Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 2:51:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 17:19:32 GMT
No one is saying that he is saying slavery was okay! What he should have done was not say anything at ALL with regard to the short sentence within an very poignant section within a beautifully delivered speech given by our First Lady!! What the HELL is the GD point of that?!
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 27, 2016 17:20:03 GMT
Count me among those who see no legitimate reason for picking apart a beautiful statement about our country by the outgoing First Lady, by freakin' defending slavery. And yes, when you say it wasn't so bad because the slaves were treated well ... that is defending slavery. That was a disgusting thing to do, BOR, in case you're reading.
And I am proud NOT to be among those defending the indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 27, 2016 17:23:09 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. He wasn't "adding information." He was trying to make Michelle Obama's speech seem less truthful and less significant. I can't believe you're defending him.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jul 27, 2016 17:26:37 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. It's the same as everything wrong being Trumps fault. People act out, it's Trumps fault, someone says something nasty, it's Trumps fault, the Russians hack the DNC, it's Trumps fault, just about everything bad happening is Trumps fault now. Sadly it seems to all be part of the this election.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 27, 2016 17:26:54 GMT
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. We picked apart damn near every speaker at the RNC, why is this speech untouchable?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 2:51:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 17:36:43 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. It was not at all racist or irrelevant. MO made a political speech. I agree with everyone who says it was a good speech. However, people are allowed to analyze it and comment on it, and possibly even criticize it, just like every other political speech. Regardless of how much you love her, this is still true. It's not just true for speeches made by people that you DON'T love. Bill O'Reilly has a "No Spin Zone," segement on his show, and he takes things people say and analyzes it. Michelle stated that she "lives in a house built by slaves." This could have been an overstatement or exaggeration, as statements in speeches sometimes are. Bill actually supported what she said as true. He mentioned that the slaves who worked on the White House were actually treated better than other slaves at the time. A historical fact. None of this makes him a racist, an asshole, a bigot, someone who should be off the air, etc.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jul 27, 2016 17:39:55 GMT
He has every right to pick apart her speech, but know that when he does, he makes it evident that he is clearly trying to discredit in some way the importance of her words, and his tone is one that diminishes the horrors of slavery.
|
|
|
Post by 2peaornot2pea on Jul 27, 2016 17:41:51 GMT
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. We picked apart damn near every speaker at the RNC, why is this speech untouchable? So you have a problem with the portion of her speech where she illustrated how far we have come as a nation?? A black family now inhabits the white house. A building where slave labor was used to construct it. When the White House was built, NO ONE would have ever imagined it would be occupied by a black president and his family. We've come a long way baby. That is what she was highlighting and THAT is something to celebrate and not dismiss.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 27, 2016 17:44:27 GMT
He has every right to pick apart her speech, but know that when he does, he makes it evident that he is clearly trying to discredit in some way the importance of her words, and his tone is one that diminishes the horrors of slavery. Of course he is trying to discredit the importance of her speech. He is a REPUBLICAN commentator. He has been discrediting the first family for 8 years. Why would this speech be different? The RNC was a disaster, it was late night political fodder. So far there hasn't been major issues with the DNC. They need to make them.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 27, 2016 17:47:33 GMT
We picked apart damn near every speaker at the RNC, why is this speech untouchable? So you have a problem with the portion of her speech where she illustrated how far we have come as a nation?? A black family now inhabits the white house. A building where slave labor was used to construct it. When the White House was built, NO ONE would have ever imagined it would be occupied by a black president and his family. We've come a long way baby. That is what she was highlighting and THAT is something to celebrate and not dismiss. Did I say that *I* had a problem with it?
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 27, 2016 17:49:35 GMT
He wasn't "adding information." He was trying to make Michelle Obama's speech seem less truthful and less significant. I can't believe you're defending him. Oh, FFS.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jul 27, 2016 17:51:26 GMT
I like how O'Reilly is just being a kind old history teacher adding some factual information. lol.
