| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: O'Reilly (and homosexuality threadjack) |
Topic: O'Reilly (and homosexuality threadjack)
| Author | Message |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 9/26/2007 9:10:30 PM | show profile Just when you thought you've seen rock bottom O'Reilly - the talking boot goes on a moronic rampage surrounding himself with snivelling Foxettes. All positioned to lick his festering wounds. What a sad pathetic racist! He'll never come straight with his viewers. What a coward! Pay some grovelling dimwit to massage the screen for him. If you get a chance catch a bit of this later. Absolutely sickening. Oh those black folks de don't understand.. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 9/26/2007 9:55:33 PM | show profile Why are you so obsessed with FNC and BOR? Every thread you created is filled with hate and childish name calling.I wish you would get over your obsession with BOR and FNC. This hate filled liberal attack on BOR will fall flat on its face just like all the other hate filled attacks on BOR have.Soros hasn't been spending his money well.Fox News is still #1!!!! |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 9/27/2007 8:08:37 AM | show profile Watched again... there is no greater coward on television. Get a couple of FOX groupies to sit alongside and you ask questions of yourself - play the victim and beg them lick your wounds. Where does FOX find these bimbos? It 's like the comedy show they could never create. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 9/27/2007 8:53:49 AM | show profile No greater coward? BOR must be someone who would hide under his desk and in his bathtub to keep from doing his show.No,wait, thats Olbermann. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 9/27/2007 9:08:47 AM | show profile You really worked hard on that.. We're talking about O'Reilly's meltdown last night. They guy is such a sissy - he needs the dumbest bimbos on the news block to massage his bulbous ego. He was hurt again .. please don't let Bill cry and whimper my rug's getting soiled. Why does this talking boot enlist bimbos to speak for him? Here's the answer - he's a coward and big ass racist! |
| robsemail | Posted – 9/27/2007 9:29:13 AM | show profile "Why are you so obsessed with FNC and BOR?" That's an odd question coming from someone who so hates Keith Olbermann that he names himself after him. |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 9/27/2007 9:40:28 AM | show profile Perhaps I can shed some light on this. Here in Germany, there is a problem with racist groups (i.e., skinheads) in the towns of the former East, which have been emptied out of all their women, leaving the young men with nothing to do but find trouble. The solution one mayor came up with is incentives to attract more women to the East. Likewise, were Frank/Olby/whatever to find a girlfriend whom he can talk to instead of one he has to inflate, he might discover that there is a whole world going on outside of his TV remote and laptop keyboard. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 9/27/2007 9:59:10 AM | show profile very funny - Stanley.. There's a tenency to always turn whatever subject arises into an Olbermann hate fest. It boggles the mind. O'Reilly's in the news this week - therefore he's the centerpiece of discussion not some comment made by a Democrat in the early 1900s. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 9/27/2007 10:01:32 AM | show profile Frank, your quotes (cut & pasted as usual with no citations, no dates, no context & no links) include comments from Harry Truman -- dead for 25 years! How does anything harry truman may have said or did give BOR a lifetime pass to spew out whatever he wants, without commentary or criticism? And in your heart of hearts, do you truly, honestly believe that there are absolutely no dubious or straight-up repulsive quotes from noted conservatives and/or republicans that one could paste here if they so chose? Strom Thurman alone must have generated about 50,000! But I wouldn't bother doing that, because that has absolutely nothing to do with he issue at hand -- which was what BOR said this week about a recent personal experience. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 9/27/2007 10:32:19 AM | show profile thanks, frank -- that clears that up. The gist is, you don't think what BOR said was racist or offensive. Fair enough. I think you should just stick to that rather than trying to bring an uncited and undated Harry Truman quote into the mix (FYI: one reason I probably didn't condemn that particular comment was because I wasn't born when it was made). And not to drift off topic here, but you also quoted Bull Connor -- you're showing here a complete lack of understanding of US history. I'm not going to give the whole run-down on how party affilations in the Jim-Crow-era south broke down, but do you truly, honestly believe that "libs" from that era and today as you call them are big defenders of violent white supremacists like bull connor? Frank, I really do think you'd enjoy studying US history and the development of the US party system. It's pretty interesting stuff -- and suffice it to say "liberal" and "conservative" as we tend to use those terms today are in no way synonymous with "democratic party" and "republican party" throughout US history. |
