No O'Reilly thread yet? (Slaves that built White House were well fed!)

[realibrad]

So your problem is that you think we somehow undercut Michelle Obama?

Yes. Here is the only thing Michelle said about slavery.

That is the story of this country, the story that has brought me to this stage tonight, the story of generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude, the sting of segregation, but who kept on striving and hoping and doing what needed to be done so that today I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves.

She simply said that this country has gone from owning people of her race as slaves, to her family living in the White House. That is progress and its amazing. She did not use slavery as a way to knock the US. Its a story of people and progress.

Bill jumping in and saying that the slaves that built the White House were not treated so badly makes no sense to bring up. Even you admitted that slavery even without physical abuse was horrific. So him saying they were well fed and not beat does not mean their treatment was moral. So, why then do you think he felt the need to bring up what he said? It cant be to clarify because she never brought it up.

See the problem?

 

[Blackjack200]

For sake of argument I'll agree with your belief that's why O'Reilly made the comment. And so what? While I wouldn't have made the comment because there was no real reason to, likewise I know she's a grown woman making an inherently political speech and is thus subject to criticism for what she says. Even dumb criticism.

You ought to give her a bit more credit for having the mental toughness that I know she does to be able to withstand such a withering 'criticism' of a small part of her speech. You don't need to protect her with layers of bubble wrap, she's perfectly capable of defending herself although here I don't see why it's even needed. The O'Reilly comment didn't really detract from anything she said since it was true but not really relevant.

Hmm... :hmm:

 

[dank69]

For sake of argument I'll agree with your belief that's why O'Reilly made the comment. And so what? While I wouldn't have made the comment because there was no real reason to, likewise I know she's a grown woman making an inherently political speech and is thus subject to criticism for what she says. Even dumb criticism.

Ah, but that's the entire point! She is being criticized for something she did not say!

You ought to give her a bit more credit for having the mental toughness that I know she does to be able to withstand such a withering 'criticism' of a small part of her speech. You don't need to protect her with layers of bubble wrap, she's perfectly capable of defending herself although here I don't see why it's even needed. The O'Reilly comment didn't really detract from anything she said since it was true but not really relevant.

I am not defending her. She is clearly a much stronger and better person than I could ever hope to be. This thread was never meant to be anything like that. This thread was simply to point out how vile O'Reilly acted. That's it. This crap about bubble wrap is just trying to distract from the only point being made.

 

[Blackjack200]

Didn't see it mentioned here, but BO'R doubled down on his idiocy last night. Eric Wemple at WAPO thought it might be a good time for the younger Murdochs to assert themselves if they really do want to change the tone of FNC.

 

[glenn1]

Yes. Here is the only thing Michelle said about slavery.



She simply said that this country has gone from owning people of her race as slaves, to her family living in the White House. That is progress and its amazing. She did not use slavery as a way to knock the US. Its a story of people and progress.

Bill jumping in and saying that the slaves that built the White House were not treated so badly makes no sense to bring up. Even you admitted that slavery even without physical abuse was horrific. So him saying they were well fed and not beat does not mean their treatment was moral. So, why then do you think he felt the need to bring up what he said? It cant be to clarify because she never brought it up.

See the problem?

I've already said it didn't make sense because it wasn't particularly relevant to what she said, but it seems O'Reilly is being judged based on a completely different standard than whether what he said made sense. Sure, what he said was tone deaf but I don't see it as being racially motivated or some effort to tear down what she said.

Again, he validated what she said was truthful. That he added another truthful but mostly irrelevant factoid doesn't change that first confirmation he provided. The guy didn't do something like say "Hitler did nothing wrong."

 

[dank69]

I've already said it didn't make sense because it wasn't particularly relevant to what she said, but it seems O'Reilly is being judged based on a completely different standard than whether what he said made sense. Sure, what he said was tone deaf but I don't see it as being racially motivated or some effort to tear down what she said.

Again, he validated what she said was truthful. That he added another truthful but mostly irrelevant factoid doesn't change that first confirmation he provided. The guy didn't do something like say "Hitler did nothing wrong."

There is a term for going out of your way to minimize the negative aspects of slavery. It's called white-washing and it is universally accepted as something only a racist would do.

 

[Jhhnn]

I've already said it didn't make sense because it wasn't particularly relevant to what she said, but it seems O'Reilly is being judged based on a completely different standard than whether what he said made sense. Sure, what he said was tone deaf but I don't see it as being racially motivated or some effort to tear down what she said.

Again, he validated what she said was truthful. That he added another truthful but mostly irrelevant factoid doesn't change that first confirmation he provided. The guy didn't do something like say "Hitler did nothing wrong."

Please. O'Reilly pooh-poohed the horrors of slavery. It's shameful.

