
We must have seen different interviews. Geraldo was almost ready to run from his seat and was almost shaken by O'Reilly's outrage. Geraldo's feeling are easy to understand - as a fellow Hispanic, he appears to be more interested in protecting wrongdoers (like the criminal alien who murdered those girls in Virginia Beach) only because they share his race (or half of it).Geraldo's reaction is very similar Bill Richardson's disgraceful comment on his support for that buffoon, Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzales. Gerald and Richardson are racists too and people should call them out.Will the Democrats demand that Richardson apologize for his race-based reasoning?
Drivel
Typical liberal response to any argument. Your inability to present a sensible argument reveals itself in your response (or lack of it). On a related note, what do you think of Bill Richarson's racism? I think I know the answer - you must be a Robert Bryd Democrat.
Genghiz,
Good luck getting any kind of reasoned response to your question.
I tried [on a thread last week] and got drivel...check it out:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704270008
Most Liberals/Democrats here are more than willing to discuss/debate. Then of course there are a few that when posed with a question they can't possibly answer without admitting one of their own may be at fault, take the cowards route & respond like edenscape did.
Nothing you can do about it but roll your eyes and move on.
...or ENDSCAPE is able to capture the essence of the matter faster than others and succinctly hit the nail on the head without embellishment or fancy flourishes.
Drivel
=====
Sorry Irony, but I couldn't resist ;-)
Richardson's explanation that he gave Gonzales the "benefit of the doubt" because he's a fellow Hispanic revealed a flaw in the man's decision making. That some [Liberals] are giving him a pass because 'at least he was honest' is laughable. Decisions, or exceptions based on Race or Ethnicity in this instance reveal a certain level of incompetence, ignorance...and yes racism.
If Bush said he was giving Gonzales the "benefit of the doubt" because they are friends, would you applaud his "honesty"?? Not bloody likely.
edenscape obviously couldn't come up with a viable excuse for Richardson...so we get the flip non-answer.
Nobody was fooled by it.
And I'm a bit disappointed that you even tried to defend it. You're better than that.
"...racism." Bill Richardson?
Sorry, Jeter, you're better than that... You forget that Bill Richardson did criticize Alberto Gonzalez. He just didn't do it fast enough for some. (Has Bush criticized Gonzalez, BTW? And Richrdson said he initially gave Gonzalez the benefit of the doubt because he was a fellow Hispanic and he respected him and how he built himself into an American success. I am disappointed with Richardson for not coming out sooner but I understand the thinking as it is human nature, whether we admit it or not... but Bill Richardson is no racist. Richardson is an honest, decent man.
Ok what have you done with the real Irony101?
You've got to be an imposter!
Just tell me how much you want, and I'll pay the ransom ;-)
Richardson said he hesitated criticizing Gonzales or calling for his resignation BECAUSE he was Hispanic.
Sorry, that may be honest...BUT it's still racist.
Human nature sometimes has to be put aside when leaders need to make decisions.
Richardson showed he might not be capable of doing that.
Ok...it's late, I'm off...if you leave a response I'll read it in the morning.
What Richardson said was honest (good) and revealing about the nature of his character and judgment (not so good)... but it did not reveal racism which is defined in conventional society as either the belief of the superiority of one race over another and/or animosity and hostility to what is considered to be an inferior race. What Richardson showed was human nature... how groups with common ideas, ancestry, religion, etc. bond. Show me an Evangelical, for example, who is not going to initially give a fellow Evangelical the benefit of the doubt when called in question. Read my posts... calling Bill Richardson, who is generally considered an honest and decent man on both sides of the aisle, a racist is a cheap, dumb provacative statement that should not have been left unchallenged. This guy, Genghiz cam here to gripe about immigration... there was no need to call either Richardson or Geraldo (gag...) a racist, or to accuse Democrats of having a propensity for lawlessness.
Good night, Jeter... sleep tight. ;>)
Oh, and Jeter... when you wake up (hope you're well rested now) look up the difference between empathy (especially for a fellow member of one's group) and racism. There's a world of difference. I was floored, but yet somehow impressed, by Richardson's candid admission about not calling for Gonzalez's resignation sooner. My initial thought was "This guy is too honest to be President." The fact remains that Richardson did call for Gonzalez to resign, despite his admitted empathy for a fellow Hispanic public official.
