NationStates Jolt Archive

Hahahahaha! He should keep his job and be moved to a comic slot.

i was listening to the sound clip yesterday on the radio (air america was running it)

it sounded to me like he started with one thought and ended with another.

a caller claimed to have a friend who knew mrs obama and said that she was some kind of angry black woman. bill said that it wasnt fair to make such claims but said that if the caller left some info on who they were and who the friend was they would look into it.

thats probably where it ended.

And now for the most racist thing Bill O Riley has ever said:

"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/bill-oreilly-i-dont-w_n_87616.html

Makes you wonder how this man still has a job, the statement makes Imus's "Nappy headed hoes" comment look almost politically correct.

its ok, billy has standards. no leading lynchings for him until he has good evidence that the uppity negros are really asking for it.

doncha jest luv FOX's attempted weaseling out of this:
"What Bill said was an obvious repudiation of anyone attacking Michelle Obama," he said, according to Fox spokeswoman. "As he has said more than ten times, he is giving her the benefit of the doubt."
oh my yes. It was so very very obvious a repudiation. Could not be taken any other way. no sir.

And now for the most racist thing Bill O Riley has ever said:

"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/bill-oreilly-i-dont-w_n_87616.html

Makes you wonder how this man still has a job, the statement makes Imus's "Nappy headed hoes" comment look almost politically correct.

Dude, I thought "nappy headed hoes" was pretty tame and just an obvious slip-up. This, however, got lulz. Cause bringing up lynching while talking about a black woman- always a great idea!

Makes you wonder what he would have said if she were Jewish doesn't it?

He was referring to her despicable contempt for America and her political unctuousness, not her race. When a public official disgraces America so perniciously, he or she must be thoroughly excoriated.

I’m not particularly surprised or shocked at O’Reilly’s comments — we’ve always known he holds pretty fucked up views — but did anyone else watch Olbermann’s response to the comments?

He introduces Eugene Robinson as “political analyst at MSNBC and both columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post” yet can’t seem to bring himself to say the (perfectly legitimate) “your an intelligent black dude, what do you think/feel?”

Strange.

He was referring to her despicable contempt for America and her political unctuousness, not her race. When a public official disgraces America so perniciously, he or she must be thoroughly excoriated.
Why?

Why can't a public official (or wife of a public official) say "this country sucks; let's improve it"?

Makes you wonder what he would have said if she were Jewish doesn't it?

"i don't want to put anyone on the train to auschwitz unless there's evidence, hard facts..."

Dude, I thought "nappy headed hoes" was pretty tame and just an obvious slip-up. This, however, got lulz. Cause bringing up lynching while talking about a black woman- always a great idea!

Makes you wonder what he would have said if she were Jewish doesn't it?

Makes you wonder what he would have said if she were Jewish doesn't it?
"I don't want to go on a genocidal party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

i was listening to the sound clip yesterday on the radio (air america was running it)

it sounded to me like he started with one thought and ended with another.

a caller claimed to have a friend who knew mrs obama and said that she was some kind of angry black woman. bill said that it wasnt fair to make such claims but said that if the caller left some info on who they were and who the friend was they would look into it.

thats probably where it ended.

That doesn't explain the whole "Lynching party" issue.

Why?

Why can't a public official (or wife of a public official) say "this country sucks; let's improve it"?

Certainly, advocating in favor of improving our nation is perfectly acceptable. But implying that for one's entire adult life, one was not proud of the grandest, most inspiring nation on the face of the world is contemptible, especially when such vitriolic sentiments are expressed in order to further one's political goals.

"I don't want to go on a genocidal party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

Or "I don't want to drag Michelle Obama kicking and screaming to a giant oven unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

If she was a Native American:
"I don't want to hand a smallpox ridden blanket to Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

If she was Cambodian:
"I don't want to drag Michelle Obama off to the Killing Fields unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

A Darfurian (?):
"I don't want to go on a machete-hacking party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

my word, but you can have fun with this.

... the grandest, most inspiring nation on the face of the world...
She obviously doesn’t agree with this, and nor should she be condemned for it.

That doesn't explain the whole "Lynching party" issue.

well its less offensive to say you DONT want to lynch someone than that you do.

She obviously doesn’t agree with this, and nor should she be condemned for it.

If she doesn't agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.

Why?

Why can't a public official (or wife of a public official) say "this country sucks; let's improve it"?

I'm wondering this too, but I know nothing about this situation so there might be something I'm missing. Sweeping a country's obvious flaws under the rug can do nothing but hurt said country.

EDIT: Also is it just me or is the board time drifting, my clock synchs with windows servers and it's slowly getting further and further behind board time.

If she doesn’t agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.
I think you just proved her comments right.


I'm wondering this too, but I know nothing about this situation so there might be something I'm missing. Sweeping a country's obvious flaws under the rug can do nothing but hurt said country.
Or indeed, maintaining that anyone who doesn't think a country is absolutely fandabidozi has got to shut up or leave.

Also is it just me or is the board time drifting, my clock synchs with windows servers and it's slowly getting further and further behind board time.
Nah, I feel the timewarps have been getting a lot worse too.

Well now, that's not exactly what his quote says is it? "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

So if that's how she really feels I guess good ol' Bill O will being pulling his nice little white hood out of the closet and finding himself some rope.

yes but as i wrote, he started out with the idea that he didnt want to jump to conclusions--phrased badly with that lynching thing--and then moved on to the idea that he shouldnt dismiss the charge that the caller was making out of hand so it ended differently than it began.

he spent most of that spot defending mrs obama.

well its less offensive to say you DONT want to lynch someone than that you do.

Well now, that's not exactly what his quote says is it? "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

So if that's how she really feels I guess good ol' Bill O will being pulling his nice little white hood out of the closet and finding himself some rope.

If she doesn't agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.

Yea, how dare she!:mad: How dare she speak freely & have her own opinion?:rolleyes:

If she doesn't agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.

<licks PerpetualFriedman> you're silly I hope you stay.

well its less offensive to say you DONT want to lynch someone than that you do.

though when you are the one bringing up lynching, the dynamic is a bit different.

If she doesn't agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.

Is it just me, or does this person sound a lot like FreedomandGlory?

though when you are the one bringing up lynching, the dynamic is a bit different.

yeah

it was a bad choice of words that makes you wonder what was going on in his head.

If she doesn't agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.

Extoling the virtues of free speech I see then...

"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

Open mouth, insert foot.

Extoling the virtues of free speech I see then...

I respect her constitutionally-guaranteed right to engage in abhorrent vituperation against this proud country. Nonetheless, I would encourage her to issue such egregious tirades elsewhere. She is not lacking in wealth (indeed, she was able to accrue her impressive fortune due to the beneficence of this wondrous country against which she launches such heinous diatribes). Consequently, she should abandon her thinly-veiled hypocrisy and move to a nation she can be proud of.

Is it just me, or does this person sound a lot like FreedomandGlory?

Agreed.

Yea, how dare she!:mad: How dare she speak freely & have her own opinion?:rolleyes:

Had she possessed even the minutest shred of decency, had her moral fabric not been so thoroughly corroded, then should would not have made such a despicable claim on the national stage. Luckily for her, the Constitution allows her to espouse such abominable viewpoints. But then again, I don't suppose she appreciates that -- in any event, it certainly doesn't make her "proud."

And now for the most racist thing Bill O Riley has ever said:

"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/bill-oreilly-i-dont-w_n_87616.html

Makes you wonder how this man still has a job, the statement makes Imus's "Nappy headed hoes" comment look almost politically correct.

I don't see why you're offended by these particular comments...
How exactly is it 'politically incorrect' to defend Michelle Obama from a baseless accusation?

If she doesn't agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.


*Scooby-Doo Theme Song*

*Pulls off the mask to reveal...*

FreedomAndGlory! I knew it was you!

Seriously, WTF?
I’ve had a couple of ‘future posts’ too.

*slaps Jolt*

EDIT: I just checked, and your WTF post is two minutes in the future. :p

He was referring to her despicable contempt for America and her political unctuousness, not her race. When a public official disgraces America so perniciously, he or she must be thoroughly excoriated.

You're using the thesaurus too much, dude. The purple prose only works in romance novels.

it was a bad choice of words that makes you wonder what was going on in his head.

Everything that man says makes me wonder what's going on inside his head.

Nah, I feel the timewarps have been getting a lot worse too.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8243/boardtimext6.png

Certainly, advocating in favor of improving our nation is perfectly acceptable. But implying that for one's entire adult life, one was not proud of the grandest, most inspiring nation on the face of the world is contemptible, especially when such vitriolic sentiments are expressed in order to further one's political goals.

If she doesn't agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.

Look everyone! It's FnG! Now with twice the Sieg Heil nuttiness.

