|
|
Post by lisae on Jul 27, 2016 15:37:39 GMT
Here's one of the reports on probably the most idiotic response to a convention speech yet: Bill O'Reilly in TimeNot only did he critique a popular first lady in universally lauded speech, he managed to be a racist at the same time. Do you think he hates Trump enough to be secretly trying to sink his campaign or is he just that clueless? UPDATE: This afternoon Bill O'Reilly tweeted that his words had been distorted by "far left loons." Surprise! He plans to talk about this more on his show tonight. This 'far left loon' won't be giving him any ratings. We don't have cable. DH likes to watch his show when we are out of town so I'm familiar with his format. |
|
|
|
Post by rmorgan22 on Jul 27, 2016 15:41:01 GMT
What's wrong with people?
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 27, 2016 15:41:08 GMT
I think those working on the white house probably were well fed compared to and had better lodging than those working on a cotton farm.
Nothing in the article screams racist to me. (Not saying he isn't, but I don't feel the article is).
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 20:48:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 15:44:45 GMT
I think those working on the white house probably were well fed compared to and had better lodging than those working on a cotton farm. Nothing in the article screams racist to me. (Not saying he isn't, but I don't feel the article is). But they were still SLAVES. I don't care if you had a somewhat benevolent master, food and decent lodgings, when you are OWNED by another person, it's fundamentally wrong and yes, racist. To try to minimize the horror of slavery by saying these particular slaves weren't treated as badly as others is just foul and disgusting. |
|
MaryMary
Pearl Clutcher
Lazy
Posts: 2,975 
|
Post by MaryMary on Jul 27, 2016 15:47:25 GMT
See, it's okay to own people if you feed them enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 27, 2016 15:47:27 GMT
I think those working on the white house probably were well fed compared to and had better lodging than those working on a cotton farm. Nothing in the article screams racist to me. (Not saying he isn't, but I don't feel the article is). But they were still SLAVES. I don't care if you had a somewhat benevolent master, food and decent lodgings, when you are OWNED by another person, it's fundamentally wrong and yes, racist. To try to minimize the horror of slavery by saying these particular slaves weren't treated as badly as others is just foul and disgusting. coming from him, I am sure it is minimizing, but it seems to be a statement of interpretation of facts. If one was writing a paper on the construction of the white house, it would surely be mentioned. |
|
purplebee
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,728
|
Post by purplebee on Jul 27, 2016 15:48:03 GMT
I think those working on the white house probably were well fed compared to and had better lodging than those working on a cotton farm. Nothing in the article screams racist to me. (Not saying he isn't, but I don't feel the article is). Agree. Bill O is a big blowhard, but I do think he was just stating something that was probably true. I didn't get that he was saying anything in support of slavery. |
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Jul 27, 2016 15:48:37 GMT
I think those working on the white house probably were well fed compared to and had better lodging than those working on a cotton farm. Nothing in the article screams racist to me. (Not saying he isn't, but I don't feel the article is). But they were still SLAVES. I don't care if you had a somewhat benevolent master, food and decent lodgings, when you are OWNED by another person, it's fundamentally wrong and yes, racist. To try to minimize the horror of slavery by saying these particular slaves weren't treated as badly as others is just foul and disgusting. This bears repeating until everyone gets it, so I'll just quote you. |
|
|
|
Post by jennyap on Jul 27, 2016 15:48:44 GMT
I think those working on the white house probably were well fed compared to and had better lodging than those working on a cotton farm. Nothing in the article screams racist to me. (Not saying he isn't, but I don't feel the article is). But they were still SLAVES. I don't care if you had a somewhat benevolent master, food and decent lodgings, when you are OWNED by another person, it's fundamentally wrong and yes, racist. To try to minimize the horror of slavery by saying these particular slaves weren't treated as badly as others is just foul and disgusting.  I was just trying to figure out how to say this, but instead can just quote you  That's exactly what his comments smack of, that he's trying to suggest that it was somehow okay that they were slaves because they didn't have it quite as bad as others.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 20:48:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 15:50:40 GMT
But they were still SLAVES. I don't care if you had a somewhat benevolent master, food and decent lodgings, when you are OWNED by another person, it's fundamentally wrong and yes, racist. To try to minimize the horror of slavery by saying these particular slaves weren't treated as badly as others is just foul and disgusting. coming from him, I am sure it is minimizing, but it seems to be a statement of interpretation of facts. If one was writing a paper on the construction of the white house, it would surely be mentioned. There is a world of difference between an academic paper about the construction of the White House, including the labor used, and what some Republicans are engaging in right now. People like O'Reilly are so damn obsessed with minimizing the impact of Michelle Obama's statements that they are DEFENDING SLAVERY. I mean WTF?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jul 27, 2016 15:55:20 GMT
Ok, I read the article. I don't see what was racist? I dont get the outrage?
