Racist,ignorant, or misunderstood? O'Reilly remarks

["Got Disney"]

So, when he said,

"I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship"

what he meant was that DUHHH, everybody knows that blacks can be civilized in a restaurant??? Seems like an odd reading to me. I've always heard the phrase "I couldn't get over the fact" to describe something the speaker felt was surprising. I've never heard it used to describe something everybody knows.

Seems kinda odd that O'Reilly felt the need to tell his listeners something everybody knows...

Unfortunatly not everyone knows or care to for that matter. There are many bigots out there that still believe that it is different. My Brither for one and my sister.

Yes they hate black people....my father hated black people and my mother she did not have a predjudice bone in her body and she is the one that I emulate after.

Yes they are ignorant but try telling them that.....So my answer to you is YES and No not everyone believes that at least not in the sence that they black people dont eat with a spoon or converse but it's what they are conversing about.. and the topic is HARLUM...how some people feel that more crime is going on than anything.

So tell me if you were in Harlum with what you hear about it would you worry about walking the streets there ...I would...not just because black, white ,chinese or what ever but because of the crime.

 

[chobie]

And specifically, how does this story somehow show that O'Reilly isn't a horse's *** and rightwing gasbag?

Maybe the point that Basas is trying to make is "see, they really are a bunch of thugs, O'Reilly was doing them a favor by highlighting a few who are not."

 

[Mugg Mann]

So I guess your not going to listen to the entire Segment. If you can get me to a unbiased site to review the 100's of Lies. Media Matters doesn't count do to it's bias. Please do so. How many of those 100's of lies are for something that was not asked during an interview. I see that Media Matters likes to point that out too. Are you including those in your lies. Have you gone back and reviewed the over 750 Articles that Media Matters has on O'Rielly I am not defending him becuase I believe there is nothing to defend, As the OP asked what, Racist, Ignorant or Misunderstood. I keep saying missunderstood.

That wasn't what I asked. Allow me to repeat my hypothetical question to you.

Which brings us to a (at the moment) hypothetical question; if you were to take the time to do all the independent research you want and discover that he has indeed engaged in outright lies, falsehoods and deliberate misrepresentations hundreds of times on his media outlets, given his established background as an adulterer who has been sued for sexual harassment, would you still support and continue to be an apologist for him or would you be willing to concede that perhaps you were wrong about him? And if you still support him knowing what you then know, why would you?

Care to answer the question?

The big loser here is Media Matters. This thing has managed to grow a life of its own, and now I see on a lot of local stations and press that are starting to See O'Riellys point of view of the missunderstanding. I watched last Night with Jessie Jackson and he seemed to except O'Rielly's explanation also. I am waiting to see Al Sharpton's final Opinion also.

So I guess that you have the court papers to prove this Statement from you " given his established background as an adulterer who has been sued for sexual harassment". I thought the case was settled. Being Sued for something or settling doesn't mean your Guilty. Does it now.

Considering that neither side is contesting that the suit settlement was in the millions of dollars, or that the plaintiff had an audiotape she made of Bill's phone sex encounter with her, any rational person can easily draw a safe conclusion.

Throwing this up, is like what media matters does.

Except they weren't the ones who broke the story.

By the way I didn't know that all forms of Sexual Haressment could be defined as having Sexual Relations outside of the Marriage.

Let's be specific here. Are you saying that phone sex with someone other than your spouse does not constitute infidelity?

Wow, Now I know not to pay attention to anything you say for now on as you are so slighted to the left you are willing to throw up anything to get some traction.

Oh, and by the way to another frequent poster on this thread trying to hang out O'Rielly. They were not viewers, O'Riellys comments were on the Radio Factor, Not on his TV Show. I believe the correct term would be listeners. Amazing to be out there condeming him and not even knowing the venue that it happened on.

Why is that relevant? Does it change what he said? Or are you merely trying to deflect attention away by any means possible?

Why no conservative Media Matters.

A factually incorrect statement. Both Accuracy In Media and Media Research Center are Conservative watchdog groups that have existed for many years.