Her speech wasn't designed to be an exact history lesson including every single fact on slavery and the building of the White House - it was used for illustrative purposes to make a point about what people in this country can do. To me, O'Reilly's comments look petty and undermining at best and minimalizing slavery at the worst. He might like to point out there are "shades" of slavery, but I don't care - slavery is slavery and it was horrible and I found his comments insensitive in this context.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jul 27, 2016 17:54:45 GMT
He has every right to pick apart her speech, but know that when he does, he makes it evident that he is clearly trying to discredit in some way the importance of her words, and his tone is one that diminishes the horrors of slavery. Of course he is trying to discredit the importance of her speech. He is a REPUBLICAN commentator. He has been discrediting the first family for 8 years. Why would this speech be different? The RNC was a disaster, it was late night political fodder. So far there hasn't been major issues with the DNC. They need to make them. Oh man. I know, but do you REALLY want to be the guy who attempts to discredit a speech by making it seem like slavery wasn't so bad? I mean...okay. I think that might backfire a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 2:51:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 17:56:09 GMT
Of course he is trying to discredit the importance of her speech. He is a REPUBLICAN commentator. He has been discrediting the first family for 8 years. Why would this speech be different? The RNC was a disaster, it was late night political fodder. So far there hasn't been major issues with the DNC. They need to make them. Oh man. I know, but do you REALLY want to be the guy who attempts to discredit a speech by making it seem like slavery wasn't so bad? I mean...okay. I think that might backfire a bit. Apparently not with his fans, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 27, 2016 17:58:29 GMT
The RNC was a disaster, it was late night political fodder. So far there hasn't been major issues with the DNC. They need to make them. Are you kidding me? No major issues with the DNC? Well, let's see, the head of the DNC gets booed so badly by her own Florida contingent over her actions on the Bernie thing that she has to fly home early with her tail between her legs. At first it was thought she could gavel in and gavel out the proceedings, but she is too toxic. The Bernie contingent is putting on large demonstrations just outside the venue. They are so mad, the 100+ degree heat doesn't seem to be a deterrent. The Texas contingent almost had a food fight at breakfast on Tuesday morning between the Hillary and Bernie supporters. There was a mass walkout of Bernie supporters of the DNC floor with threats to leave the party completely in protest. Honestly, the RNC was tame compared to what's happening at the DNC.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 2:51:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 18:27:48 GMT
Now that's just funny!
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 27, 2016 18:28:16 GMT
The RNC was a disaster, it was late night political fodder. So far there hasn't been major issues with the DNC. They need to make them. Are you kidding me? No major issues with the DNC? Well, let's see, the head of the DNC gets booed so badly by her own Florida contingent over her actions on the Bernie thing that she has to fly home early with her tail between her legs. At first it was thought she could gavel in and gavel out the proceedings, but she is too toxic. The Bernie contingent is putting on large demonstrations just outside the venue. They are so mad, the 100+ degree heat doesn't seem to be a deterrent. The Texas contingent almost had a food fight at breakfast on Tuesday morning between the Hillary and Bernie supporters. There was a mass walkout of Bernie supporters of the DNC floor with threats to leave the party completely in protest. Honestly, the RNC was tame compared to what's happening at the DNC. sorry, I meant the speakers, not the extracurricular.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 27, 2016 18:31:46 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. The responses here are typical, knee-jerk reactions without actually stopping to consider what is actually said. Nothing in that article condones slavery. It's just another opportunity for people to be "outraged".
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 27, 2016 18:33:10 GMT
No one is saying that he is saying slavery was okay! What he should have done was not say anything at ALL with regard to the short sentence within an very poignant section within a beautifully delivered speech given by our First Lady!! What the HELL is the GD point of that?! Why? Michelle Obama's comments were inaccurate. They give the impression that slaves completely built the White House. Not true. So what the hell is the GD point of stating a half truth other than to try to tweek at the emotions of people like you.
|
|
|
Post by lumo on Jul 27, 2016 18:33:43 GMT
So what, then, was his purpose is making that particular statement, if it wasn't trying to, in a roundabout way, endorse slavery? His comment was really apropos of nothing. She said nothing that was in contest to what he came back with, so it's not as if he was trying to correct her or provide clarification.
It was a justification, pure and simple.