What am I missing?
(I get slavery is wrong. But he wasn't encouraging slavery....I read it as he was just commenting on conditions of the time.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jennyap on Jul 27, 2016 15:56:26 GMT
coming from him, I am sure it is minimizing, but it seems to be a statement of interpretation of facts. If one was writing a paper on the construction of the white house, it would surely be mentioned. If someone had written such a paper and left out that fact, then it would be entirely right to point out the omission, but that isn't what happened here. So what exactly is the point of his comments? What Michelle Obama said is correct, it doesn't need caveating. At a very simple level it's a bit like when someone here vents about a narcissistic mom and then someone responds "well at least your mom isn't dead". It's a response designed to devalue and diminish the speaker's comments, without any constructive purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jul 27, 2016 15:57:43 GMT
coming from him, I am sure it is minimizing, but it seems to be a statement of interpretation of facts. If one was writing a paper on the construction of the white house, it would surely be mentioned. If someone had written such a paper and left out that fact, then it would be entirely right to point out the omission, but that isn't what happened here. So what exactly is the point of his comments? What Michelle Obama said is correct, it doesn't need caveating. At a very simple level it's a bit like when someone here vents about a narcissistic mom and then someone responds "well at least your mom isn't dead". It's a response designed to devalue and diminish the speaker's comments, without any constructive purpose. ah ok. I 'get' this. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 20:48:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 15:59:00 GMT
Ok, I read the article. I don't see what was racist? I dont get the outrage? What am I missing? (I get slavery is wrong. But he wasn't encouraging slavery....I read it as he was just commenting on conditions of the time.) "Hey, the slaves that helped build the White House had enough food and adequate shelter, so it's not like being slaves was bad for them." Really? |
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 27, 2016 15:59:01 GMT
coming from him, I am sure it is minimizing, but it seems to be a statement of interpretation of facts. If one was writing a paper on the construction of the white house, it would surely be mentioned. There is a world of difference between an academic paper about the construction of the White House, including the labor used, and what some Republicans are engaging in right now. People like O'Reilly are so damn obsessed with minimizing the impact of Michelle Obama's statements that they are DEFENDING SLAVERY. I mean WTF? ? they are trying to win an election. They are trying to spin the speeches and policies in anyway they can. I don't think he was defending slavery, I think he was trying to minimize it's importance on the building of the white house. That's his job. The white house wasn't only built by slaves and he is going to point that out. Ironically, since slave labor was used to build the foundation and much if the white house burned in the early 1800s, what is left of the original white house was almost exclusively built by slaves. To normal people it doesn't minimize the horror of slavery nor does it negate that some slave labor was used to build. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jul 27, 2016 16:03:49 GMT
There is a world of difference between an academic paper about the construction of the White House, including the labor used, and what some Republicans are engaging in right now. People like O'Reilly are so damn obsessed with minimizing the impact of Michelle Obama's statements that they are DEFENDING SLAVERY. I mean WTF? ? they are trying to win an election. They are trying to spin the speeches and policies in anyway they can. I don't think he was defending slavery, I think he was trying to minimize it's importance on the building of the white house. That's his job. The white house wasn't only built by slaves and he is going to point that out. Ironically, since slave labor was used to build the foundation and much if the white house burned in the early 1800s, what is left of the original white house was almost exclusively built by slaves. To normal people it doesn't minimize the horror of slavery nor does it negate that some slave labor was used to build. This, in its entirety. |
|
basketdiva
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,615
|
Post by basketdiva on Jul 27, 2016 16:07:08 GMT
I think those working on the white house probably were well fed compared to and had better lodging than those working on a cotton farm. Nothing in the article screams racist to me. (Not saying he isn't, but I don't feel the article is). |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 20:48:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 16:13:56 GMT