In my Opnion, Media Matters and Move On provide suffcient Ammo. What would be the creditability of such site, it would be the same as media matters. After Five years in Business they (Media Matters) gets one with legs and it is quickly debunked. I Still can't believe how some will "Paint with a Broad Brush" Look at the last Statement here. " .... it really does not say much for a lot of folks in this country. Wow Don't agree with Someone over a Misunderstood Broadcast = Racist. Freedom of Speach, as long as you don't disagree or discent. Talk about labeling.

Wow Disagree and Be a Racist, Try to point out a misunderstanding and Be A Racist. I have been on the DIS for a long time. Never heard of such a Statement before. Can't wait for a Post on a topic I can put that in. You speak for everyone, Wow Thank Goodness your not a Mod. Then this site would be leaning way left. Yes lets throw out some motherhood Apple pie and the DIS. As for Liberal Disinformation, I wonder What happened to Dan Rather. Where is Al Franken when you need him, No one listened, cancelled.

Another inaccuracy. By Federal law, Al Franken is not allowed to have a radio or television show while an active political candidate. His last show on Air America was when he announced his candidacy for the Minnesota senate.

By the way, I have watched the whole show you keep referring to. It's an illuminating example of how to spin in a "No-Spin Zone".

 

[Fitswimmer]

A factually incorrect statement. Both Accuracy In Media and Media Research Center are Conservative watchdog groups that have existed for many years.

Ok, that one was my fault. (mea culpa!) I didn't know about those two organizations so I asked why there wasn't a complimentary Conservative alternative to Media Matters.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Al Franken wasn't cancelled. He left Air America Radio because he's running for the Democratic nomination for Senator in Minnesota.

Btw, how many more times does someone have to explain to you that Media Matters is biased solely on which items they choose to feature. Everyone of those items has a link to where you can see/hear for yourself.

But, sure as God made little green apples, someone is going to explain it again and again and again...... to infinity.

You must be wrong. Patchs'D has repeatedly and clearly stated that he thinks for himself, and that people who look at the Media Matters site do not think for themselves and allow others to do their thinking for them.

Ostensively, having an open mind and thinking for oneself means being able to accurately and fairly process new information that comes one's way, and to understand concepts such as the crucial differentiation between original source material (regardless of origin) and the context is which that material is discussed; the juxtaposition of two different statements by the same individual in order to present a contradiction between those same statements, and the ability to measure a statement by an individual and how that statement compares to the actual facts.

Oh, and congrats on beating me to the Al Franken fallacy.....

 

[Mugg Mann]

Ok, that one was my fault. (mea culpa!) I didn't know about those two organizations so I asked why there wasn't a complimentary Conservative alternative to Media Matters.

No worries! You still have a rather substantial credibility reserve on hand at the ol' online Mugg Bank!

 

[basas]

Maybe the point that Basas is trying to make is "see, they really are a bunch of thugs, O'Reilly was doing them a favor by highlighting a few who are not."

Yup. That was my point.

 

[Patch'sD]

Answer to your hypothetical Question, Yes, On this subject. Why Becuase I have taken the time to listen to the entire broadcast. The Segment about Racism with Juan Williams. If a mass murder was convicted of another Crime and I knew of him to be innocent of that crime, I would defend him. As I would defend Bill Clinton for being a Good President, Even though he is guilty of the two things you feel that I should not defend O'Rielly for, Being a Liar and Adulterer. Do You still Defend Bill Clinton.

Do I take everything that O'Rielly Says to be Gospel, No. But on this Subject of Racism with regards to the broadcast in question, I believe he is misunderstood.

Now Answer my Question, Have you listened to the entire broadcast. Have you listened to the one hour portion of the Radio Show.

Where is the Outrage over Juan Williams being labled a "Happy Negro"

Again Drawing your own conclusions about what you read. Settlement. Guilty Maybe but without the court documents. You nor I can be 100% Positive, Now can we.

Yes I am a free thinker. I went to Media Matters read the article and then went and listened to the broadcast and drew my own conclusion. Did You. If someone goes to one source who has less than 1 minute of transcript from a one hour radio program. Formulates an opinion based on that then yes they are letting them do the thinking for you. Are you an O'Rielly Fan or Do you Dislike him, are you letting your dislike for him, cloud your thought process on his guilt on this subject. Do you think he was trying to make a racist remark or tried to convey a message of how his Grand Mother's Thinking was formulated by what she sees on the TV.