Everything that man says makes me wonder what's going on inside his head.



http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8243/boardtimext6.png

Don't forget you're 1/2 an hour behind in Adelaide. :p

Look everyone! It's FnG! Now with twice the Sieg Heil nuttiness.

Be thankful for small mercies. At least it's eloquent Sieg Heil nuttiness.

If she doesn't agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.

You have to be a troll, NO ONE is that pro-American on NSG. Sure, there are plenty of rabid ANTI-Americans, but no pro-Americans of that...caliber. So who are you?

A source with the original script at the bottom. http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001

In context, it sounds like he wasn't attempting to be racist, that he was trying to be fair (somewhat). Still, regardless of his intentions, it was a very poor choice of words.

:rolleyes:


OK people, there is NO problem here and NO intended racism. Stop being so sensitive. I am not white and see no problem here.


lynch (lĭnch) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. lynched, lynch·ing, lynch·es
To execute without due process of law, especially to hang, as by a mob


con·text /ˈkɒntɛkst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-tekst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

This is called taking is words out of context just so you can attack him. You people are just being to sensitive and need to just chill. He did and said nothing wrong here.

He was referring to her despicable contempt for America and her political unctuousness, not her race. When a public official disgraces America so perniciously, he or she must be thoroughly excoriated.

Somebody has been looking through their thesaurus.

If she doesn't agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.

puppet? troll? We report, you decide.

'insidious ilk', I am loving this flowery English, lol

*Scooby-Doo Theme Song*

*Pulls off the mask to reveal...*

FreedomAndGlory! I knew it was you!

"And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling Gay Liberal IslamoFacist kids."

'insidious ilk', I am loving this flowery English, lol

Am I the only person who took the prose to mean they were joking?

...they were joking, right?

:rolleyes:


OK people, there is NO problem here and NO intended racism. Stop being so sensitive. I am not white and see no problem here.


lynch (lĭnch) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. lynched, lynch·ing, lynch·es
To execute without due process of law, especially to hang, as by a mob


con·text /ˈkɒntɛkst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-tekst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

This is called taking is words out of context just so you can attack him. You people are just being to sensitive and need to just chill. He did and said nothing wrong here.

and what can you tell us about the context of lynching in USia? is there perhaps some sort of long and well-known history related to conservative white men, lynching, and putting people of color "back in their place"?

this isn't even dog-whistle politics, this is a giant flashing neon billboard.

and what can you tell us about the context of lynching in USia? is there perhaps some sort of long and well-known history related to conservative white men, lynching, and putting people of color "back in their place"?

this isn't even dog-whistle politics, this is a giant flashing neon billboard.

Seconded, thirded, and fourthed.

In the US, lynching is almost always used to bring up mental images of black people swinging from trees. If you look through our history books and search for "lynching", it will exclusively be about white people keeping the "uppity negroes in their place". The instances of white people being lynched (if it ever happened) would probably be because they were supportive of blacks being treated like (gasp) human beings.

I don't think BillO was being intentionally racist, he is just a very ignorant and arrogant man. He really doesn't know any better and that is sad. :(

Certainly, advocating in favor of improving our nation is perfectly acceptable. But implying that for one's entire adult life, one was not proud of the grandest, most inspiring nation on the face of the world is contemptible, especially when such vitriolic sentiments are expressed in order to further one's political goals.

Ladies...

If she doesn't agree with it, I would humbly suggest that she move elsewhere and not taint our magnificent nation with her insidious ilk.

...and gentlemen...

I respect her constitutionally-guaranteed right to engage in abhorrent vituperation against this proud country. Nonetheless, I would encourage her to issue such egregious tirades elsewhere. She is not lacking in wealth (indeed, she was able to accrue her impressive fortune due to the beneficence of this wondrous country against which she launches such heinous diatribes). Consequently, she should abandon her thinly-veiled hypocrisy and move to a nation she can be proud of.

...it's time for your favorite troll and mine...

Had she possessed even the minutest shred of decency, had her moral fabric not been so thoroughly corroded, then should would not have made such a despicable claim on the national stage. Luckily for her, the Constitution allows her to espouse such abominable viewpoints. But then again, I don't suppose she appreciates that -- in any event, it certainly doesn't make her "proud."

...back for a return engagement here in NSG...

Is it just me, or does this person sound a lot like FreedomandGlory?

Yes! FaG is back! Ring out the bells and sound the trumpets!

*brass band plays Deutschland Uber Alles*

Everything that man says makes me wonder what's going on inside his head.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8243/boardtimext6.png

Really? It seems like it'd be simple: "what can I say and how can I phrase it to get the most attention while still being defensible to and by my target audience, thus assuring my continued fame and paycheck?" He's (another?) male Ann Coulter.

Am I the only person who took the prose to mean they were joking?

...they were joking, right?

Sadly, no. FaG has a history of being conservatorially contrary for its own sake. Nobody really thinks he believes half of what he says, but neither is he joking.

I smell MTAE.

The instances of white people being lynched (if it ever happened) would probably be because they were supportive of blacks being treated like (gasp) human beings.

it happened. though it is a bit hard to track down how frequently, as the people who attempted to keep track usually just classified the victims as being black or, effectively, not-black. so you'd get chinese and native americans and mexicans listed as 'white'. but even so, such lynchings were the minority cases.

Now, guys, let's be reasonable here. Let's examine Mr. O'Reilly's quote in context and ask ourselves if he was really trying to be racist or not. When I look at the quote, what I'm seeing is him using a turn of phrase that has connotations that probably didn't occur to him when he used it but did afterwards.

The term is used quite often for various reasons in speech, after all.

He was referring to her despicable contempt for America and her political unctuousness, not her race.

My fat hairy white ass he was. He was making an idiosyncratic, offensive, bigoted statement for the purpose of getting people to think about him, getting people to listen to his tripe, getting viewers, getting ratings, getting money, getting publicity.

Period.

And as it turns out, thinly-veiled, closet-case pansy-ass chickenshit racism is IN.

When a public official disgraces America so perniciously, he or she must be thoroughly excoriated.

FreedomAndGlory, is that you?

Yep. Bill O' Reilly should really have not made that statement, although I think he might just have been being absent-minded instead of hurtful on purpose.

I use the term "lynch party" for general witch-hunts (another term he couldn't have used right there) based on what people may have said or done, in the same kind of context as this one.

The self-righteousness and hypocrisy on Nation states is truly a case study in the making.

The self-righteousness and hypocrisy on Nation states is truly a case study in the making.
Care to explain why?

Four pages of indignation over someone expressing an opinion about an opinion. and any one who even remotely supports O'reilly is going to be ganged up on. Thats why.

Four pages of indignation over someone expressing an opinion about an opinion. and any one who even remotely supports O’reilly is going to be ganged up on.
And this shows hypocrisy... where?

EDIT: Assuming it's an accurate portrayal of reality.

Four pages of indignation over someone expressing an opinion about an opinion. and any one who even remotely supports O'reilly is going to be ganged up on. Thats why.

geee *I* remotely suported o'reilly and no one ganged up on me.

geee *I* remotely suported o'reilly and no one ganged up on me.

He does have a point about "ganging up", if not about anything else. This forum does remind of primary school bullying of the dissentient voice at times.

geee *I* remotely suported o'reilly and no one ganged up on me.

As did I, and I wasn't ganged up on either

This forum does remind of primary school bullying of the dissentient voice at times.
True, but usually only from the more n00bish posters.

He does have a point about "ganging up", if not about anything else. This forum does remind of primary school bullying of the dissentient voice at times.

Exactly to which I was referring.

He does have a point about "ganging up", if not about anything else. This forum does remind of primary school bullying of the dissentient voice at times.

yes it does. but it mostly happens to people who are asking to be ganged up on.

in this thread the best example of that is PerpetualFriedman.

True, but usually only from the more n00bish posters.

They are ganging up, or being ganged up on? If the former, I agree, but with qualifications; in certain threads, on certain issues, any opinion not consistent to the norm is attacked en masse, precluding any reasoned response by either party.

Why is it that when a leftist idiot makes and idiotic statement, they are cheered by the masses of NS, but when a right-leaning idiot makes an idiotic statement, they are excortiated by the sheeple of NS?

:gundge:

yes it does. but it mostly happens to people who are asking to be ganged up on.

in this thread the best example of that is PerpetualFriedman.

That strikes me as little more than sophistry or dodging. The simple truth is certain posters delight in attacking posters en masse, consistent to a model which inevitably involves copious use of staple perjorative terms.

An idiotic statement is idiotic, regardless of the source.

That strikes me as little more than sophistry or dodging. The simple truth is certain posters delight in attacking posters en masse, consistent to a model which inevitably involves copious use of staple perjorative terms.