Irony,
I'll agree "racist" or "racism" were poor choices of words here [the light of day clears one's head]
However, call it empathy or human nature...it was still a bad judgment call on Richardsons part and highly unprofessional. He was dragging his feet on commenting and calling for Gonzales's resignation using a personal & highly questionable criteria. Not acceptable in my book.
No lawmaker should "go easy" or show preferential treatment towards "one of their own". And please don't tell me minorities should be the exception. There will always be a minority population in the US. Even though the Hispanic population is a fast growing one, I doubt the demographics of our nation will change that much in our lifetime to represent them as a majority.
If I'm conducting an investigation do I cut the subject of that investigation some slack simply because I'm of Italian ethnicity and so is he or she?
I'm not going to vote for Giuliani. He's Italian. Means diddlyshit to me. And that's just me, an ordinary citizen contemplating a vote. Not someone running for President.
Race, ethnicity, or religion should never be the basis on which to make a decision such as the one that was facing Richardson. Human nature should have been set aside in this instance.
When he made the comment during the debate I turned to my wife and said "he's all done"
Yet, the so called Conservative biased MSM hasn't said Boo! about his reasoning. I find that curious, because I as a voter was turned off.
Granted the chances of me voting for Richardson were pretty much nil to begin with, but I have always respected the man. Now I question his judgment, and wonder how many other times he made decisions based on empathy fueled by favoritism.
J,
You make excellent points.
Do you think that if McCain or Guiliani said they gave the initial benefit of the doubt to an embroiled Bush appointed white conservative simply because he was "white", and then said they were just being honest......do you think they would receive the same treatment by said liberals?
My thought is ahhh...........No.
That is such a dumb argument. Not surprising though, in this age of "why-can't-whites-do-what-everyone-else-does?" :Nappy-headed-hos-double-standard", anyone? Whites do not have to explicitly support one another since they already pretty much control the whole world. They do this all the time without even noticing it. "White" in this country will always equal "normal". It was not racist for Richardson to admit he gave Gonzo the benefit of the doubt because he is "Hispanic". It is racist to expect this behavior from people of color and then play B.S. "Gotcha" games when it is forced. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. Most hispanics I know think Gonzo is a sell-out anyway so his travails are not universally felt.
Thanks Tommy.
I'm just a bit amazed that not more was made of Richardson's remarks [confession] in the media. Even though one can applaud his honesty, I just thought his reasoning was faulty, and showed a predisposition towards favoritism of his "own kind". That to me is a big no no...And you're correct, that would never fly for anyone else. Or be virtually ignored by the press. Very odd.
Jeter, you and I are pretty much in agreement on this stuff. "Racist" was too strong and you know how defensive I get whenever anyone criticizes Geraldo. ;>) (That last part's a joke, everyone.No misunderstanding...)
Glad we worked it out...
Hey Irony,
Cyber handshake extended. You & I have always found common ground, or at least disagreed civilly, so I knew it would be ok :-)
Good points all...I agree - having read both types here. Some liberals here argue their ideologies reasonably and competently. On the other hand, there are others like Edenesape and Irony 101, whose retorical skills are usually limited to insults and non sequiturs.
LOL... Thank you... Glad I got your attention... and under your (reptilian) skin.
You must be a parasite to get under any skin - reptilian or otherwise. Considering the sad fact that you are a liberal leech, I can understand why the thought of being a parasite appeals so much to you. Care responding to the substance of what I posted? If you are capable, that is. LOL.
LOL... What substance? It's DRIVEL... and you are not even worth the effort. As soon as you accuse Democrats of criminal disdain for the law you've revealed yourself for the Republicon, talking-point spouting, moron you are. You don't want to DISCUSS anything... you are here to INCITE. Nice try... for a lightweight.
The twin use of random capitalization and meaningless talking points in your bizarre response don't add either substance or quality. Of course, I didn't expect much else. As mentioned earlier, the incoherent blathering that passes for your posts on this thread may cause you to feel good about yourself. However, as the cliche goes, you are entitled to your own opinions......
"you are entitled to your own opinions......"
And you are entitled to yours... regardless how dumb they are.
(Bill Richardson and Geraldo Rivera racists...? Laughably stupid remarks...)
You are a Democrat tool and a vile creature that is willing to defend racists even when presented with facts to the contrary. As I said earlier, you are a Robert Byrd democrat and should be ashamed of yourself.Empathy...my foot. By defending racists, you are just revealing what you are - an immoral and unethical parasite.