To see it as anything else is just silly.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 27, 2016 18:39:42 GMT
So what, then, was his purpose is making that particular statement, if it wasn't trying to, in a roundabout way, endorse slavery? His comment was really apropos of nothing. She said nothing that was in contest to what he came back with, so it's not as if he was trying to correct her or provide clarification. It was a justification, pure and simple. To see it as anything else is just silly. I disagree and think it is condescending and rude to label someone's interpretation as silly. People come at different topics from different sides. He wasn't endorsing slavery. He wasn't saying that slavery was good or that we should go back to it. He was stating that the entire labor force of the building of the white house was not slaves. It was a statement definitely meant to try to lesson the impact of her statement, that is all.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 27, 2016 18:42:38 GMT
So what, then, was his purpose is making that particular statement, if it wasn't trying to, in a roundabout way, endorse slavery? His comment was really apropos of nothing. She said nothing that was in contest to what he came back with, so it's not as if he was trying to correct her or provide clarification. It was a justification, pure and simple. To see it as anything else is just silly. Hmmm, what is the "purpose" or "justification" for any of the comments made by either commentators or newsmen? Better yet, when the comments are made about Trump, why aren't you asking 'what's the point?" Just own it; it's just something for you, as a liberal to be ticked off about because you don't like him, you don't like Fox and you don't like Republcians. When the shoe's on the other foot, you have absolutely no concerns or need for "justification">
|
|
|
Post by lumo on Jul 27, 2016 18:47:46 GMT
No one is saying that he is saying slavery was okay! What he should have done was not say anything at ALL with regard to the short sentence within an very poignant section within a beautifully delivered speech given by our First Lady!! What the HELL is the GD point of that?! Why? Michelle Obama's comments were inaccurate. They give the impression that slaves completely built the White House. Not true. So what the hell is the GD point of stating a half truth other than to try to tweek at the emotions of people like you. Wrong. She in no way said or implied that slaves were the sole builders. Talk about tweaking.
|
|
|
Post by lumo on Jul 27, 2016 18:50:08 GMT
So what, then, was his purpose is making that particular statement, if it wasn't trying to, in a roundabout way, endorse slavery? His comment was really apropos of nothing. She said nothing that was in contest to what he came back with, so it's not as if he was trying to correct her or provide clarification. It was a justification, pure and simple. To see it as anything else is just silly. I disagree and think it is condescending and rude to label someone's interpretation as silly. People come at different topics from different sides. He wasn't endorsing slavery. He wasn't saying that slavery was good or that we should go back to it. He was stating that the entire labor force of the building of the white house was not slaves. It was a statement definitely meant to try to lesson the impact of her statement, that is all. "Silly" was probably a poor choice, but I'll stand by it. It was better than other words that came to mind
|
|
|
Post by secondlife on Jul 27, 2016 18:57:03 GMT
Ah, mansplaining.
"Well, actually..."
|
|
scrapaddie
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,090
Jul 8, 2014 20:17:31 GMT
|
Post by scrapaddie on Jul 27, 2016 18:57:55 GMT
It sounds to me as if he were reporting history... It is our history and nothing can change that. To acknowledge history is not racist. By the way, not all of the laborers were slaves. Also, many administrations brought their slaves to staff the White House.
i personally find the idea of alavery abhorrent and many of the realities of the practice unimaginably inhuman, but I also have to own the fact that some of my ancestors did live in slave states and may have had slaves. Ironic in that the first of that branch of the family came as an indentured servant.
now I did not hear o'reilly so I have no idea of what went before or after, or the tone in which he spoke, but as printed, I don't se that it was racist
|
|
scrapaddie
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,090
Jul 8, 2014 20:17:31 GMT
|
Post by scrapaddie on Jul 27, 2016 18:59:57 GMT
Count me among those who see no legitimate reason for picking apart a beautiful statement about our country by the outgoing First Lady, by freakin' defending slavery. And yes, when you say it wasn't so bad because the slaves were treated well ... that is defending slavery. That was a disgusting thing to do, BOR, in case you're reading. And I am proud NOT to be among those defending the indefensible. I don't see that he said it wasn't so bad... It seemes like he was repeating the history. I didn't hear the rest of what he said, so I don't know that he was picking apart her speech.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 27, 2016 18:59:59 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. You see here is the problem with the media and the fact that people like Bill O. are given a place to speak. No it wasn't true. Not at all. If you read comments from people who were there. I read and I'm sorry I can't find it now, but a record from Abagail Adams who referred to the slaves working on the Whitehouse as "half-fed". I have completely stopped watching TV news because of the lack of integrity. We have to insist on change.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,151
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Jul 27, 2016 19:01:20 GMT
Why? Michelle Obama's comments were inaccurate. They give the impression that slaves completely built the White House. Not true. So what the hell is the GD point of stating a half truth other than to try to tweek at the emotions of people like you. Wrong. She in no way said or implied that slaves were the sole builders. Talk about tweaking. For someone who doesn't know the history her comment most certainly could have been taken that slaves were the sole builders of the White House.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 27, 2016 19:01:55 GMT
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. We picked apart damn near every speaker at the RNC, why is this speech untouchable? It is not untouchable, but if you want to tear it apart at least do a minimum amount of research and base it on the truth.
|
|