Hence...

True, but usually only from the more n00bish posters.

That strikes me as little more than sophistry or dodging. The simple truth is certain posters delight in attacking posters en masse, consistent to a model which inevitably involves copious use of staple perjorative terms.

when you can show me an example of ganging up on a reasonable poster, ill revise my opinion.

yes, certain posters do love to keep an argument going but thats not ganging up. i only see ganging up on those who make outrageous posts that are obviously designed to provoke a response

An idiotic statement is idiotic, regardless of the source.

Though an idiotic source amplifies the idiocy.

Hence...
And by noting my displeasure at senseless massed attacking by younger posters, I am supporting senseless massed attacking by younger posters... how?

They are ganging up, or being ganged up on?
Ganging up.

If the former, I agree, but with qualifications; in certain threads, on certain issues, any opinion not consistent to the norm is attacked en masse, precluding any reasoned response by either party.
Yeah, I’d say anyone supportive of such things as slavery, racism, mass-murder and the like are attacked en masse.

Quite right too.

Though an idiotic source amplifies the idiocy.

Yes, but idiocy is not partisan.

When all is said and done, I am sure Michelle Obama will provide more than enough idiotic statements, She just doesn't have an hour tv show and two or three hours every day on the radio in which to prew idiocy.

when you can show me an example of ganging up on a reasonable poster, ill revise my opinion.

yes, certain posters do love to keep an argument going but thats not ganging up. i only see ganging up on those who make outrageous posts that are obviously designed to provoke a response

Outrageous? Yes, but as to whether they are intended to actually get a response or not, I would suggest no. However, certain members of the NSG homogenous "we love Barack" club are despicably belligerent and insulting.

Why is it that when a leftist idiot makes and idiotic statement, they are cheered by the masses of NS, but when a right-leaning idiot makes an idiotic statement, they are excortiated by the sheeple of NS?

:gundge:

you would have to bring up examples of both before anyone would believe that to be true. ive seen lots of kinds of stupid catch a ration of shit on this site.

Outrageous? Yes, but as to whether they are intended to actually get a response or not, I would suggest no. However, certain members of the NSG homogenous "we love Barack" club are despicably belligerent and insulting.

granted but that was not the contention.

you would have to bring up examples of both before anyone would believe that to be true. ive seen lots of kinds of stupid catch a ration of shit on this site.

Andaras does seem to be attacked as much as any of the more extreme right posters, however, not to the same extent and with the same vitriol.

granted but that was not the contention.

I disagree. Returning to whoever originally contended that any dissentient opinion is ganged up on, I believe the above applies excellently.

However, certain members of the NSG homogenous “we love Barack” club are despicably belligerent and insulting.
As are certain posters of any political ilk.

And although support for Barack is strong, I’d refrain from calling it ‘homogeneous’. There’s a number of very vocal supporters, and a lot of n00blets who support him, but most folks (I think it’s fair to say) see him as a lesser evil.

I disagree. Returning to whoever originally contended that any dissentient opinion is ganged up on, I believe the above applies excellently.

you and i must have different definitions of ganging up.

As are certain posters of any political ilk.

And although support for Barack is strong, I’d refrain from calling it ‘homogeneous’. There’s a number of very vocal supporters, and a lot of n00blets who support him, but most folks (I think it’s fair to say) see him as a lesser evil.
While Obama will do well among NSG voters, I think support would trend towards Mike Gravel, Ron Paul (ugh), Libertarians and Greens if they were a viable option.

While Obama will do well among NSG voters, I think support would trend towards Mike Gravel, Ron Paul (ugh), Libertarians and Greens if they were a viable option.

you mean you think that NSG would tend to support those candidates if they were doing better?

As are certain posters of any political ilk.

And although support for Barack is strong, I’d refrain from calling it ‘homogeneous’. There’s a number of very vocal supporters, and a lot of n00blets who support him, but most folks (I think it’s fair to say) see him as a lesser evil.

Quite, however, it only requires 3 or 4 of the vocal Barackites to attack en masse to give the impression of a homogenously feral pack of wolves.

...Ron Paul ... if they were a viable option.

If Ron Paul was a viable option, he would not be Ron Paul.

you would have to bring up examples of both before anyone would believe that to be true. ive seen lots of kinds of stupid catch a ration of shit on this site.

That was exactly my point. Both Michelle Obama and Bill O'reilly said equaly stupid things, but one is luaded and one is condemend.

That was exactly my point. Both Michelle Obama and Bill O'reilly said equaly stupid things, but one is luaded and one is condemend.

was mrs obama's unfortunate remark made into a thread here?

glad calmer heads prevailed.

Some people should really read the full transcript for the whole story.

so now, let me focus on this.

and what can you tell us about the context of lynching in USia? is there perhaps some sort of long and well-known history related to conservative white men, lynching, and putting people of color "back in their place"?
The context of Lynching in the US is that of mob rule. but even then, the definition of lynching is hanging a person. it's the thinker's own mind that puts the hanged person as either Black, Mexican, or any other 'skin color', so all those thinking that USA only lynches colored persons... well, you're only showing your own colors. ;)

During the Salem witch trials, I guess only Witches of Color were tested for?
and in the frontier west, only 'colored persons' were hung from horseback?

A caller tried to rile people up against Michelle Obama saying 'she heard it from a friend of hers who knows Michelle Obama' (a classic and common point for any and all 'tall tales') and O'riley caught her in the act.

I just like how people cannot admit change their thinking to the point where they have to nitpick over his choice of words.

What did Michelle Obama say that was equally as stupid as letting the verb "lynch" slip in a discussion about a black person (with no historical context and without a lynching being the topic)? If you answer that any of her dissent against the "AMERICA IS NUMBER ONE!" crowd was just as bad, then you merely prove my point that "idiotic" is truly subjective.

the wife of a presidential candidate saying that this is the FIRST TIME in her adult life that she is proud of her country is far more stupid than a radio talk show host using the word lynching.

Now, guys, let's be reasonable here. Let's examine Mr. O'Reilly's quote in context and ask ourselves if he was really trying to be racist or not. When I look at the quote, what I'm seeing is him using a turn of phrase that has connotations that probably didn't occur to him when he used it but did afterwards.

The term is used quite often for various reasons in speech, after all.

Point is, O'Reilly is supposed to be, according to his own self-inflated ego, a paragon of journalism. As such, he should know better than to use a phrase like that in that context, regardless of whether he intended it in a racist way or not. Seems to me that if I'm an interviewer of any integrity, I take the subject into account, and that includes what kind of language I might want or not want to use.

That said, I don't think Bill was being deliberately racist, but he is always out to inflame, provoke and draw attention to himself. Mission accomplished. Shameless? Yes. Self-obsessed? No doubt. Racist? Probably not.

Why is it that when a leftist idiot makes and idiotic statement, they are cheered by the masses of NS, but when a right-leaning idiot makes an idiotic statement, they are excortiated by the sheeple of NS?

:gundge:

I dunno, perhaps because "idiotic statements" are in the eyes of the reader?

That was exactly my point. Both Michelle Obama and Bill O'reilly said equaly stupid things, but one is luaded and one is condemend.

What did Michelle Obama say that was equally as stupid as letting the verb "lynch" slip in a discussion about a black person (with no historical context and without a lynching being the topic)? If you answer that any of her dissent against the "AMERICA IS NUMBER ONE!" crowd was just as bad, then you merely prove my point that "idiotic" is truly subjective.

It's a strong opinion, but it only qualifies as stupid if you disagree with the content of the opinion. And even that is entirely subjective.

if she was standing on her own as bill oreilly does, it would be just a strong opinion.

this is politics and she was campaigning for her husband. poorly worded remarks like that can conceivably cost him the election.

the wife of a presidential candidate saying that this is the FIRST TIME in her adult life that she is proud of her country is far more stupid than a radio talk show host using the word lynching.

It's a strong opinion, but it only qualifies as stupid if you disagree with the content of the opinion. And even that is entirely subjective.

if she was standing on her own as bill oreilly does, it would be just a strong opinion.

this is politics and she was campaigning for her husband. poorly worded remarks like that can conceivably cost him the election.

Oh come on, shit fire and save matches, are you SERIOUS? Do you know how many people are on O'Reilly's staff? Plus, there's his network, a little start-up called FOX? Perhaps you've heard of it? And really, O'Reilly's commentaries are never about politics?

I'm done answering you.

Oh come on, shit fire and save matches, are you SERIOUS? Do you know how many people are on O'Reilly's staff? Plus, there's his network, a little start-up called FOX? Perhaps you've heard of it? And really, O'Reilly's commentaries are never about politics?

I'm done answering you.

thats just as well because i dont understand you objection to what i wrote.