So I guess this means we're not friends after all... ;>)
I am most willing to change my mind when the underlying facts change :)
No... you mean when your interpretation of facts changes.
(reptilian) skin.
Good God what's with you tonight Irony?
And here I always figured you as one of the more reasonable & civil posters.
Bad night? Hey I've had a few myself. No biggie...please just be your more reasonable self soon :-)
Pi55es me off to hear someone call Geraldo a racist... ;>)
Seriously, to call Bill Richardson and Geraldo Rivera racists is rather stupid considering that both men have records, and pride themselves, as defenders of minorities. And to hear a Republicon say Democrats have criminal disdain for the law is the epitome of hypocricy. There...
Jeter, your comments on the other thread were at least on topic. You do see how genghiz went from O'Reilly/Rivera-> fellow Hispanic-> Richardson -> change the subject.
"Drivel" may have been intended to mean "What the hell does that have to do with this?"
I guess it escaped your notice that I posted my reply to a comment by Snoopy about the Geraldo/O'Reilly "debate." Some of you hate to be challenged and I guess it really irritates you to be called on Democrat BS.Get used to it.
You do see how genghiz went from O'Reilly/Rivera-> fellow Hispanic-> Richardson -> change the subject.
Actually Beach, in my defense [why am I starting to feel like I should always have an attorney present here with me] what spurred me on to comment was edenscape246494 rather feeble dismissal of Genghiz. What kind of a reply is "Drivel"? Yeah yeah, Genghiz was heading off topic [a disorder we've all been guilty of one or twice or a hundred times before] but it was the "Drivel" that really got to me. That just screams at me that you can refute or debate a point or issue. It's meant to sound dismissive but in fact reveals an inability to address a subject...off topic or not.
Now of course once I stepped in, I followed merrily off topic myself...
What can I say, I'm easily led ;-)
Jeter, I veer off-topic like a drunk on roller skates all the time.I just thought this one was a very deliberate and sudden swerve, and was doing a little mind reading of my own by guessing that that's what "drivel" was directed at.
I'm sure I'm biased in when I see it ;0O but I do see a difference between the natural drift into related subjects, and the premeditated hijacking of threads into preferred territory by some conservative posters.
Seriously, look at how many times Monica Lewinsky comes up on a Global Warming thread.
Many conservatives like Genghiz want to change the topic when a blowhard rightwinger like O'Reilly is caught red handed lying or just being a jerk. Richardson has WHAT to do with O'falafel lying his ass off AGAIN?
O'Reilly and I share some opinions, especially on child abuse/Jessica's Law, illegal immigration, and the threat of Islamofascism. That being said, I'll be the first to agree that he is a thin-skinned blowhard and is as guilty as the Left when it comes to selective presentation of facts/opinions.Unlike some of you, I am perfectly willing to criticize morons and racists on my side. I have done that both on this thread and on others, if you care to read my posts.
Yes you have. Overall I find you a reasonable poster, fairly bright and fairminded. We are not going to be on the same page politically and thats fine. Having said all of that, its still a distraction from what the point of this thread is to bring up Richardson.
We definitely did see different interviews, and you clearly shouldn't be throwing around charges of racism. I'm no fan of Geraldo (and what are you trying to say by Anglicizing his name?), but your statement that he was ready to crawl away is absurd. Forget the fact that he's trained as a boxer (I knew his coach) and could drop O'Reilly with a punch that missed. He was matching O'Reilly's rage and topping it with outrage.
And he was right. The horror is the drunken driving that resulted in the deaths of those girls, not the demographic group the driver belonged to. O'Reilly was continuing a long stream of jingoistic, racist attacks, and Riviera called him on it.
On the off chance that you're not racist, and are open to reason on the immigration debacle, I'll pass this along.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/01/AR2007050101417.html
I appreciate the civil response even if I don't agree with some of your points, if not most of them :)
Geraldo did not support protecting the wrong doers. Geraldo's argument was that the drunk driver could have been anyone, native or immigrant. He disagreed with O'Reilly trying to turn this into a huge anti-immigration fiasco.
So do you liberal loons favor securing the border, like 90% of the rest of America does???
Sure do...too bad with all three branches of govt the GOP dropped the ball, huh ?
Of course not! What kind of a question is that? If Democrats decide to close the border, where are they going to get new "voters" from? The illegals and the Democrat party establishment have one thing is common - they share a criminal disdain for the law.
yeah, kinda like oh, what is it now? Bush scandal #9...
