Please post a complete video. Only then can we understand the context.

I'm pretty sure if Obama had said, "The Republicans want to cleanse the world of the evil, godless Democrats, of which we are a part, ..." you wouldn't be trumpeting Obama's admission of evil and godlessness...

You're right I wouldn't. I want to make sure the context it is said in is accurate. If it is I will comment on it appropriately.

My comment wasn't directed at you, however.

If he said something like, "He's going to take the power away from white christian males. I might lose my show -- he must be stopped." I'd be happy to add to the piling on that would result.

My mistake, I just thought it was because I was the last one who posted.

Is the 2nd part of your post directed at me? lol the confusion.

Originally posted by SteveAndrew
Please post a complete video. Only then can we understand the context.

Agreed. A full video will give us the context in which to form an opinion. But an edited video repeating the same few lines over and over again doesn't tell us anything other than what you appear to want to hear, over again.

I personally dislike Bill O'Reilly, but this video, to me, is putting words in his mouth. Because of the aforementioned reason. I have no desire to check for nor link a full video. Hopefully you will.



[edit on 6/12/2008 by Rev_Godslapper]

[edit on 6/12/2008 by Rev_Godslapper]

Originally posted by SteveAndrew
Is the 2nd part of your post directed at me? lol the confusion.

Yes, kind of. But not specifically.


So maybe...

You know what, I'm so I'll leave it at that

[edit on 12-6-2008 by SteveAndrew]

In my opinion, you are 100% correct!

I do not understand why in America they still focus on color and not issues and qualifications and why they feel threatened because of his ethnicity.

The fact that there has been little response to your post testifies that the posters here would rather remain in denial. They simply ignore truth and claim they are denying ignorance.

I'm not sure what context is needed. The point is that Bill O'Reilly acknowledges the white Christian male power structure of which both he and John McCain are a part, is in place. And McCain agrees.

The other point is that Reverend Wright, when railing against this very structure, (in a clip that required no further "context", by the way) he was vilified as a racist.

Why, when Wright mentions the White male power structure, he's called a racist, but when the white Christian males in that power sturcture talk about how someone's supposedly trying to take their power (thereby acknowledging the SAME power structure as Wright talked about) we need more context to know what they're really saying and they're not called racist?

It's just an interesting transposition. Something to think about.

Del, my point has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama or political parties. Nobody's talking about Obama. I don't know why you bring him into it. It's the acknowledgment of the White Christian Male Power Structure by two admitted members of that structure that so many people vehemently denied when Wright spoke about it, that I find interesting. Any comment on that?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Del, my point has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama or political parties. Nobody's talking about Obama. I don't know why you bring him into it. It's the acknowledgment of the White Christian Male Power Structure by two admitted members of that structure that so many people vehemently denied when Wright spoke about it, that I find interesting. Any comment on that?

O'Reilly was stating the NY Times' and the far-lefts' anti-white, anti-Christian attitudes, which include their attitudes towards O'Reilly and McCain. O'Reilly is simply paraphrasing his interpretation of THEIR reason for wanting open borders, i.e., that they see white Christian males as the PROBLEM, not the immigrants. His stating that the NY Times sees O'Reilly and McCain as part of the white Christian power structure.

It's really pretty lame to suggest that O'Reilly is acknowledging anything, and it's completely and utterly juvenile and unintelligent to go to the next step -that McCain agrees because he nodded his head as O'Reilly was speaking.

When a reporter repeats somebody else position on a subject, it's not an acknowledgment that he agrees with the position.

Originally posted by jamie83
It's really pretty lame to suggest that O'Reilly is acknowledging anything,

Think what you want. I can hear what the man says.

and it's completely and utterly juvenile and unintelligent to go to the next step -that McCain agrees because he nodded his head as O'Reilly was speaking.

"jamie", you calling me juvenile and unintelligent is just so ironic, I can't begin to respond to it. If you could debate without personal attacks I would be happy to respond. But I have no reason to think that you can.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jamie83
It's really pretty lame to suggest that O'Reilly is acknowledging anything,

Think what you want. I can hear what the man says.

and it's completely and utterly juvenile and unintelligent to go to the next step -that McCain agrees because he nodded his head as O'Reilly was speaking.

"jamie", you calling me juvenile and unintelligent is just so ironic, I can't begin to respond to it. If you could debate without personal attacks I would be happy to respond. But I have no reason to think that you can.

I didn't call you anything.

I said, as you can see in the quote that you referenced, that the inferences you made were juvenile and unintelligent. Juvenile in the sense that attempt to convince anybody of your conclusion based on an out of context video is something only my 8-year old would believe, and unintelligent in the sense that there is no nexus between your conclusions and the video evidence you provide.

What IS ironic is that your interpretation of what I said as a personal attack on you, rather than a description of the inferences you made, is as mistaken as your original conclusions about the video you referenced.

Back on point, I stand by my position that attempting to make any conclusions based on the video you referenced is juvenile and unintelligent. If it weren't we could spend all day editing videos from YouTube into 1-second sound bites to "prove" any point we wanted to make.

And more to the point, your entire premise is totally incorrect. The substance of what you even claim O'Reilly and McCain stand for is nowhere near what Rev. Wright stands for. It's just a lame attempt to soften how awful Rev. Wright comes across by attempting to connect him to McCain.

Nice try. Intelligent people will see that it's a ludicrous premise.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Del, my point has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama or political parties. Nobody's talking about Obama. I don't know why you bring him into it. It's the acknowledgment of the White Christian Male Power Structure by two admitted members of that structure that so many people vehemently denied when Wright spoke about it, that I find interesting. Any comment on that?

I think you're twisting the context, just like I twisted the context of Obama's hypothetical quote. If you don't see where the relevance lies, I don't see where else to go with the dialogue...

Clearly you don't want the actual context in which Bill said what he said. When you are willing to acknowledge how Bill said what he said then it might be possible for you to understand why he said what he said.