Oh come on, shit fire and save matches, are you SERIOUS? Do you know how many people are on O'Reilly's staff? Plus, there's his network, a little start-up called FOX? Perhaps you've heard of it? And really, O'Reilly's commentaries are never about politics?

I'm done answering you.

His staff was all working in that little radio booth? it was on his Radio show where he said 'lynch'. so in actuallity, it was just him.

and what can you tell us about the context of lynching in USia? is there perhaps some sort of long and well-known history related to conservative white men, lynching, and putting people of color "back in their place"?

this isn't even dog-whistle politics, this is a giant flashing neon billboard.



USia? :rolleyes:


Come on, that type of public lynching ended hundreds of years, are you telling me that this silly nation is so sensitive that if one thing bad happens we can never mention it again for all eternity? the MLB steorids thing is a witch hunt....ZOMG I really shouldn't say that as white people were victims of witch hunts over 300 years ago. :rolleyes: Yep, the salem witch trials happened in 1692 - 1693, so therefore nobody is ever allowed to use witch hunt to describe anything ever again! Forever and all eternity and beyond! This nation needs to get a thicker skin, let it go. It is obvious what he meant and there has to be a time when (Blacks most of all) get over the past and just grow up and move on, we can't be offeneded by everything that bats an eyelash forever you know. He said nothing wrong and I don't care what happened in 1876 and won't be offended if somebody uses the word lynching. Hell, NSG used it years to describe what happened to Saddam Hussein.


BTW, This is a witch hunt. You guys are just using this as means to attack him and I doubt you really care what was said but care who said it. If Al Gore said it all of you would be saying things similar to what I am. This is no big deal.

the wife of a presidential candidate saying that this is the FIRST TIME in her adult life that she is proud of her country is far more stupid than a radio talk show host using the word lynching.


She meant what she said, it was not a slip up. I couldn't give a rats ass what she said, but she meant what she said and used it in the proper context. O'Reilly's words are being taken out of context by people who hate him.


Uggg...This is the 3rd time atleast in the past 6 months I have had to defend this man against his detractors.

She meant what she said, it was not a slip up. I couldn't give a rats ass what she said, but she meant what she said and used it in the proper context. O'Reilly's words are being taken out of context by people who hate him.


Uggg...This is the 3rd time atleast in the past 6 months I have had to defend this man against his detractors.

it was poorly worded on her part. she could have made her point without coming off as unpatriotic.

what do you care of bill oreilly gets short shrift on NSG?

Come on, that type of public lynching ended hundreds of years [ago]

hundreds? really? well, clearly you are the expert here, so that must be true.

It is obvious what he meant

yes, it is. it's way more blatant than the usual dog-whistles the republicans use to fire up their lizard-brain racist fucktard base.

Certainly, advocating in favor of improving our nation is perfectly acceptable. But implying that for one's entire adult life, one was not proud of the grandest, most inspiring nation on the face of the world is contemptible, especially when such vitriolic sentiments are expressed in order to further one's political goals.



Oh my.


I havent been proud of America since my early teens. I still am not. Guess I need to be "hanged" eh?


Bill O'riely is a riot. I hope he keeps his job. He is for the lolz.

Agreed.

I smell MTAE.

I don't the F'n'G or MTAE were ever this handy with a thesaurus.

hundreds? really? well, clearly you are the expert here, so that must be true.



yes, it is. it's way more blatant than the usual dog-whistles the republicans use to fire up their lizard-brain racist fucktard base.


:rolleyes:


Well I can see this was productive.

USia? :rolleyes:


Come on, that type of public lynching ended hundreds of years, Snip

May want to take a look at your timelines ... there have been lynchings a lot more recent then "Hundreds" of years ... hell they don't even break the single hundred year mark ...

:rolleyes:

OK people, there is NO problem here and NO intended racism. Stop being so sensitive. I am not white and see no problem here.

lynch (lĭnch) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. lynched, lynch·ing, lynch·es
To execute without due process of law, especially to hang, as by a mob

con·text /ˈkɒntɛkst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-tekst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

This is called taking is words out of context just so you can attack him. You people are just being to sensitive and need to just chill. He did and said nothing wrong here.

I love the implication that it doesn't matter if what O'Reilly said was racist if he didn't intentionally mean to be racist. :rolleyes::headbang:

Why is it that when a leftist idiot makes and idiotic statement, they are cheered by the masses of NS, but when a right-leaning idiot makes an idiotic statement, they are excortiated by the sheeple of NS?

:gundge:

Feel free to give actual examples rather than rely on generalities.

But thank you for at least recognizing that what O'Reilly said was idiotic.

The context of Lynching in the US is that of mob rule. but even then, the definition of lynching is hanging a person. it's the thinker's own mind that puts the hanged person as either Black, Mexican, or any other 'skin color', so all those thinking that USA only lynches colored persons... well, you're only showing your own colors. ;)

During the Salem witch trials, I guess only Witches of Color were tested for?
and in the frontier west, only 'colored persons' were hung from horseback?

A caller tried to rile people up against Michelle Obama saying 'she heard it from a friend of hers who knows Michelle Obama' (a classic and common point for any and all 'tall tales') and O'riley caught her in the act.

I just like how people cannot admit change their thinking to the point where they have to nitpick over his choice of words.

Sorry, but lynching in the United States has a history. And that history is particularly ugly when it comes to race. No one is saying only persons of color were lynched, but that the word has racial connotations. Shame on you for trying to act like it doesn't.

USia? :rolleyes:


Come on, that type of public lynching ended hundreds of years, are you telling me that this silly nation is so sensitive that if one thing bad happens we can never mention it again for all eternity? the MLB steorids thing is a witch hunt....ZOMG I really shouldn't say that as white people were victims of witch hunts over 300 years ago. :rolleyes: Yep, the salem witch trials happened in 1692 - 1693, so therefore nobody is ever allowed to use witch hunt to describe anything ever again! Forever and all eternity and beyond! This nation needs to get a thicker skin, let it go. It is obvious what he meant and there has to be a time when (Blacks most of all) get over the past and just grow up and move on, we can't be offeneded by everything that bats an eyelash forever you know. He said nothing wrong and I don't care what happened in 1876 and won't be offended if somebody uses the word lynching. Hell, NSG used it years to describe what happened to Saddam Hussein.


BTW, This is a witch hunt. You guys are just using this as means to attack him and I doubt you really care what was said but care who said it. If Al Gore said it all of you would be saying things similar to what I am. This is no big deal.


Um, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States): "Even after the Democrats regained power throughout the South, between 1880 and 1951 the Tuskegee Institute recorded lynchings of 3,437 African-American victims, as well as 1,293 white victims."

Other lynching incidents, such as what happened to Emmitt Till, have occurred since the 1950s and 1960s within the lifetime of many Americans, including Ms. Obama.

And I'm not black, but I am offended by O'Reilly's choice of words.

You should have guessed what I meant by that comment, I didn't mean that lynchings don't happen.

Really? That is what you said. What are you now claiming you meant?

May want to take a look at your timelines ... there have been lynchings a lot more recent then "Hundreds" of years ... hell they don't even break the single hundred year mark ...



You should have guessed what I meant by that comment, I didn't mean that lynchings don't happen.

Sorry, but lynching in the United States has a history. And that history is particularly ugly when it comes to race. No one is saying only persons of color were lynched, but that the word has racial connotations. Shame on you for trying to act like it doesn't.

sorry, but a Lynch party is one that is set out to hang a person without fair trial. Vigelante Justice.

While those like the KKK and others used the act of lynching a person to terrorize African-Americans, the history of lynchings precludes it being a racial tool, and even now days, it's less of a remark on race and more on the mentality of mob rule.

sorry, but a Lynch party is one that is set out to hang a person without fair trial. Vigelante Justice.

While those like the KKK and others used the act of lynching a person to terrorize African-Americans, the history of lynchings precludes it being a racial tool, and even now days, it's less of a remark on race and more on the mentality of mob rule.

about what percentage of lynchings in USia have not been instruments of racial terrorism?

if you were to think of a lynching, how would you describe the sort of scene you would think of?

I love the implication that it doesn't matter if what O'Reilly said was racist if he didn't intentionally mean to be racist. :rolleyes::headbang:

:rolleyes:

Since when is lynching a racist term? Not racist or intended. Get a thicker skin.





Um, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States): "Even after the Democrats regained power throughout the South, between 1880 and 1951 the Tuskegee Institute recorded lynchings of 3,437 African-American victims, as well as 1,293 white victims."

You beat yourself right there. I find it hilarious you cherrypicked one passage and claimed ownage. Maybe you should instead of doing that and running your mouth should increase your knowledge and find that not all of these were racially motivated. Come back when you do. :rolleyes:


And I'm not black, but I am offended by O'Reilly's choice of words.