Didn't say Media Matters broke the story. I said you were being like Media Matters by providing a snip of information, not the complete story and then Saying well if Your Guilty of Sexual Harrasment then you are an Adulterer. I don't know if there is a tape, I don't know what is on the Tape, I don't know the Settlement agreement. Do I think there is more to the story, Yes, Is O'Rielly Guility maybe, I don't know for sure. But as you suggest It does point in the direction of his guilt. Polls show that anywhere between 22% and Higher that a married man has had an affair. Thats alot of people not to defend.

I did not use the term Adulterery, You did. I went and looked up the definition. And Yes according to the definition Phone Sex does not constitute Adulterery. In fact 46% of the Male Population thinks that to be true. I don't agree with that but it is out there. So now, You Can not defend 46% of the male population.

Yes it is relevant. It means the person did not even bother to read the entire article. The Article starts off with "During the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, discussing his recent trip to have dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia's, a famous restaurant in Harlem" Nor did the person bother to get another source where he would have found out it was radio program. But yet, He can confirm guilt. I would love to have a rational thinking person like that on a Jury of My peers.

Again, I didn't put out there there were no Conservative Media Watchdog outfits, someone else did. I don't see the need for one. As a free thinker I can go to other sites and formulate my own opinion.

I admit I am wrong with the Cancellation of Al Franken, I knew that something happened with Air America. I now see that it was a filing for bankruptcy last year. Sorry for the mistake. I guess you can remove the Smiley face now. It adds so much to a civil discussion, doesn't it.

Now since you never asked, Do I agree with O'Rielly on everything. No. Do I think he is full of himself, Yes. Do I watch him every night. No. Do I hate the word Opine, Yes. Do I believe everything he says, No. But Do I think that on this subject was he misunderstood Yes.

For the person hitting his head on the wall, better get some advil. I am not going to stop on this. Media Matters is slighted to one side. If they were a true watchdog they would watch all outlets. They would not be in the business of watching just conservative outlets if they were fair.

All this done without one Happy Face rolling on the floor, rolling eyes or eating popcorn.

I look forward to your response.

 

[CathrynRose]

Ok you've figured us out. We (and that means those who like or watch O'Reillys show...a very large number actually) are all just a bunch of rich white homophobic religious nutcase racists. Happy? We admitted it.

I".

Hey! Dont you stereo type all the Bill O'Reilly watchers as religious nutcases - Im not a religious person at all, yet REALLY enjoy Bill. I guess everyone on this thread is right.... ya stereo-typer, you!


And, as I stated earlier, I see thread after thread, day after day discussing topics, and will flip on Bill in the evening, and he'll be discussing the SAME freaking topics and have the SAME outraged opinions / view points as the posters on the threads.

No one watches his show. They read (into) snippets from liberal Bill-hating sites.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Answer to your hypothetical Question, Yes, On this subject. Why Becuase I have taken the time to listen to the entire broadcast. The Segment about Racism with Juan Williams. If a mass murder was convicted of another Crime and I knew of him to be innocent of that crime, I would defend him. As I would defend Bill Clinton for being a Good President, Even though he is guilty of the two things you feel that I should not defend O'Rielly for, Being a Liar and Adulterer. Do You still Defend Bill Clinton.

Do I take everything that O'Rielly Says to be Gospel, No. But on this Subject of Racism with regards to the broadcast in question, I believe he is misunderstood.

Now Answer my Question, Have you listened to the entire broadcast. Have you listened to the one hour portion of the Radio Show.

Where is the Outrage over Juan Williams being labled a "Happy Negro"

Again Drawing your own conclusions about what you read. Settlement. Guilty Maybe but without the court documents. You nor I can be 100% Positive, Now can we.