A little bit of Scandal in my lifeA little bit of lying by my aideA little bit of revenge is all I needA little bit of war is what I seeA little bit of Iraq in my sightsA little bit of kickback all night longA little bit of Halliburton here I amA little bit of money makes me your man
this preview option is really misleading...
A little bit of Scandal in my life
A little bit of lying by my aide
A little bit of revenge is all I need
A little bit of war is what I see
A little bit of Iraq in my sights
A little bit of kickback all night long
A little bit of Halliburton here I am
A little bit of money makes me your man
The preview here is very misleading indeed. MMFA needs to invest in a better editor than what exists currently. I am sure Mr. Brock will be able to convince his sponsors to contribute a couple of thousand Dollars to this worthy cause. BTW, how did you get the line break to work? I don't see a formatting option in the formatting bar. Did you use an HTML tag?
Nothing fancy, I just hit the enter key.
"...they share a criminal disdain for the law."
My, my... big accusations from a Republicon. Ever look under your own party's bed... you big, bad, tough-talking guy? Or how about looking in your party's closet, too... never know who's about to accidentally slip out of the gay-bashing Republicon closet chasing juvenile boys. Or how about that old piece of paper that those criminal Democrats admire... you know, the Constitution? When was the last time Bush read it? Or did he have to get Karl Rove to read it to him? Maybe Alberto Gonzalez gave Bush a Constitutional briefing instead... you know, what Karl told Alberto the Constiturion meant, that is after Karl told Alberto which U.S. Attorneys had to be fired. But that's just petty stuff compared to the thousands of American lives that Republicons are willing to sacrifice over lunatic theories of worl domination... now we're talking criminal.
If you actually bother to read my posts before you respond to them, you would have seen that my first comment on this thread was on that "buffoon Alberto Gonzales," as I called him.I admit that I am a Republican. I am also quite independent in my thinking and am ready to point out BS - when I see on the Right or the Left. Some of you, on the other hand, are incapable of admitting liberal or Democrat corruption/stupidity/mistakes/duplicity. Posters like you have no standing to write about my impartiality, or its lack thereof.Go read my first post again, try to understand it, and get back to me with your thoughts on that Democrat racist, Bill Richardson.
"Gerald and Richardson are racists too"
Geraldo Rivera and Bill Richardson are racists, you say, beause they are insufficiently critical of Hispanics? Or is it because you espouse a different view of immigration than theirs? And Democrats, in general, share with illegal immigrants a criminal disdain for the law? If it's immigration that's on your mind then coherently talk immigration policy and make your points. Otherwise, if you come to incite by taking wild pot shots then expect return fire... if you can take it. And I don't even like Geraldo! But he's no racist and neither is Bill Richardson. But I could point out a few Republican racists, if I wanted to. And Democrats are no more prone to disdain for the law than the members of your party. Is hypocricy a plank of the Republican Party platform? You did say you are a Republican, right?
I will be willing to discuss it when it is REMOTELY connected to the topic. When will you stop with the trollwork of derailing the topic which in this case is something about why does Bill O'Reily lie so much. NOTHING whatsoever to do with Richardson
Oh, and speaking of criminal disdain for the law what kind of tattoo do you think Scooter Libby (an attorney!) will get in prison? Maybe a heart with "Dick Forever" inscribed in the middle? I wonder if he'll be allowed conjugal visits by Cheney so Scooter can kiss Cheney's fat a55 on weekends. I'm sure Lynn Cheney won't mind... she's probably busy with the American Enterprise Institute plotting the invasion of Iran. Maybe Ahmed Chalabi and Don Rumsfeld can offer some pointers... that is if the Rapture doesn't happen first and all good Republicans get zapped into heaven. Before you criticize Democrats perhaps you should first take a closer look at the freak show that calls itself the Republican Party. At least the Democratic Party is trying, with understandable difficulty, to deal with reality and the mess that Republican domination caused for so many years.
Jeter is right - some people here aren't honest enough to point out racism and other equally detestable prejudices, especially when it is liberals who are responsible. I admire the way you skirt around the Bill Richardson issue; an ability to be so partisan is rare indeed, even on an admittedly biased forum like this one.
I have not skirted the Bill Richardson "issue" at all... read my posts above. You are dead wrong characterizing him as a racist and your remarks deserved an equally strong response. But what is your real problem... you just hate Hispanics in general, don't you? After all, according to you, they show criminal disdain for the law and they vote Democratic, right? Both bad things, right? I guess for you that's good enough reason for hatred. There's a name for people who demonstrate that sort of hatred through their words or deeds... racist. Got a mirror handy...?