I AM half Black and I am NOT! Get a thicker skin.

sorry, but a Lynch party is one that is set out to hang a person without fair trial. Vigelante Justice.

While those like the KKK and others used the act of lynching a person to terrorize African-Americans, the history of lynchings precludes it being a racial tool, and even now days, it's less of a remark on race and more on the mentality of mob rule.

Thats what it is, despite popular belief not all lynchings are just ebil repubbycons attacking poor blackie. Those went out a long time ago.

Really? That is what you said. What are you now claiming you meant?


:rolleyes:

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1774_lynching.jpg


Hmmmm...A White dude lynched? :eek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Malcolm_%28Loyalist%29



Lynchings occurred in frontier areas where legal recourse was distant. In the West cattle barons took the law into their own hands by hanging those they perceived as cattle thieves.


Hmmmm....Seems they happened due to legal recourse being distant. Wow.

Now, guys, let's be reasonable here. Let's examine Mr. O'Reilly's quote in context and ask ourselves if he was really trying to be racist or not. When I look at the quote, what I'm seeing is him using a turn of phrase that has connotations that probably didn't occur to him when he used it but did afterwards.

The term is used quite often for various reasons in speech, after all.

Ever heard him use the phrase before?

That was exactly my point. Both Michelle Obama and Bill O'reilly said equaly stupid things, but one is luaded and one is condemend.

Point me towards a stupid quote that she has made, any stupid quote.

One note, This thread cracked me up! You guys are soooooo pissed he used the word...dare I say it? Lynching to describe something that is happening to her, and how do you guys oppose this? By taking part in a lynching! We are going to oppose you using the word lynching by LYNCHING YOU! Quick, somebody get me the damned rope! :rolleyes:

i think your meds need adjusting

glad calmer heads prevailed.

Some people should really read the full transcript for the whole story.

so now, let me focus on this.


The context of Lynching in the US is that of mob rule. but even then, the definition of lynching is hanging a person. it's the thinker's own mind that puts the hanged person as either Black, Mexican, or any other 'skin color', so all those thinking that USA only lynches colored persons... well, you're only showing your own colors. ;)

The context of lynching in the USA today is focused more on the KKK and less on Charles Lynch. Regardless of your personal opinion the first thing that comes to most peoples minds when you say lynching isn't some guy in the old west being dragged out of his jail cell and hanged before he could be tried it's jackasses in white robes and hoods hanging black people from trees.

Where she said she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. For a 45 year old woman that is a very odd thing to say. Poor choice of words I guess.

it is odd - who the fuck could honestly be really proud of this country? i mean, i can understand feeling a bit of pride that maybe, just maybe, significant parts of this country were finally starting to move past the horrible horrible shit that stretches across its entire history up to the present. but being really proud? crazy. probably just the price one has to pay to be part of a presidential campaign, i guess.

the wife of a presidential candidate saying that this is the FIRST TIME in her adult life that she is proud of her country is far more stupid than a radio talk show host using the word lynching.

I can't understand why she would proud of our country NOW let alone why she should have been in the past.

One note, This thread cracked me up! You guys are soooooo pissed he used the word...dare I say it? Lynching to describe something that is happening to her, and how do you guys oppose this? By taking part in a lynching! We are going to oppose you using the word lynching by LYNCHING YOU! Quick, somebody get me the damned rope! :rolleyes:

Hahahahaha! He should keep his job and be moved to a comic slot.

He's already a comedian, he just isn't funny.

Listen to the other late-night comics' monologues. They'll frequently set up jokes based on news stories with something like "someone in bla, bla, bla,... Now that's true (or 'I'm not making that up,' or 'that really happened')..." then they'll go on to deliver the punchline, the part that's not true.

Listen to O'Reilly. He'll reference something from the news and say "now that's true..." or "that's a fact," Then he will add on the part that he made up. It's just like a late night stand up host, but he's successfully being not funny where as most late-night talkshow hosts simply fail to be funny (I explicitly exclude Stewart and Colbert from the previous statement).

Point me towards a stupid quote that she has made, any stupid quote.

Where she said she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. For a 45 year old woman that is a very odd thing to say. Poor choice of words I guess.

i think your meds need adjusting

Seriously, grow up.

if you were to think of a lynching, how would you describe the sort of scene you would think of?
the scene? a mob of people hanging others outside the procedures of due law. basically, a mob hanging people.

Thats what it is, despite popular belief not all lynchings are just ebil repubbycons attacking poor blackie. Those went out a long time ago.
actually, from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching)
White Republicans were often victims of lynching as well in the post-war period.

so it appears it wasn't the Ebil Repubbycons doing the lynching... ;)

The context of lynching in the USA today is focused more on the KKK and less on Charles Lynch. Regardless of your personal opinion the first thing that comes to most peoples minds when you say lynching isn't some guy in the old west being dragged out of his jail cell and hanged before he could be tried it's jackasses in white robes and hoods hanging black people from trees.
interesting point. I will confess that until this thread, Lynching had no connectivity with any racial subcontext.

but then again, If the KKK did it in the past, then it's forever racists... right?

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1774_lynching.jpg


Hmmmm...A White dude lynched? :eek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Malcolm_%28Loyalist%29


Lets move that goal post back where it came from. No one here is saying white people were never lynched. We're saying that the FIRST thing that comes to mind when you say lynching is the KKK hanging blacks. Not mob justice, racial terrorism. The fact that it has been used by others against people of all races is irrelevant to the issue.

Where she said she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. For a 45 year old woman that is a very odd thing to say. Poor choice of words I guess.

You're right. It IS odd that she would be proud of a country that discriminates against it's gay citizens, holds people with out charges or trial, and engages in torture. What the hell does she have to be PROUD of?

interesting point. I will confess that until this thread, Lynching had no connectivity with any racial subcontext.

but then again, If the KKK did it in the past, then it's forever racists... right?

Again, not my argument. It is my opinion (backed up by the majority of responses that I've seen here and elsewhere) that the vast majority of US citizens currently associate lynching with racism. Hell, it's even on the list of hate crimes. Bill O should have been aware of these connotations and it shocks me that you aren't aware of them as well.

so it appears it wasn't the Ebil Repubbycons doing the lynching... ;)

yeah, the heyday of lynching was before the racist fucktards joined the republican party.

interesting point. I will confess that until this thread, Lynching had no connectivity with any racial subcontext.

but then again, If the KKK did it in the past, then it's forever racists... right?

must be a hawaii thing. here the message is loud and clear.

and sure, some other group could 'retake' lynching. but its gonna take a lot of fucking murder to overcome the inertia of history.

must be a hawaii thing.

Well, don't be too upset if I consider myself lucky to be raised here.

You're right. It IS odd that she would be proud of a country that discriminates against it's gay citizens, holds people with out charges or trial, and engages in torture. What the hell does she have to be PROUD of?

:rolleyes:


Maybe it's time you moved to Canada, Might be happier there.

the scene? a mob of people hanging others outside the procedures of due law. basically, a mob hanging people.


actually, from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching)


so it appears it wasn't the Ebil Repubbycons doing the lynching... ;)


interesting point. I will confess that until this thread, Lynching had no connectivity with any racial subcontext.

but then again, If the KKK did it in the past, then it's forever racists... right?



Seems some people here need to aplogize to Mr. Bill. Not me, I was never mad at him over this.

Whilst I do not agree with what he said, I do believe it was just poor choice of wording.

It isn't lynching if you've got evidence and you try it in court, following legal means, as he suggested. However, her opinions weren't illegal either, so as much as he isn't being a complete fucktard and kinda protecting her, he isn't being entirely smart either as her opinions are protected by law and it isn't matter if she said it or not.

Hence why he is being a kind fool.

I find it funny that you guys are arguing about whether or not what he said was racist. It's so obviously offensive it wouldn't have to be racist. He implies that he would get in a mob and hang her if she really felt that she hadn't been proud of America in her adult life. That is profoundly offensive, and needs no racist undertones to make it offensive.

:rolleyes:

Since when is lynching a racist term? Not racist or intended. Get a thicker skin.

You beat yourself right there. I find it hilarious you cherrypicked one passage and claimed ownage. Maybe you should instead of doing that and running your mouth should increase your knowledge and find that not all of these were racially motivated. Come back when you do. :rolleyes:

First, try paying attention. I quoted the whole statistic and did so on purpose.

Now what percentage of the population is black?

And what percentage of those who were lynched were black?

Gee, were lynching disproportionately carried out against blacks? You do the math, genius.

Second, -Dalaam- is right that whether or not lynching carries racist connotations, the idea that one would lynch Michelle Obama is offensive.