Yes I am a free thinker. I went to Media Matters read the article and then went and listened to the broadcast and drew my own conclusion. Did You. If someone goes to one source who has less than 1 minute of transcript from a one hour radio program. Formulates an opinion based on that then yes they are letting them do the thinking for you. Are you an O'Rielly Fan or Do you Dislike him, are you letting your dislike for him, cloud your thought process on his guilt on this subject. Do you think he was trying to make a racist remark or tried to convey a message of how his Grand Mother's Thinking was formulated by what she sees on the TV.

Didn't say Media Matters broke the story. I said you were being like Media Matters by providing a snip of information, not the complete story and then Saying well if Your Guilty of Sexual Harrasment then you are an Adulterer. I don't know if there is a tape, I don't know what is on the Tape, I don't know the Settlement agreement. Do I think there is more to the story, Yes, Is O'Rielly Guility maybe, I don't know for sure. But as you suggest It does point in the direction of his guilt. Polls show that anywhere between 22% and Higher that a married man has had an affair. Thats alot of people not to defend.

I did not use the term Adulterery, You did. I went and looked up the definition. And Yes according to the definition Phone Sex does not constitute Adulterery. In fact 46% of the Male Population thinks that to be true. I don't agree with that but it is out there. So now, You Can not defend 46% of the male population.

Yes it is relevant. It means the person did not even bother to read the entire article. The Article starts off with "During the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, discussing his recent trip to have dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia's, a famous restaurant in Harlem" Nor did the person bother to get another source where he would have found out it was radio program. But yet, He can confirm guilt. I would love to have a rational thinking person like that on a Jury of My peers.

Again, I didn't put out there there were no Conservative Media Watchdog outfits, someone else did. I don't see the need for one. As a free thinker I can go to other sites and formulate my own opinion.

I admit I am wrong with the Cancellation of Al Franken, I knew that something happened with Air America. I now see that it was a filing for bankruptcy last year. Sorry for the mistake. I guess you can remove the Smiley face now. It adds so much to a civil discussion, doesn't it.

Now since you never asked, Do I agree with O'Rielly on everything. No. Do I think he is full of himself, Yes. Do I watch him every night. No. Do I hate the word Opine, Yes. Do I believe everything he says, No. But Do I think that on this subject was he misunderstood Yes.

For the person hitting his head on the wall, better get some advil. I am not going to stop on this. Media Matters is slighted to one side. If they were a true watchdog they would watch all outlets. They would not be in the business of watching just conservative outlets if they were fair.

All this done without one Happy Face rolling on the floor, rolling eyes or eating popcorn.

I look forward to your response.

Patchs'D;

While I do respect the fact that you are willing to admit when you wrong, I answered your question earlier about whether I watched the entire segment with Juan Williams. I suggest you go back and try harder this time.

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree here. Life is too short to attempt to explain the same concepts several times over and over to you.

This thread absolutely confirms that Bill O'Reilly has the audience he deserves (and vice versa), and I hope the people who watch him someday accumulate enough wisdom and common sense to realize that he is laughing all the way to the bank at their expense.

(PS-I never voted for Bill Clinton.)

 

[basas]

This thread absolutely confirms that Bill O'Reilly has the audience he deserves (and vice versa), and I hope the people who watch him someday accumulate enough wisdom and common sense to realize that he is laughing all the way to the bank at their expense.

Well thank you for supporting us. It's America's highest ranked show on cable news and repeatedly draws millions of viewers. I hope one day you will accumulate enough wisdom and common sense to leave Fantasyland (a nice place to visit) and come live in reality alongside many of his viewers. Do you live near Peter Pan’s Flight or Snow White’s Scary Adventures?

 

["Got Disney"]

can't believe this is still being debated.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Well thank you for supporting us. It's America's highest ranked show on cable news and repeatedly draws millions of viewers. I hope one day you will accumulate enough wisdom and common sense to leave Fantasyland (a nice place to visit) and come live in reality alongside many of his viewers. Do you live near Peter Pan’s Flight or Snow White’s Scary Adventures?

Considering that your definition of reality apparently necessitates ignoring or dismissing hundreds of documented false statements and contradictions while supporting a adulterous bigot, I'll cheerfully pass.