 

[glenn1]

There is a term for going out of your way to minimize the negative aspects of slavery. It's called white-washing and it is universally accepted as something only a racist would do.

And with that proclamation from the true defender of the evils of slavery I don't think the thread needs anything else. You should create an official denunciation phrase that we can all use to sufficiently express our collective displeasure with slavery. You could model it off the Hail Mary or maybe this:

 

[realibrad]

I've already said it didn't make sense because it wasn't particularly relevant to what she said, but it seems O'Reilly is being judged based on a completely different standard than whether what he said made sense. Sure, what he said was tone deaf but I don't see it as being racially motivated or some effort to tear down what she said.

Again, he validated what she said was truthful. That he added another truthful but mostly irrelevant factoid doesn't change that first confirmation he provided. The guy didn't do something like say "Hitler did nothing wrong."

Here is the full clip.

To me, what he is trying to do is make it seem like the US was at least doing good when dealing with slaves. As you said, what made slavery immoral was not if they got enough food and a bed but other things. Him focusing on that appears to be an attempt to soften the fact that the US did a horrible thing.

So not even close to Hitler did nothing wrong, but more of a, at least he pushed for animal rights. I think his goal is to defend the US government which would lessen the impact of her progress speech.

 

[dank69]

And with that proclamation from the true defender of the evils of slavery I don't think the thread needs anything else. You should create an official denunciation phrase that we can all use to sufficiently express our collective displeasure with slavery. You could model it off the Hail Mary or maybe this:

What the hell? All I did was explain to you what white-washing is because you seem to be determined to pretend you don't know what it is...

 

[zinfamous]

I've already said it didn't make sense because it wasn't particularly relevant to what she said, but it seems O'Reilly is being judged based on a completely different standard than whether what he said made sense. Sure, what he said was tone deaf but I don't see it as being racially motivated or some effort to tear down what she said.

Again, he validated what she said was truthful. That he added another truthful but mostly irrelevant factoid doesn't change that first confirmation he provided. The guy didn't do something like say "Hitler did nothing wrong."

I've never seen a more disingenuous attempt at routing one's head through their anal cavity, with a detour through their respiratory system and out their nose in order to convince themselves of anything but the fact that a vile human being said a completely useless, distracting, and nonsensical thing about a wholly fabricated interpretation of a comment made by another individual.

seriously--what the fuck are you actually trying to say here?

 

[glenn1]

I've never seen a more disingenuous attempt at routing one's head through their anal cavity, with a detour through their respiratory system and out their nose in order to convince themselves of anything but the fact that a vile human being said a completely useless, distracting, and nonsensical thing about a wholly fabricated interpretation of a comment made by another individual.

seriously--what the fuck are you actually trying to say here?

That what Bill O'Reilly said is truthful. Nothing more, nothing less. Unlike you my main concern isn't political objections to someone "undercutting" Michelle's speech.

 

[zinfamous]

That what Bill O'Reilly said is truthful. Nothing more, nothing less. Unlike you my main concern isn't political objections to someone "undercutting" Michelle's speech.

I'm actually angry at myself for using "disingenuous" improperly in my most recent response there. It's rather embarrassing.

Again, it was never about Bill O'Reilly being "truthful" (and that's with a big "" and you know it).

It is that he is going after a perfectly honest, perfectly patriotic statement and disqualifying it in an attempt to make political hay, dogwhistling for the type of shitheads that would actually spend their time defending him in any way.

He has suckered you in and in doing so, the only case that he is presenting is that the type of conservatives that lend any credence to this kind of bullshit are the exact type of divisive, hateful, dishonest and historically challenged party-before-country type of individuals that everyone else is accusing them of being.

You haven't even attempted to explain why he would choose to attack a great analogy like that. Why would he do it? What purpose does it serve? He and you are the type of pathetic sockpuppet that instinctively create controversy where none exists, then turn around and accuse those that inevitably respond to your pettiness as being the dividers, the ones making this an issue, the one's that "don't understand."

Of course you don't see it and you will never accept it; because you are it.

 

[Spungo]

seriously--what the fuck are you actually trying to say here?

I think white people are getting sick of being shit on all the time. For the past half century, we've heard nothing but negativity about anything white. It's gone so far into crazy territory that feminists will claim that radical Islam in Saudi Arabia is morally superior to "white capitalist patriarchy" in the UK. Let me remind everyone that the UK has a queen as its head of state, they elected Margaret Thatcher 3 times, and their current prime minster is a Theresa May. White people are so hated by the left that white women like Theresa May are considered worse than Islamic rapist men.

That brings us to where we are today. The regressive left and groups like Black Lives Matter keep trying to start a race war, and guys like Bill O'Reilly are speaking out against it. Dividing the nation and promoting sectarian violence doesn't make us stronger.