| robsemail | Posted – 9/27/2007 10:33:25 AM | show profile "I also know that none of you libs actually bothered to denouce ACTUAL racist comments made by dems" Maybe because most of them are dead, ya think? Or because they've apologized? Or because most of your quotes are at least 50 years old? Besides, not all liberals agree about this. Like Al Sharpton, for instance. Imus never invited Sharpton on his show, thus when he makes a racist comment Al gets all huffy about it and demands Imus be fired. But Sharpton's a regular guest on O'Reilly's show, therefore he doesn't see anything wrong with Bill's obviously racist comments. For my part, I don't think O'Reilly intended to cause any offense at all. But being informed that he HAS caused offense, for reasons easily understood (which even Sharpton pointed out), he should have apologized rather than digging the hole deeper. That said, I LOVE seeing O'Reilly squirm over this. He may not be a racist at heart, but he's definitely homophobic. I'm a gay man and so I'm very much enjoying all this. Serves the bastard right! |
| noname1234 | Posted – 9/27/2007 10:41:58 AM | show profile Frank, what the hell are you talking about? Are you seriously pissed of that in 2007 people aren't spending more time condemning the statement of harry truman? And please answer this question:' Do you think social liberals and progressives of the 1950s though today were and are silent about (or defenders of) violent white supremacy in the jim-crow-era deep south? That's your interpretation of US history? |
| noname1234 | Posted – 9/27/2007 10:52:42 AM | show profile Ok the only person on your list who's running for prez is hillary clinton. So that's what it's about. Got it. But the key issue in this particular thread is that you're not bothered by what BOR said -- it was a compliment to black folks when he admired that they're actually able to sit and eat a meal in a restaurant, gosh darn it! |
| noname1234 | Posted – 9/27/2007 11:02:04 AM | show profile My mind is still blown that you would bring in a quote from GEORGE WALLACE as an example of how "liberals" are racist! And assert that "liberals" (and the "liberal media") simply sat by silently and said and did nothing in response to Wallace. That just dumbfounds me that someone like you who claims to be so impassioned and knowledgable about US politics could seriously state that. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 9/27/2007 11:10:05 AM | show profile nope you're right -- bidens running. my bad -- after all, he's been such a powerhouse in this race. So back to george wallace, since you asserted his relevance to the current BOR controversy -- you believe today's democratic leaders are big supporters of his? and that social liberals across the nation were his biggest backers during his heyday? And that social liberals and progressives were (and are) apologists for jim crow segregation and white supremacy? |
| robsemail | Posted – 9/27/2007 11:11:19 AM | show profile "...I tried to engage you by your own words." Not exactly, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't understand what you were saying and I'll try to explain (kinda like I gave O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt in assuming he had no racist intent with those boorish comments he made). Give me a minute and I'll get back to you. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 9/27/2007 11:12:21 AM | show profile What happens here - is a lot of nonsense is spit all over the place to cover up for wingnuts like O'Reilly and Limbaugh. There's no way you can mask their intentions and mishaps. They're whack jobs looking for attention. In fact O'Reilly enlists the dumbest bimbos in the business to bolster his monstrous ego. He's a tiny weiner.. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 9/27/2007 11:13:24 AM | show profile Its about double standards and selective outrage in the media. |
| robsemail | Posted – 9/27/2007 11:55:13 AM | show profile "it was YOU who said: "AS A GAY MAN..." and then proceeded to espouse your political and personal views." Indeed, but saying I'm gay is hardly defining my life by who I sleep with. That's what was so insulting. If I'd said that I'm blue-eyed, would you have assumed that I define my life by the color of my eyes? There are times when it's relevant to point out one's eye color, you know. Same goes for one's sexuality. In this case, my sexuality was relevant because otherwise my amusement over O'Reilly's present discomfiture might not make much sense, especially since I said I don't think he really meant to make a racist comment. You see, it's actually O'Reilly and people like him who believe my life is defined by my sexuality, not me. Being gay SHOULD BE a lot like having blue eyes. But you know, it wasn't my blue eyes that in 1994 cost me my good-paying job with excellent health insurance and retirement plan I had to cash in soon after. No, I lost that job because when my boss's wife asked me when I would "find a nice girl and settle down", I explained to her why that would never happen. I was fired at the end of that very week. My boss cited a mistake I'd made almost 9 months prior as his reason. I was blacklisted too, so I had to not only find another job but also another career. So you see, I don't need to wear colored contacts to hide my blue eyes. No one has ever said that my eyes are sinful or immoral. So I don't have to hide them or even point them out. But that's not the case with my sexuality. If for no other reason than to ensure that what happened to me in '94 will never happen again, I have no choice but to point out my sexuality. Because of other people's attitudes, it's almost always relevant. That's why it was insulting for you to automatically assume that I define my life by my sexuality. I think this line of discussion is off-topic enough for one thread. If you really want to know what I think about gay marriage and the democratic candidates, start a new thread |