There is a world of difference between an academic paper about the construction of the White House, including the labor used, and what some Republicans are engaging in right now. People like O'Reilly are so damn obsessed with minimizing the impact of Michelle Obama's statements that they are DEFENDING SLAVERY. I mean WTF? ? they are trying to win an election. They are trying to spin the speeches and policies in anyway they can. I don't think he was defending slavery, I think he was trying to minimize it's importance on the building of the white house. That's his job. The white house wasn't only built by slaves and he is going to point that out. Ironically, since slave labor was used to build the foundation and much if the white house burned in the early 1800s, what is left of the original white house was almost exclusively built by slaves. To normal people it doesn't minimize the horror of slavery nor does it negate that some slave labor was used to build. I profoundly disagree. On every level. Every single American, regardless of party affiliation, should be shouting YES - THIS IS WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN OUR COUNTRY. An African-American first family now lives in the White House that was built by slaves. I mean YES. What could be a more amazing example of the American Dream? Of how far we've come? It is entirely irrelevant whether or not you agree with the Obamas politically. How anyone could look at that and think "I must tear this down" by making the slave labor used to build the White House seem not so bad? There are plenty of policy issues to go after. Do that. |
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Jul 27, 2016 16:16:50 GMT
they are trying to win an election. They are trying to spin the speeches and policies in anyway they can. I don't think he was defending slavery, I think he was trying to minimize it's importance on the building of the white house. That's his job. The white house wasn't only built by slaves and he is going to point that out. Ironically, since slave labor was used to build the foundation and much if the white house burned in the early 1800s, what is left of the original white house was almost exclusively built by slaves. To normal people it doesn't minimize the horror of slavery nor does it negate that some slave labor was used to build. I profoundly disagree. On every level. Every single American, regardless of party affiliation, should be shouting YES - THIS IS WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN OUR COUNTRY. An African-American first family now lives in the White House that was built by slaves. I mean YES. What could be a more amazing example of the American Dream? Of how far we've come? It is entirely irrelevant whether or not you agree with the Obamas politically. How anyone could look at that and think "I must tear this down" by making the slave labor used to build the White House seem not so bad? There are plenty of policy issues to go after. Do that. Yes. Absolutely. There's no reason to pick apart her speech. She's not running for office. Her speech was praised across the aisle. There's no reason to try to dispute history. He looks like (and IMO is) a bigoted, racist asshole. |
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jul 27, 2016 16:18:08 GMT
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK, people?
I don't care if they had the most comfortable beds, fancy clothes and ate cake every day. They were FUCKING SLAVES. They were not FREE people!!!! It's not OKAY!
OMG.
I can't believe people are okay with this. I just... WHAT?!?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jul 27, 2016 16:21:46 GMT
Ok, I read the article. I don't see what was racist? I dont get the outrage? What am I missing? (I get slavery is wrong. But he wasn't encouraging slavery....I read it as he was just commenting on conditions of the time.) The conditions of the time were that people were ENSLAVED, regardless of what they ATE. I... I can't even. |
|
janeliz
Drama Llama
I'm the Wiz and nobody beats me.
Posts: 5,633
|
Post by janeliz on Jul 27, 2016 16:36:48 GMT
Racist dog-whistle political bullshit. He is an asshole. He is a racist asshole.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 20:48:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 16:38:14 GMT
This thread is so ridiculous and predictable. Stating a historical fact does not make someone a bigot, hateful, supportive of slavery, or any of the other hysterical babbling on this thread. To quote Sock Monkey, I ... I can't even.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leone on Jul 27, 2016 16:39:11 GMT
I watched Bill's explanation as he explained it from a historical veiwpoint. There was NOTHING racist about it. It was what took place. He wasnt condoning slavery. His historical books have been huge best sellers. He was a history teacher before becoming a reporter.