I can't understand why she would proud of our country NOW let alone why she should have been in the past.

the reality of the situation is meaningless. she is trying to help her husband get elected. you dont do that by saying you are ashamed of your country.

the reality of the situation is meaningless. she is trying to help her husband get elected. you dont do that by saying you are ashamed of your country.

Good thing that is not what she said.

It is funny how those objecting to criticism of O'Reilly's clear words are so willing to distort those of Ms. Obama.

the reality of the situation is meaningless. she is trying to help her husband get elected. you dont do that by saying you are ashamed of your country.


not proud != ashamed. she could have easily meant that she was apathetic about the whole thing, seeing it as just another country, but now the spirit of change she is seeing is putting it in a new light.

You've gotta love how pissed people get when either Obama is simply honest about things. Yeah, more than half the country feels that way, but you shouldn't talk about it!
seriously. We'll lynch you.

Good thing that is not what she said.

It is funny how those objecting to criticism of O'Reilly's clear words are so willing to distort those of Ms. Obama.

i heard what she said. she phrased it badly. it left many people thinking that what she meant by it is that she used to be ashamed of her country.

i know that is not what she meant. it was an unfortunate choice of words just as mr oreilly's choice of words was unfortunate.

Ok cat who is pulling the strings here? All you did was cherrypicked one section and claimed ownage. Now stop flaming and go back get some real knowledge instead of ignoring the facts presented that prove you wrong, of some were made by Junii.

Junii is focusing on the Denotation, or literal meaning of the word, and ignoring the Connotation, or what the word is commonly associated with.

the scene? a mob of people hanging others outside the procedures of due law. basically, a mob hanging people.


actually, from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching)


so it appears it wasn't the Ebil Repubbycons doing the lynching... ;)


interesting point. I will confess that until this thread, Lynching had no connectivity with any racial subcontext.

but then again, If the KKK did it in the past, then it's forever racists... right?

First, try paying attention. I quoted the whole statistic and did so on purpose.

Now what percentage of the population is black?

And what percentage of those who were lynched were black?

Gee, were lynching disproportionately carried out against blacks? You do the math, genius.

Second, -Dalaam- is right that whether or not lynching carries racist connotations, the idea that one would lynch Michelle Obama is offensive.


Ok cat who is pulling the strings here? All you did was cherrypicked one section and claimed ownage. Now stop flaming and go back get some real knowledge instead of ignoring the facts presented that prove you wrong, of some were made by Junii.

Ok cat who is pulling the strings here? All you did was cherrypicked one section and claimed ownage. Now stop flaming and go back get some real knowledge instead of ignoring the facts presented that prove you wrong, of some were made by Junii.

Nice job of ignoring my argument.

On what point exactly was I "prov[ed] wrong"?

Nowhere, by the way, did I claim that lynching was carried out only by ebil republicans. That is something YOU first said in sarcasm and JuNii felt the need to disprove. Nor did I ever claim that only blacks were lynched -- I rather obviously provided evidence that whites have also been victims of lynchings.

Nonetheless, lynching in the United States has a history of being racially motivated. A vastly disproportionate number of those lynched in the U.S. were black.

Your point -- to which I responded with a statistic that proved YOU wrong -- was that lynchings were some past grievance from hundreds of years ago. You still haven't responded to the point that thousands of lynchings occurred in the last 100 years and some have occurred since the 1950s and 1960s.

Junii is focusing on the Denotation, or literal meaning of the word, and ignoring the Connotation, or what the word is commonly associated with.

So am I.

So am I.

And that is why you fail to understand Cat Tribe's position.

Unless you are saying that any arguments about the connotation of the word would be invalid?

I find it funny that you guys are arguing about whether or not what he said was racist. It's so obviously offensive it wouldn't have to be racist. He implies that he would get in a mob and hang her if she really felt that she hadn't been proud of America in her adult life. That is profoundly offensive, and needs no racist undertones to make it offensive.
partially agreed. I don't think O'reilly was thinking of actually hanging her, but I believe he meant the term 'Lynch Party' as more of a 'dogpile', or 'railroad', or 'verbal crusade against her' and not to actually hang her.

Everyone is ignoring the fact that Billy is NOT forming such a party for either the literal nor the connotative definition of lynch party and is focusing on the fact that he used the word "Lynch".

Junii is focusing on the Denotation, or literal meaning of the word, and ignoring the Connotation, or what the word is commonly associated with.

well, not at the start. to me, Bill's usage of "Lynch Party" was more in line with verbally crusading against her. of which the cries of "racists" really didn't fit with the usage of the term 'Lynch Party'. others tried to show that because groups like the KKK used lynching against colored people and that a majority of those documented of being lynched were colored, it was a racist remark even if he didn't mean it literally.

however, to me, his usage of 'Lynch party' is the same as railroading or verbal crusade against someone. of which he said he wouldn't do with such evidience as "well, my best friend knew her and she said..."

the scene? a mob of people hanging others outside the procedures of due law. basically, a mob hanging people.


actually, from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching)


so it appears it wasn't the Ebil Repubbycons doing the lynching... ;)


interesting point. I will confess that until this thread, Lynching had no connectivity with any racial subcontext.

but then again, If the KKK did it in the past, then it's forever racists... right?

Since I've been accused of cherry-picking, lets look at where JuNii got that sentence from (JuNii's excerpt is bolded:

Lynching, as a form of punishment for presumed criminal offenses, performed by self-appointed commissions, mobs, or vigilantes without due process of law took place in the United States even before the American Civil War and after all over the nation from southern states to western frontier settlements. The term "Lynch's Law" (and subsequently "lynch law" and "lynching") apparently originated during the American Revolution when Charles Lynch, a Virginia justice of the peace, ordered extralegal punishment for Tory acts. In the South, members of the abolitionist movement or other people opposing slavery were usually targets of lynch mob violence before the Civil War. After the war, lynching was a method of terrorism used to intimidate freed blacks who were voting and assuming political power. A study of vigilante justice during the period of 1868 to 1871 estimates that the Ku Klux Klan was involved in more than 400 lynchings. Blacks were lynched often because they were accused of crimes committed against whites, however, journalist Ida B. Wells showed in her investigations that many presumed crimes were exaggerated or didn't occur at all.[8]

Mob violence became a tool for enforcing white supremacy and verged on systematic political terrorism. "The Ku Klux Klan, paramilitary groups, and other whites united by frustration and anger ruthlessly defended the interests of the Democratic Party, the avowed party of white supremacy. The magnitude of extralegal violence during election campaigns reached epidemic proportions, leading the historian William Gillette to label it guerilla warfare."[9][10][11][12][13]

During Reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan and others used lynching as a means to control African Americans, force them to work for planters, and prevent them from voting.[14][15] [16][17] [18] White Republicans were often victims of lynching as well in the post-war period. Federal troops operating under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 largely broke up the Reconstruction-era Klan. By the end of Reconstruction in 1877, white southerners regained nearly total control of the region's governments and courts. In the late 19th century, Southern legislatures acted through constitutional changes and laws to effectively disfranchise African Americans through devices such as poll taxes or property requirements, and literacy and interpretation tests in which a registrar would judge a candidate's fitness.

Lynchings declined briefly, but the practice took hold again with a vengeance by the end of the 19th century. Tuskeegee Institute records of lynchings between the years 1880 and 1951 show 3437 African-American victims, as well as 1293 white victims, nearly all of whom were registered Republicans. The largest single lynching incident in America's history was the murder of 280 African Americans in Colfax, Louisiana in 1873 known as The Colfax Massacre.

The number of lynchings peaked at the end of the 19th century, but these kinds of murders continued into the twentieth century. African Americans resisted through protests, marches, writing of articles, rebuttals of so-called justifications of lynching, organizing women's groups against lynching, and organizing integrated groups against lynching. In addition African American playwrights produced fourteen anti-lynching plays from 1916-1935, ten of them by women. The frequency of lynching dropped in the 1930s. Most but not all lynchings ceased during the 1960s, but there were some dramatic cases of civil rights workers lynched in Mississippi.

...
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching#United_States)

Yeah, nothing in that context would make you think lynchings had anything to do with race ...... :rolleyes::headbang:

it is odd - who the fuck could honestly be really proud of this country? i mean, i can understand feeling a bit of pride that maybe, just maybe, significant parts of this country were finally starting to move past the horrible horrible shit that stretches across its entire history up to the present. but being really proud? crazy. probably just the price one has to pay to be part of a presidential campaign, i guess.

Quick question FS, if you find living in the US to be that horrible, why don't you leave?

Mind you, you I'm not of the opinion that any who doesn't love the country should leave.

And that is why you fail to understand Cat Tribe's position.

Unless you are saying that any arguments about the connotation of the word would be invalid?