 

[glenn1]

I'm actually angry at myself for using "disingenuous" improperly in my most recent response there. It's rather embarrassing.

Again, it was never about Bill O'Reilly being "truthful" (and that's with a big "" and you know it).

It is that he is going after a perfectly honest, perfectly patriotic statement and disqualifying it in an attempt to make political hay, dogwhistling for the type of shitheads that would actually spend their time defending him in any way.

He has suckered you in and in doing so, the only case that he is presenting is that the type of conservatives that lend any credence to this kind of bullshit are the exact type of divisive, hateful, dishonest and historically challenged party-before-country type of individuals that everyone else is accusing them of being.

Of course you don't see it and you will never accept it; because you are it.

Honestly, let's cut the crap. You don't care if what he said was true or not, you dislike it because you (wrongly) think it detracts from some profound point Michelle made. Instead of everyone oooh-ing and aaah-ing over an honestly trite statement about how much advancement we've had in 200 years instead we pivot to something you really prefer anyway, namely criticizing some irrelevant assclown like O'Reilly.

And no, I really don't give shit about his supposed sin of saying some trivial factoid without first making the proper ritual genuflections to "Oh but slavery was so horrible" to your satisfaction.

 

[HomerJS]

That what Bill O'Reilly said is truthful. Nothing more, nothing less. Unlike you my main concern isn't political objections to someone "undercutting" Michelle's speech.

Mr X viciously beat and raped a woman but at least he went out afterwards and bought her breakfast.

I would think second part of sentence is an attempt to minimize the first.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I am surprised he didn't tell us how "happy" the slaves were doing the work.

...or start yucking it up about CP time and how long it took to build it. /s

 

[Moonbeam]

That what Bill O'Reilly said is truthful. Nothing more, nothing less. Unlike you my main concern isn't political objections to someone "undercutting" Michelle's speech.

No, he's right. I didn't watch Michelle Obama's speech. Don't know but a few vague details that I read here, don't care what she said, and have no need to defend any of it. I can, however, in my gut recognize instinctively and without the slightest hesitation, feel the difference between what is said factually for some ulterior motive from what is truth. It is your pedantic refusal to identify with your own concerns for political objections that has blinded you and not he to that simple instinctively obvious truthful fact. You live in a cage of assumptions that make your reactions ridiculous and sick and it isn't your fault because you are too full of pain to feel normal empathy. Because you will not feel you live in a Hell where 47% of the people around you are takers. That is the mountain you are chained to and they are the vultures that eat your liver.

Time to live again.

 

[zinfamous]

Honestly, let's cut the crap. You don't care if what he said was true or not, you dislike it because you (wrongly) think it detracts from some profound point Michelle made. Instead of everyone oooh-ing and aaah-ing over an honestly trite statement about how much advancement we've had in 200 years instead we pivot to something you really prefer anyway, namely criticizing some irrelevant assclown like O'Reilly.

And no, I really don't give shit about his supposed sin of saying some trivial factoid without first making the proper ritual genuflections to "Oh but slavery was so horrible" to your satisfaction.

You couldn't be more wrong about everything you have said here.

I am so glad I am not you, much less someone living in your proximity and having to deal with your endless, misguided bullshit.

All you seem to do is go out of your way to defend some tribal need to hate something for the sake of it being "other" or "challenging your preferred biases."

You are a pathetic piece of a man.

 

[Sonikku]

More vicious attacks from the liberal media.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/50557319...tacks-from-the-far-left-media/?#sp=show-clips

 

[glenn1]

Mr X viciously beat and raped a woman but at least he went out afterwards and bought her breakfast.

I would think second part of sentence is an attempt to minimize the first.

Okay, let's flip the script then and see if you are still outraged. Imagine that during the RNC convention, Barbara Bush mentions how much change we've seen in the past 200 years and specifically points out the 15th Amendment (championed by the Republican party) made the Obama election and Presidency possible. A Democratic commentator validates this statement but also adds that several northern states voted against it (including Biden's home state of Delaware and New York where Hillary Clinton hails from). Would you take that statement as evidence that the 2nd person was "minimizing" the acts of the people to try to withhold civil rights to freed slaves?

 

[zinfamous]

I think white people are getting sick of being shit on all the time. For the past half century, we've heard nothing but negativity about anything white. It's gone so far into crazy territory that feminists will claim that radical Islam in Saudi Arabia is morally superior to "white capitalist patriarchy" in the UK. Let me remind everyone that the UK has a queen as its head of state, they elected Margaret Thatcher 3 times, and their current prime minster is a Theresa May. White people are so hated by the left that white women like Theresa May are considered worse than Islamic rapist men.

That brings us to where we are today. The regressive left and groups like Black Lives Matter keep trying to start a race war, and guys like Bill O'Reilly are speaking out against it. Dividing the nation and promoting sectarian violence doesn't make us stronger.