Anybody who sees the timestampts on your posts will see that you were forced to address the Richardson issue only after you were repeatedly called on it. Sorry...Richardson was willing to extend a different standard to somebody because of that person's ethnicity. If Richardson had been either white or a Republican, these boards would be on fire with accusations of racism.However, he is a member of the "protected class" - Democrat racists, that is, and is understandably exempt from the selective outrage that some of you possess.
You accused him of skirting the issue after he had addressed the issue.
Your implications about what drove him to comment do not matter a whit in that area. You said that he skirted the issue after he had commented on the issue. You were wrong. Are you allergic to admitting your error?
Don't misquote me deliberately to make your point. In the future, be honest with yourself even if you are incapable of being honest in a public forum. I did not say that Hispanics have a criminal disdain for the law. I said, illegal aliens did and I stand by my very logical statement (they are called "illegal" because they didn't follow the legal process for immigration. Get it?). Democrats and (some) Republicans who support this illegal break-and-entry and amnesty also share this disdain for the legal system/process.
You don't like Alberto Gonzalez: Hispanic
You don't like Geraldo Rivera: Hispanic
You don't like Bill Richardson: Hispanic
You don't like illegal immigranys: Hispanics
Hmmm... seems like a pattern developing here.
Nice try though at trying to misquoting me again. Bravo...that is a new low, even for you. I remember how KO and many liberals here went wild when Rush suggested that it was liberal racism that drove the atipathy toward Gonzales. I disagreed with Rush then on the reasons for liberal outrage; Gonzales deserves to go because he is incompetent. You, on the other hand, have no issues with the claim that I am against Gonzales because I hate Hispanics. Do you see the irony here, Irony101? BTW. illegals come in all colors and ethnicities. Please stop stereotyping Hispnics.
Maybe I was confused by all of your denouncements of Hispanics in this thread. BTW, you seem to have a lot of bitterness and animosity brewing. Have you sought help?
Irony
BRAVO!!!!
Finally, Someone that I can agree with .. You are totally correct .. I used to ask myself, HOW in the world could people follow and lunatic like, "Hitler".. And even carry out his murderous orders for a distored and sick mind .. Now, I am beginning to see how it's done with this administration ..
I thought Republican would be worried about securing the border because they represent the businesses community, the ones capitalizing on the cheap labor of illegal immigration. It not just the weak borders that is causing problem, it is the enticement of employment by US farms and companies that hire illegal immigrants.
Also, some Latinos vote Republican because they are Catholic, They are social conservatives on issues of pro-life and gay marriage.
Actually,Genghiz, I don't know how many illegal immigrants are voting, but many recent immigrants I know support the GOP.There's a functioning Spanish language conservative media in Southern California, and they've won over many Hispanics using the same tactics used on working class Americans- Tradition and Religion.
That and somehow convincing them that the Republicans are good for working class people.
Interesting and slightly surprising. It'll be interesting to see these numbers and find out what their motivations are (to support Republicans, that is). It'll also be interesting to see the results of the voter registration drives that was done among the illegals last year (it began on May 1, 2006). ACORNand other liberal organizations have been active in this drive, and I seriously doubt that they would have netted many Republican supporters.Here's what I think (and I am willing to be corrected, if wrong) - legal Hispanic immigrants and Americans of Hispanic origin generally support Republicans because they share common values around religion and tradition. Illegals, on the other hand, might be predominantly Democrat supporters for obvious reasons. You never bite the hand that feeds you and the illegals' support for the Democrats is perfectly human and understandable.
Genghiz,Political leanings of illegal immigrants are hard to survey, for obvious reasons. I was only pointing out anecdotal stuff, that many of the ones I know have "Viva Bush" stickers on their cars.
I still think you're using Republican mythology with the "biting the hand that feeds them" take on it, as well as accepting as fact that tradition and religion are things the GOP is good for, as opposed to being things they say they're good for.
I see more liberal leanings from those immigrants who have been here a while and are here legally, and have become more established and have gotten more informed.
Much of this is speculation (from you and me), I just wanted to offer some observations countering the conventional wisdom of the Dems rounding up illegal immigrants to sign up for welfare.
Like what the morons and warmonger ReNAMBLAcans have in common is their love for getting Americans killed.