More that he is cherrypicking comments and numbers he doesn't understand, and that he obviously has no idea what the point of this debate is. None at all.

Yes any arguments about the connotation of the word would be invalid, Bill wasn't using the word in regards to what lynching is associated with but it's literal meaning. He meant the people who hate Obama are executing his wife without due process of law, or just attacking her with little to no basis on fact or even asking her view. What the right is doing can be seen as a lynching of her. Remember lynching doesn't always need to be by hanging, it is just associated with it.

Quick question FS, if you find living in the US to be that horrible, why don't you leave?

why should i?

More that he is cherrypicking comments and numbers he doesn't understand, and that he obviously has no idea what the point of this debate is. None at all.

Yes any arguments about the connotation of the word would be invalid, Bill wasn't using the word in regards to what lynching is associated with but it's literal meaning. He meant the people who hate Obama are executing his wife without due process of law, or just attacking her with little to no basis on fact or even asking her view. What the right is doing can be seen as a lynching of her. Remember lynching doesn't always need to be by hanging, it is just associated with it.
And that's the tragedy of Bill O'Reilly.
He says things like this without realizing what he is implying. It's possible that he's a racist, but I think it's more likely he has gotten so used to getting paid to make outrageous statements that he's started to do it when he is off camera.

Since I've been accused of cherry-picking, lets look at where JuNii got that sentence from (JuNii's excerpt is bolded:
[snipped]
...[/INDENT]
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching#United_States)

Yeah, nothing in that context would make you think lynchings had anything to do with race ...... :rolleyes::headbang:

and... I really can't believe I'm siding with TCT on this one... :p

1) I did provide a link to the whole article.

2) I used the ';)' to hint that I was being frivolous in that point.

3) I did not refute Cat Tribes post about the statistics.

why should i?

Because if you hate where you live logic would indicate you should move? Unless you don't hate America and just the government.

And that's the tragedy of Bill O'Reilly.
He says things like this without realizing what he is implying. It's possible that he's a racist, but I think it's more likely he has gotten so used to getting paid to make outrageous statements that he's started to do it when he is off camera.

it was on his radio show. and it was this outrageous statement that is behind our now talking about him and his show...


so I say the tactic is working. :p

Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
Pig Vomit: How can that be?
Researcher: Answer most commonly given? "I want to see what he'll say next."
Pig Vomit: Okay, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?
Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.
Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen?
Researcher: Most common answer? "I want to see what he'll say next."

why should i?

Because you seem to hate everything about the U.S.?
I'm not saying you should, but I don't understand why you would want to stay someplace that you hate.

Because you seem to hate everything about the U.S.?

based on what?

Ok, I hate Bill O'Reilly because he's a dishonest, hypocritical ass. But even I don't think he actually meant that he'd be leading a lynching of Michelle Obama. I think it was a poorly worded statement in a attempt to support Michelle in a backhanded way. Bill O'Reilly sucks, but this is just trying to find an issue where one doesn't really exist. Should he be more sensitive and cognizant of the way he speaks? YES!

based on what?

Most of your posts that I've read. Maybe I've been reading more into them than was there, it wouldn't be the first time.

Most of your posts that I've read. Maybe I've been reading more into them than was there, it wouldn't be the first time.

i honestly can't think of anything in particular that would have given that impression. at best there are my numerous complaints against the ridiculous reactionary parts of our culture, and most everything the government does. but that certainly isn't all there is here.

i honestly can't think of anything in particular that would have given that impression. at best there are my numerous complaints against the ridiculous reactionary parts of our culture, and most everything the government does. but that certainly isn't all there is here.

As I said, it wouldn't be the first time I've read more into peoples posts than is actually there.


Edit: Also I can hardly say that I've read anywhere near all of your posts (even if I'm only counting the ones you've made since I came back to NSG.)

More that he is cherrypicking comments and numbers he doesn't understand, and that he obviously has no idea what the point of this debate is. None at all.

Yes any arguments about the connotation of the word would be invalid, Bill wasn't using the word in regards to what lynching is associated with but it's literal meaning. He meant the people who hate Obama are executing his wife without due process of law, or just attacking her with little to no basis on fact or even asking her view. What the right is doing can be seen as a lynching of her. Remember lynching doesn't always need to be by hanging, it is just associated with it.

And then he proposes to join in should he find out she really feels that way. He promises to look into it.

then if it turns out she really meant it the way he thinks she did, I suppose he plans to start a "lynching party" whatever that means.

And then he proposes to join in should he find out she really feels that way. He promises to look into it.

then if it turns out she really meant it the way he thinks she did, I suppose he plans to start a "lynching party" whatever that means.

and if he does, you can bet we'll hear about it here. :p

Three steps to quality entertainment.

Step One - Bill O'Reilly

Step Two - Keith Olbermann

Step Three - THUNDERDOME
...
Step Four - the door is welded shut after the two enter. :D

Three steps to quality entertainment.

Step One - Bill O'Reilly

Step Two - Keith Olbermann

Step Three - THUNDERDOME

Where she said she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. For a 45 year old woman that is a very odd thing to say. Poor choice of words I guess.

Well she'd have been born into a world where the Freedom Riders were being subject to beatings, blastings with firehoses, and outright murder with the blessings of, and some cases the help of, the authorities.

We briefly had a president who averted nuclear war by telling his war hawk generals to shove it and talking his way out of it, but then he was murdered, and his successor lied our nation into a pointless war with a third world country which claimed thousands of American lives and ruined many many more.

So disillusioned was the US with that president, that they replaced him with one that was so bad he was forced to resign in disgrace. He only avoided jail time because his, essentially, hand-picked successor had the power to prevent it.

Then we had a president who appeared to be a nice guy, but the corruption of the Washington political system easily betrayed and destroyed him setting us up for a president who created a veneer of affluence by selling out the poor and inventing the word "homeless."

Then we had a guy who was the heir to that corruption and was so ultimately forgettable that, for a moment, it seemed our nation's judgement was to be redeemed by replacing him after one term with a president who was actually competent and decent in every way that mattered in a president. But then the corruption of our political system and the stupidity of our populace rose to the fore again and hamstrung him for 6 years because he was not decent in the one way that did not matter.

Then we got 8 years of president Nero.

For a 45 year old woman to be proud of America for the first time in adult her life is not strange. If she were 80 then she'd be a little nuts.

Three steps to quality entertainment.

Step One - Bill O'Reilly

Step Two - Keith Olbermann

Step Three - THUNDERDOME

who runs falafel town?

Quick question FS, if you find living in the US to be that horrible, why don't you leave?

Mind you, you I'm not of the opinion that any who doesn't love the country should leave.

It's difficult to get a job in a country I don't currently live in and I don't have the money required to legally emigrate without a job waiting for me. If I had either a job waiting in Canada or the money that Canada requires me to have in the bank to move there without a job waiting for me I would have been gone after Bush's second election.

More that he is cherrypicking comments and numbers he doesn't understand, and that he obviously has no idea what the point of this debate is. None at all.

Yes any arguments about the connotation of the word would be invalid, Bill wasn't using the word in regards to what lynching is associated with but it's literal meaning. He meant the people who hate Obama are executing his wife without due process of law, or just attacking her with little to no basis on fact or even asking her view. What the right is doing can be seen as a lynching of her. Remember lynching doesn't always need to be by hanging, it is just associated with it.

So, are YOU Bill? Or is it that you're telepathic and know what Billy boy was thinking?

It's difficult to get a job in a country I don't currently live in and I don't have the money required to legally emigrate without a job waiting for me. If I had either a job waiting in Canada or the money that Canada requires me to have in the bank to move there without a job waiting for me I would have been gone after Bush's second election.
I wanted to go the first time, but similarly found it impractical. I wish I had spent the last eight years on the other side of the border.

You should have guessed what I meant by that comment, I didn't mean that lynchings don't happen.

We are supposed to GUESS at what you meant to say? How bout you just say it.

partially agreed. I don't think O'reilly was thinking of actually hanging her, but I believe he meant the term 'Lynch Party' as more of a 'dogpile', or 'railroad', or 'verbal crusade against her' and not to actually hang her.

Everyone is ignoring the fact that Billy is NOT forming such a party for either the literal nor the connotative definition of lynch party and is focusing on the fact that he used the word "Lynch".

well, not at the start. to me, Bill's usage of "Lynch Party" was more in line with verbally crusading against her. of which the cries of "racists" really didn't fit with the usage of the term 'Lynch Party'. others tried to show that because groups like the KKK used lynching against colored people and that a majority of those documented of being lynched were colored, it was a racist remark even if he didn't mean it literally.

however, to me, his usage of 'Lynch party' is the same as railroading or verbal crusade against someone. of which he said he wouldn't do with such evidience as "well, my best friend knew her and she said..."