Sure, but that is not the goal of the mainstream left and absolutely none of that can be gleaned from what Michele Obama said.

You guys seem mortally offended by the mere reminder of something that happened in the past.

Why is this so? There was no judgment cast here, none of the sort. You guys are projecting judgement and hate where none was intended.

I think you guys need a thicker skin and a bit of inner reflection when it comes to comments that are in no way suggesting what you so desperately want them to suggest.

I really don't understand this need to be offended and "terrorized" by the historically disenfranchized minorities and others by the growing WMSJW crowd.

 

[glenn1]

Sure, but that is not the goal of the mainstream left and absolutely none of that can be gleaned from what Michele Obama said.

You guys seem mortally offended by the mere reminder of something that happened in the past.

Why is this so? There was no judgment cast here, none of the sort. You guys are projecting judgement and hate where none was intended.

I think you guys need a thicker skin and a bit of inner reflection when it comes to comments that are in no way suggesting what you so desperately want them to suggest.

I really don't understand this need to be offended and "terrorized" by the historically disenfranchized minorities and others by the growing WMSJW crowd.

Nobody is offended by the mere reminder of something that happened in the past and I appreciate Michelle Obama bringing it up.

However unlike you I'm also not offended when someone else reminds people of another something that happened in the past. Yes, the U.S. government used slaves to help build the White House. Yes, the same U.S. government ensured they were well-fed and housed for basically the same self-interested reasons they saw fit to use slaves in the first statement. Neither is an offensive statement.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think white people are getting sick of being shit on all the time. For the past half century, we've heard nothing but negativity about anything white.

It's gone so far into crazy territory that feminists will claim that radical Islam in Saudi Arabia is morally superior to "white capitalist patriarchy" in the UK.Let me remind everyone that the UK has a queen as its head of state, they elected Margaret Thatcher 3 times, and their current prime minster is a Theresa May. White people are so hated by the left that white women like Theresa May are considered worse than Islamic rapist men.

Who said that? I would like to know who said these things. Or I'm reporting this as a straight up racist post for that last sentence.

That brings us to where we are today. The regressive left and groups like Black Lives Matter keep trying to start a race war, and guys like Bill O'Reilly are speaking out against it. Dividing the nation and promoting sectarian violence doesn't make us stronger.

Yeah, trying to start a race war, except that they've repeatedly denounced violence. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dallas-shooting-black-lives-matter-leaders-respond/

You're another example of the effect Trump has on latent racism. Disgusting.

Honestly, let's cut the crap. You don't care if what he said was true or not

No, actually you don't care if it's true or not. Eric Wemple talked to a historian with some knowledge about the issue. The only reason we even know that slave labor was used in the construction of the White House is because of payments made to their owners. We don't have any record of how the slaves were quartered or fed. In other words, O'Reilly has no basis for his claims and is simply talking out of his ass.

you dislike it because you (wrongly) think it detracts from some profound point Michelle made. Instead of everyone oooh-ing and aaah-ing over an honestly trite statement about how much advancement we've had in 200 years instead we pivot to something you really prefer anyway, namely criticizing some irrelevant assclown like O'Reilly.

Why make the statement if not to try to weaken her statement?

And no, I really don't give shit about his supposed sin of saying some trivial factoid without first making the proper ritual genuflections to "Oh but slavery was so horrible" to your satisfaction.

You keep saying that, and no one has ever asked you to do it. It seems you like making shit up as much as BO'R does.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think white people are getting sick of being shit on all the time. For the past half century, we've heard nothing but negativity about anything white. It's gone so far into crazy territory that feminists will claim that radical Islam in Saudi Arabia is morally superior to "white capitalist patriarchy" in the UK. Let me remind everyone that the UK has a queen as its head of state, they elected Margaret Thatcher 3 times, and their current prime minster is a Theresa May. White people are so hated by the left that white women like Theresa May are considered worse than Islamic rapist men.

That brings us to where we are today. The regressive left and groups like Black Lives Matter keep trying to start a race war, and guys like Bill O'Reilly are speaking out against it. Dividing the nation and promoting sectarian violence doesn't make us stronger.

You don't know it but you caused this. Your life is lived within a tomb, the numbness that is the fear of feeling what you feel, the rage at others for the guilt that broke your will to live. You know instinctively the way back but you fear to consciously recognize what it is, to open those old wounds and heal them from within via the healing power of grief. So you walk backwards into pain by creating what you fear, the monsters of the Id that haunt your nightmares, consciously unaware that by creating an enemy of the other, that they will cause you to get back to that place where you left your true self behind. You are the madness of the world, the force that spins the wheel of Karma. Feel for others so you can feel for yourself. They are your projection of your inner state.