By the way, basas, are you claiming to be an American or a Canadian citizen this week? You've changed your story enough times in the past here on the DIS that it's hard to keep track. Normally, it's no big deal, but just like O'Reilly, you like to champion moral values in the midst of repeatedly bearing false witness, yet when it has been proven that you are breaking one of the Ten Commandments, you choose to attack those who point out your hypocrisy instead of being repentent.

Thank you for proving so succinctly with such a vivid example that O'Reilly truly does have the audience he deserves.

 

[Charade]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";21077913] can't believe this is still being debated.[/QUOTE]

Me too.

It's also interesting how the people who are supposedly "defending" O'Reilly are being treated. Sadly typical.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Me too.

It's also interesting how the people who are supposedly "defending" O'Reilly are being treated. Sadly typical.

I said it a long time ago-at least I think it was on this thread...you can say and support anything you want-but if it's racist, bigoted, sexist or just plain ignorant you're going to get called on it.

If O'Reilly wasn't shocked on his own that the patrons of Sylvia's were just like civilized people and was simply informing his audience about it-that does tell me everything I need to know about his audience.

 

[Charade]

I said it a long time ago-at least I think it was on this thread...you can say and support anything you want-but if it's racist, bigoted, sexist or just plain ignorant you're going to get called on it.

If O'Reilly wasn't shocked on his own that the patrons of Sylvia's were just like civilized people and was simply informing his audience about it-that does tell me everything I need to know about his audience.

But the problem is, at least with the topic at hand, many people don't believe what he said was racist, bigoted or ignorant.

I suppose, based on your last comment, I could make the same claim about those that I disagree with politically.

 

[Fitswimmer]

But the problem is, at least with the topic at hand, many people don't believe what he said was racist, bigoted or ignorant.

I suppose, based on your last comment, I could make the same claim about those that I disagree with politically.

I still can't get my head around that. If people don't think his comment was racist, bigoted or ignorant, then they think that the patrons of Sylvia's the night O'R was there were exhibiting behavior that is abnormal for African Americans?

 

[LuvDuke]

But the problem is, at least with the topic at hand, many people don't believe what he said was racist, bigoted or ignorant.

I suppose, based on your last comment, I could make the same claim about those that I disagree with politically.

This is where the residents of Planet Bush just don't get it. How can one possibly compare O'Reilly's comment with a political disagreement?

If you want to go down that road, fine with me. If what you're trying to get at is those on your side of the aisle are shocked to find out that black people are civilized and those on my side of the aisle aren't, be my guest.

 

[Patch'sD]

Same goes for you my friend.

Question was defend not vote for.

As for the subject, Even the New York Daily News this weekend had a article " OReilly Deserves Appluase by Errol Louis on how O'Reilly was missunderstood. I also believe there is an unscientific AOL pol that shows that most (2-1 Margin) people think that his comments were not offensive. But of Course Media Matters blasts him for using an Unscientific Poll, Yet on his website it is clearly labled Unscientific.

You then try to classify 2,000,000 O,Reilly Viewers of what, being naive. Wow you think that O'Reilly is a racist and then go and try and label 2 Million People who view someone you dislike. Painting with the same brush you accuse O'Rielly of. Get past it, as you say agree to disagree, but don't label people becuase they don't agree with you.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Same goes for you my friend.

Question was defend not vote for.

As for the subject, Even the New York Daily News this weekend had a article " OReilly Deserves Appluase by Errol Louis on how O'Reilly was missunderstood. I also believe there is an unscientific AOL pol that shows that most (2-1 Margin) people think that his comments were not offensive. But of Course Media Matters blasts him for using an Unscientific Poll, Yet on his website it is clearly labled Unscientific.

You then try to classify 2,000,000 O,Reilly Viewers of what, being naive. Wow you think that O'Reilly is a racist and then go and try and label 2 Million People who view someone you dislike. Painting with the same brush you accuse O'Rielly of. Get past it, as you say agree to disagree, but don't label people becuase they don't agree with you.

Most people used to think slavery was ok, and that blacks should sit at the back of the bus, have their own drinking fountains...like they had some communicable disease. But that must have been true, since most people believed it....