There is a disconnect in your argument. On the one hand, you are focusing on the literal meaning of lynch as an argument against the obvious connotations. On the other hand, you are ignoring the literal meaning of lynch ("(of a group) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging." link (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/lynch?view=uk)) and claiming the term implies merely a verbal crusade against someone. You can't have it both ways and you can't ignore either the literal meaning or the connotations of "lynching."

and... I really can't believe I'm siding with TCT on this one... :p

1) I did provide a link to the whole article.

2) I used the ';)' to hint that I was being frivolous in that point.

3) I did not refute Cat Tribes post about the statistics.

You are a most honorable debater and I applaud your integrity. :cool:

I did not mean to imply that you had done anything untoward in your quoting, only that it was ridiculous on the part of Cryptic Nightmare to suggest that (1) your post showed mine to be cherry-picking or (2) your post rebutted my statistic.

Bill O'Reilley's a bigoted moron. This isn't news.

I hate Bill O Reily. Full stop.

And I don't hate many people.

There is a disconnect in your argument. On the one hand, you are focusing on the literal meaning of lynch as an argument against the obvious connotations. yep, because people said that the word 'lynch party' was racist and thus were delving into the 'history of the word and actions of lynching'.

I never argued that Bill was calling for, or trying to prevent, the actual and physical lynching of Michelle Obama.

On the other hand, you are ignoring the literal meaning of lynch ("(of a group) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging." link (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/lynch?view=uk)) and claiming the term implies merely a verbal crusade against someone. You can't have it both ways and you can't ignore either the literal meaning or the connotations of "lynching."

I never argued the literal sense. I've always said that Bill's use of "Lynch Party" was more in line with a verbal crudade (A metaphor) since I doubt that even he would go so far as to publically and openly promote and condone such a literal act of going out to lynch anyone.

hence my query how using a metaphor of 'lynch party' could be seen as racist since Bill wasn't talking about actually lynching anyone.

Remember, others were bringing up the 'history of lynching' to show why his using the phrase 'lynch party' was racist. that's why some were asking me, "what scene do you imagine when you hear the phrase Lynch Party."


I did not mean to imply that you had done anything untoward in your quoting, only that it was ridiculous on the part of Cryptic Nightmare to suggest that (1) your post showed mine to be cherry-picking or (2) your post rebutted my statistic.
yeah, I just wanted to make sure that others knew that as well. ;)

Had she possessed even the minutest shred of decency, had her moral fabric not been so thoroughly corroded, then should would not have made such a despicable claim on the national stage. Luckily for her, the Constitution allows her to espouse such abominable viewpoints. But then again, I don't suppose she appreciates that -- in any event, it certainly doesn't make her "proud."

If people like you "love America", then I don't mind being called anti-American.

Sounds to me more like he was implying the caller was racist, as opposed to being one.

I still prefer Prince Phillip for "how the hell did he get away with saying that?" quotes.

Sounds to me more like he was implying the caller was racist, as opposed to being one.

it would be more plausible to read it that way if we didn't know that billy was a right-winger, and if he said something other than "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels..."

it would be more plausible to read it that way if we didn't know that billy was a right-winger, and if he said something other than "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels..."

Do you mean to suggest that right-wingers are, by definition, racist?

Do you mean to suggest that right-wingers are, by definition, racist?

not by definition, no. by tendency and inclination and history, well, obviously.

If Right wing is racist, is left wing nationalist?

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that while the entire internet is up in arms about this, CNN has yet to even mention it?
Sounds to ME like somebody has a case of 'same stockholder syndrome'.

not by definition, no. by tendency and inclination and history, well, obviously.

I find that interesting, considering it was a right wing President who brought about emancipation, and it was a Republican majority congress that passed the civil rights act.

I find that interesting, considering it was a right wing President who brought about emancipation, and it was a Republican majority congress that passed the civil rights act.

you seem to have confused 'republican' as being a placeholder for 'right-wing' in all times and places. this is incorrect.

laughably so.

you seem to have confused 'republican' as being a placeholder for 'right-wing' in all times and places. this is incorrect.

laughably so.

So do you nkow for a fact that the republicans in question were left-leaning, or is that just an assumption?

And in any case, where were the dems, who are individually more likely to be right-wing than individual republicans?

I'm so glad Bill-O is still on the air. In the last year I've had three different people tell me that his show specifically convinced them to vote Democrat.

So do you nkow for a fact that the republicans in question were left-leaning, or is that just an assumption?

the republican party was founded as a left-er party. this is the reality of the situation, and cannot be disputed without just randomly making stuff up about what it even means to be more left or right.

And in any case, where were the dems, who are individually more likely to be right-wing than individual republicans?

where were they when?

the republican party was founded as a left-er party. this is the reality of the situation, and cannot be disputed without just randomly making stuff up about what it even means to be more left or right.



where were they when?

During the Civil Rights Act, for example. Which, I may add, was at a time when the GOP was over a century old.

During the Civil Rights Act, for example. Which, I may add, was at a time when the GOP was over a century old.

well, by 1964 (assuming that is the civil rights act you are talking about - there have been several) the dems were a coalition of left-wing labor and progressive types and conservative southerners. the repubs of the time were sort of a mishmash that hadn't had much national power in decades. effectively, the non-conservative democrats all voted in favor of the civil rights act. this caused the conservatives to begin leaving the party, and move over to the welcoming arms of the newly ideologically conservative republican party.

the repubs began their rightward drift fairly early. one of the more noticeable aspects of this was the taft vs roosevelt vs wilson election, for example.

Ever heard him use the phrase before?

A very good question. Does O'Reilly have a habit of using the phrase? If so, it's quite understandable. If not, it's a lot more dicey.

Whilst I do not agree with what he said, I do believe it was just poor choice of wording.

It isn't lynching if you've got evidence and you try it in court, following legal means, as he suggested. However, her opinions weren't illegal either, so as much as he isn't being a complete fucktard and kinda protecting her, he isn't being entirely smart either as her opinions are protected by law and it isn't matter if she said it or not.

Hence why he is being a kind fool.

This is the situation in a nutshell.

Because you seem to hate everything about the U.S.?
I'm not saying you should, but I don't understand why you would want to stay someplace that you hate.

'Cause very few people hate everything about wherever they call home. Leaving home is expensive as well as a class-A hassle, paperwork-wise. Leaving home without a job waiting for you at your destination is unwise.

Also, it is possible that those who hate what's happening to this country would rather stick around to try and ensure that it doesn't keep happening.

Well she'd have been born into a world where the Freedom Riders were being subject to beatings, blastings with firehoses, and outright murder with the blessings of, and some cases the help of, the authorities.

We briefly had a president who averted nuclear war by telling his war hawk generals to shove it and talking his way out of it, but then he was murdered, and his successor lied our nation into a pointless war with a third world country which claimed thousands of American lives and ruined many many more.

So disillusioned was the US with that president, that they replaced him with one that was so bad he was forced to resign in disgrace. He only avoided jail time because his, essentially, hand-picked successor had the power to prevent it.

Then we had a president who appeared to be a nice guy, but the corruption of the Washington political system easily betrayed and destroyed him setting us up for a president who created a veneer of affluence by selling out the poor and inventing the word "homeless."

Then we had a guy who was the heir to that corruption and was so ultimately forgettable that, for a moment, it seemed our nation's judgement was to be redeemed by replacing him after one term with a president who was actually competent and decent in every way that mattered in a president. But then the corruption of our political system and the stupidity of our populace rose to the fore again and hamstrung him for 6 years because he was not decent in the one way that did not matter.

Then we got 8 years of president Nero.

For a 45 year old woman to be proud of America for the first time in adult her life is not strange. If she were 80 then she'd be a little nuts.

Bravo!

And finally, to sum up my feelings on the matter, even though Bill is easily acquitted on racism charges but convicted of third-degree footmouthery, I leave you with this (http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/).

Enjoy!

So do you nkow for a fact that the republicans in question were left-leaning, or is that just an assumption?


Right wing is a term for conservativism. Conservativism is a movement to stop change and bring society back to a golden age that never existed.

Liberal (or progressive) is to intiate change and on a widespread scale. Therefore, freeing the slaves and passing the civil rights act was a liberal act. At the time, Republicans were the "liberals".


Much has changed since then.

Right wing is a term for conservativism. Conservativism is a movement to stop change and bring society back to a golden age that never existed.

Liberal (or progressive) is to intiate change and on a widespread scale. Therefore, freeing the slaves and passing the civil rights act was a liberal act. At the time, Republicans were the "liberals".


Much has changed since then.

Conservatives want to slow, and sometimes stop change. Isn't it reactionaries who want to change things to how they were in the past? (which isn't bad all the time)