Clearly, if 90% of Americans are in favor of anything, liberal loons, as well as rightwingnuts. would be included in that number. The question is, are we interested in solving a nearly intractable problem, or are we having too much fun bashing each other?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/01/AR2007050101417.html
What do you care, GRhino? Apparently "liberal loons" only make up 10% of Americans.
More factoids from the right.
Grhino,
You kind of have to have part of a brain to understand the issues on illegal immigration.
1. What are the benefits of illegal employment?
answer: Cheap labor's who are willing to do ANYTHING to keep their job and keep their illegal status hidden.
2. Who benefits from cheap labor?
answer: CORPORATIONS
3. Who do Corporations contribute the most dollars to?
answer: REPUBLICANS
4. Who was the prosecutor who charged and imprisoned two border patrol agents while giving immunity to a drug smuggler?
answer: Sutton, a life long Republican who was appointed by a Republican.
Maybe you should concentrate on your own party first.
People in glass houses don't throw stones
Do IGNORANT conservative morons like YOU know what a TOPIC is?
IF democrats have a natural disdain for the law, then I don't know what you must think of republicans after this 6 year experiment in republican dominance of all branches of government.
I love watching the children of Irish immigrants, the most despised group of immigrants not even a hundred years ago, make believe they have been here since the beginning and that these new immigrants will steal our culture. America doesn't have a culture. We have the blending of a multitudes of cultures. Irish Americans have left their mark, as have Italians, Africans, Asians, and now Hispanics. ITs about time our culture gains more Hispanic influence being that they were clearly Americans before any of us ever knew these two continents existed.Excellent observations... Basically, in America, we're almost all mongrels of some sort or degree... and I'm not being derogatory or sarcastic. And American mores and culture are constantly evolving. I am sure every generation of Americans have had people resistant to this inevitable process... but its the evolution, the flexibility, of our society, coupled with a brilliant, enduring Constitution, that is the reason we have endured. Long live America... regardless what shade of color people are in 200 years.
Micheal Malkin: The Perfect Sidekicks
In the sponsored video, Micheal Malkin didn't get much air time; a sidekick never does. And, like a sidekick, she does not have a mind of her own. She thinks, breaths, and speaks for an established conservative ideology.
It's kind of like being a deaconess in a black baptist church, the preacher can expect an amen has he travels through the sermon. When it does not come on time, the preacher need only ask: "can I get an amen."
Don't get me wrong, I am a "Liberal" and you can pretty much guess which side of the political argument I am going to stand on. However, I like to think of my voice in contributing terms, as opposed to subscription to someone else's comments. Malkin is sort of like being a modern day Dido Bird. What a life.
Joseph
People often give the benefit of a doubt to people they have something in common with:
"I gave him the benefit of a doubt because he's a good conservative"
"I gave him the benefit of a doubt becuase he's a fellow former Marine"
"I gave him the benefit of a doubt because we're both from Podunk"
"I gave him the benefit of a doubt because I know his Mama amd Daddy"
Charges of racism from conservatives always amuse me. When they decry some supposed racism against a black person, it's downright hilarious. Racism is the lifeblood of the conservative movement.
Psst...in case you didn't notice, Richarson is NOT "black." In fact, I am I am far "blacker" than he is. It must really irritate you all that a member of a "minority group" (that's the label liberals use when it comes to categorizing people who look like me) is pointing out racism by Democrats (like Byrd, Richardson, and Biden among many others). People like me, who think for myself, are a threat to any special interest group (like the Democrat party) that is desperately trying to conjure up an alternate reality.
Then I guess perhaps you actually don't know what empathy is after all...
Well the ignorant stereotyping of this post was astonishing. You should give up on your attempts at mindreading libearls you suck at it. You dont know what you are talking about and your characterization of the Democratic party as a special interest group is just plain stupid.
Why is it to conservatives and liberatarians the minorities, workers, Democrats and the poor, that is about 85% of the population are somehow special interest groups but oil companies, the fabulously wealthy, and financial groups, in other words about 5% of the population never seems to be considered special interest groups?
Personally I think overall the hispanic voting bloc has a natural tendency toward more conservative political leanings so I, a serious liberal would think no such thing. Only an idiot would make such an assumption. If the GOP would reign in the loudmouth bloviators like Rush,O'Reilly and Weiners scapegoating of immigrants and minorities the GOP could make serious inroads into their voting bloc.