|
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jul 27, 2016 16:39:30 GMT
But they were still SLAVES. I don't care if you had a somewhat benevolent master, food and decent lodgings, when you are OWNED by another person, it's fundamentally wrong and yes, racist. To try to minimize the horror of slavery by saying these particular slaves weren't treated as badly as others is just foul and disgusting. coming from him, I am sure it is minimizing, but it seems to be a statement of interpretation of facts. If one was writing a paper on the construction of the white house, it would surely be mentioned. Except that wasn't what he was doing. He was picking apart Michelle Obama's speech to minimize its message, and in that he basically said it was okay to own people as long as you give them enough food, as Mary Mary commented. If that's not the most racist, horrible shit I've read in a while... I mean, damn. DAMN. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 20:48:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 16:47:19 GMT
I watched Bill's explanation as he explained it from a historical veiwpoint. There was NOTHING racist about it. It was what took place. He wasnt condoning slavery. His historical books have been huge best sellers. He was a history teacher before becoming a reporter. So as a history teacher, he knows what Michelle Obama said was correct. The White House was built with slave labor. Not entirely by slaves, but she didn't say that it was. If his little heart was just BURSTING with a desire for more complete historical accuracy, he could have said slave labor was used for part of the construction, but free people also labored during construction. But nooooooo that wasn't enough.... he had to go on with his stupid bullshit of the slaves that were used were fed and housed better than other slaves. What's the point of saying that if not to make it sound like these slaves had it just fine? Except, you know, THEY WERE STILL SLAVES. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 20:48:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 17:01:15 GMT
1)
Michelle Obama:
I wake up in a house that was built by slaves.
O'Reilly:
But Michelle, didn't those slaves have clothes on? I mean, there were fully clothed, right?
(RIDICULOUS)
Not to mention...
2)
He is picking one sentence out of a paragraph that had a HUGE and beautiful and lovely point!!
"That is the story of this country, the story that has brought me to this stage tonight, the story of generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude, the sting of segregation, but who kept on striving and hoping and doing what needed to be done so that today I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves. And I watch my daughters, two beautiful, intelligent, black young women playing with their dogs on the White House lawn. And because of Hillary Clinton, my daughters and all our sons and daughters now take for granted that a woman can be president of the United States."
I seriously can't believe this rhetoric is being supported. I mean...I guess I believe it. But I hate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Jul 27, 2016 17:05:19 GMT
I watched Bill's explanation as he explained it from a historical veiwpoint. There was NOTHING racist about it. It was what took place. He wasnt condoning slavery. His historical books have been huge best sellers. He was a history teacher before becoming a reporter. So as a history teacher, he knows what Michelle Obama said was correct. The White House was built with slave labor. Not entirely by slaves, but she didn't say that it was. If his little heart was just BURSTING with a desire for more complete historical accuracy, he could have said slave labor was used for part of the construction, but free people also labored during construction. But nooooooo that wasn't enough.... he had to go on with his stupid bullshit of the slaves that were used were fed and housed better than other slaves. What's the point of saying that if not to make it sound like these slaves had it just fine? Except, you know, THEY WERE STILL SLAVES. I agree with busypea. The point I took from Mrs. Obama's speech wasn't so much that slaves built the White House, it is that slavery was legal at that time. She has ancestors who were slaves. Now slavery isn't legal (though unfortunately it does till exist in the little discussed issue of human trafficking.) Her point was, we have made progress in this country. A descendant of slaves lives in the White House, a black man has been President for 8 years and we have just nominated a woman for President when 100 years ago women couldn't even vote. I think this portion of her speech was just prior to her saying that you shouldn't ever let someone tell you that American isn't great. We are great. We have problems to fix and we can fix them as we have done in the past. His 'correction' was undermining the undeniable points of her speech. |
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 27, 2016 17:16:05 GMT
... I think he was trying to minimize it's importance on the building of the white house. That wasn't my takeaway at all. Bill has written/co-written many historical books and is doing a TV series on the history of our country. He is knowledgeable about that time period and was merely adding in some information. That so many of you have to twist his comment into "O'REILLY SAYS SLAVERY WAS OKAY!" is ridiculous. |
|
schizo319
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,030
|
Post by schizo319 on Jul 27, 2016 17:18:44 GMT
Look, it may or may not have been deliberately/overtly "racist", but it was petty, snide, disingenuous, and completely irrelevant - just like most of what comes out of his big mouth.
|
|
I was just trying to figure out how to say this, but instead can just quote you 
?