| robsemail | Posted – 9/27/2007 1:01:20 PM | show profile One more thing about what O'Reilly said: I used the word 'boorish' earlier, and I think that's the word that applies best. It's pretty clear to me that he wasn't saying that he himself was amazed that African-Americans eat their food with knives and forks. He seemed to be saying that there were other people who need to know it. There are any number of adjectives one could apply to his statements - rude, insensitive, graceless come to mind - but I think it's a bit extreme to describe them as racist. The other liberals in this thread should think of this: what if O'Reilly had made very similar comments about a gay restaurant? Suppose his meal had been shared with Melissa Etheridge? Considering how his audience skews to an older and more conservative demographic, I'd be grateful for what he'd said. It might help matters if someone like him would go to a gay restaurant and observe that, except perhaps for differences in slang and other superficial qualities, we behave pretty much just like straight people do, even when we're amongst ourselves when no (or few) straights are around. I can tell you from personal experience that this comes as news to many straights, especially here in the Deep South. So I don't think I'd mind having it pointed out on a national, conservative talk radio show. But in the case of African-Americans, my god this is the 21st century. I certainly hope that, by now, even conservative whites in the South are aware that blacks are civilized people. O'Reilly should just say, in all honesty, that he meant nothing racist by his comments but that he can see how some might see them as at least rude. Etiquette would thus require an apology, which he should enthusiastically proffer. Had he done that right away, this would all have been forgotten by now. |
| robsemail | Posted – 9/27/2007 1:49:31 PM | show profile "So why preface ANY remark with a comment about who you sleep with" That's not what I did. All I did was identify myself as a member of a particular community. You're the one who's obsessed with the "sleeping with" part. Let's assume for a moment that this discussion was about gay marriage. Suppose a poster named 'Brent' had made a strong argument in favor, but in so doing felt it relevant to identify himself as straight. Brent might, for instance, want to testify to the benefits of marriage he now enjoys with his wife and say that he wishes the same chance at happiness for his gay friends and/or family. Would you accuse Brent of identifying his life by who he sleeps with? You don't have to keep asking the question about the democratic candidates and gay marriage. We'll get to that; I can assure you I have an opinion. But I want to settle this first. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 9/27/2007 3:02:11 PM | show profile So what we're debating here is whether O'Reilly is a gay man or just plain angry.. |
| robsemail | Posted – 9/27/2007 3:03:47 PM | show profile "You cannot separate the "sleeping with" sexual component from the word "gay". " No, it's you who's obsessed with the sex. Most people seem quite able to think about the gay community without obsessing over the sex. Why can't you? And you still haven't answered the question: is a person who identifies as straight defining their life by who they sleep with? "So, by definition, when you define yourself as gay- and you use that description to preface a discussion (political, religious, etc.), you frame the argumet by who you sleep with." Why are you incapable of thinking of gay people without obsessing over the sex? |
| robsemail | Posted – 9/27/2007 3:20:44 PM | show profile "See, if you said, "As an Italian man..." you would have framed the argument with all of the cultrual background and/or ethnic accuterments associated with being Italian." Are you capable of thinking of the Italian culture without obsessing over Italians having sex? "Gay is not a culture..." That would certainly be news to anyone who's ever been to a gay pride festival. But who appointed you king and gave you the right to decide who does and who doesn't have a culture? |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 9/27/2007 9:28:22 PM | show profile As a bonus, some of our favorite O'Reilly moments: "Black Americans are understandably sensitive about any racial comment made by a Caucasian because of past history. It is true that the most vile things imaginable can be said about the white majority without any consequence, but America has a different set of rules for different groups." ?10/4/05 "With single black women now heading 54.4% of all African-American households, the seeds of social chaos are deeply planted... Forget about counting on parents, that's a pipe dream. The truth is that many parents are addicted to the pipe or the bottle or to pursuing an irresponsible life. Even Bill Cosby can't force a screwed up mother or father to be responsible." ?7/8/04 And of course: "Senator Barack Obama seems to be a nice guy; I won't say he's 'articulate,' because some African-Americans hear that word and take offense. In fact, I won't give the Senator any compliments other than the nice guy description, just to be on the safe side." ?2/8/07 Huffington Post |