As for alternate realities that is pure projection it is the rightwing that avoids reality the way vampires avoid holy water.
One reporter was criticised by a senior white house official for being what he called part of the reality based community he went on...
''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600en=890a96189e162076ei=5090
No the right OWNS the alternate reality franchise.
Media Matters documents misinformation from the right, this talk about Bill Richardson or anyone else is off the subject, everyone needs to stop feeding the trolls whose only purpose is distract. Good job MM, O'Reilly is shown (through his own words) just how crazy he is.
Of course, it is off subject! Many liberals here hate it when somebody points out hypocricy and racism, when the ones at fault are Democrats.I understand your angst. When I point out Democrat hypocricy, this sad fact prevents you all from "feeling good about yourself" and perpetuating myths about how liberals are warm, fuzzy, and non-racist "friends of the minorities."
Dont look at the man behind the curtain its all the liberals fault. Get a grip. Richardson has NOTHING to do with this topic, nada, zip, bupkis. YOU are derailing the topic. No one here has claimed that no Democrats OR no liberals are racist. THAT is not what this is about its about O'Rielly and his strange hostility to the truth.
I'm confused, and I don't think that I'm the only one.
So, by your assertion, Bill Richardson is a "racist" because he said that he supported, initially, another hispanic, basically, because he was a fellow hispanic. How is that "racist" again? Wouldn't that indeed be construed as actual support for a minority, and total antithetical to what racism actually is? You're going to have to explain your rationale a little better on that one, because I don't get it. And there is also the fact that Richardson has come out against Gonzales AFTER his testimony of last week, which is probably the right thing to do, because he heard him out, listened to what he actually had to say, and then threw him under the bus. It's called giving the man a fair shake, one that I'm afraid to say, lots of people haven't given Gonzales at all, myself included (not that he really deserves it, but that's neither here nor there).
How is Geraldo a racist again? Because he argued with O'Reilly about something? I'm not following your logic on this as well.
In case you have forgotten, racism is defined as:
* based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
* a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
* discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
I'm not sure how either Richardson or Geraldo for that matter fit into your definition of racism and all. Seems a little weird to me.
Going back to your Byrd racist comments. Yes, indeed, we all know that Byrd was a former member of the KKK in his much younger years. We all also know (maybe some of us don't) that he has apologized for this, and made many amends to his former ways over the years, and to bring it up, without looking at his record since the time he quit the KKK is disingenous at best, and flame throwing at the worst.
And, Maggie... did you hear Bill Richardson denounce any of Gozalez'z many critics as racists, i.e. because Gonzalez is Hispanic? I didn't... If Bill Richardson was a racist wouldn't you think that would typically have been the first thing a racist would have done? No, Bill Richardson kept his mouth shut, empathized with Gonzalez's situation as a fellow Hispanic, and then he made a well-reasoned denouncement of Gonzalez after assessing all the facts. Hardly the knee-jerk irrational pattern of a racist. You can bet that Richardson's honesty about waiting to denounce Gonzalez may come back to haunt him politically. I still admire his honesty, however, even though his judgment was understandably criticized... fairly by some, unfairly by others, such as in this thread. But Bill Richardson has had a long and distinguished public service career in which he's devoted much of his efforts to helping minority groups... like Native Americans, for example. Racism connotes hatred and I didn't see or detect any evidence of hatred on Richardson's part.It was very wrong for anyone to label him a racist over this Gonzalez matter... but that's just mean and nasty politics at work.
Hey guys, Hilarious song about Bill O'Reilly on YouTube. [link to www.youtube.com]
Hey, O'Reilly:
You're crazy.
:-)
You lunatic, left wing, smear merchant... ;>)
In that NOT too distint future., Whites will be the minority .. We are blamed for Slavery and the Indians hold a grudge on the whites as well... Now the Hispanic's , illegal or not feel like they were cheated and are OWED something from America and that links back to the White population too .. WE are put in a place where we have to be onguard to what we say and too who .. There are schools here in Tucson where the childern that attend cannot speak a word of english .. and the parents are illegals and collecting welfare .. I ask you HOW can that be ? they drive new trucks and cars but dont work .. I thought it would have been., [not only perfect timing] but very appropiate to have the border patrol and law officals to gather up all those illegals while they were have their parade / protest the other day and shipped all their ass' back to mexico .. THAT they could hold a parade and protest while they are here ILLEGALLY without a worry or concern is totally DISCUSTING ..