English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

View the following links then give me your honest opinion.

while Don Imus' comments were offensive they were said in jest. http://youtube.com/watch?v=RF9BjB7Bzr0

Compare to bill O'Reilly
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tLPuGuaZTx8
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605170006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38OOVkFqugw
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604140009
It appears quite obvious to me, that when you dechiper through his attempts to obfuscate his true intentions; Bill O'Reily is little more than a racist xenophobe, who wants a 'whites only' immigration policy. He actually used terms like 'the Dominant people' and the current 'white power structure' it was spooky, and he is dead serious!

I'm I the only one who thinks Bill is far more dangerous than Don ever could be?

2007-04-12 14:22:21 · 18 answers · asked by michael H 4 in News & Events Media & Journalism

Katie B: there is no "hidden agenda" to his stance? He himself claims there to be a "hidden agenda." He used those very words too! since you clearly didn't watch it the first time link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604140009

2007-04-12 14:50:34 · update #1

Smiling: Thank you for the English lesson. If quibbling or NIGGling as you would say is you response, then I can see I have made a point, and that you've nothing truly refute.

That being said, just so you know: Definition:

1. transitive and intransitive verb make something obscure: to make something obscure or unclear, especially by making it unnecessarily complicated


2. transitive verb confuse: to make somebody confused

OooPS!!

2007-04-12 14:59:28 · update #2

18 answers

in my opinion Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and Imus are all three slime and they all need to be removed from the air along with Glenn Beck. I think Beck is almost as smart as a box of rocks.

2007-04-12 14:28:35 · answer #1 · answered by roy40371 4 · 0 3

Bill O'Reilly is not racist and there is no "hidden agenda" to his immigration stance. ILLEGAL immigrant should not be in this country in the first place and if they are committing crimes they definitely should not be here. I understand that their countries are not in good shape and I understand why they want to come to America but they could do it legally. If I went to live in another country illegally and was committing crimes the citizens there would not be happy. It is ridiculous to call Bill O'Reilly a racist for protecting Americans and looking out for the rights of CITIZENS.

Finally, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpon and several others such as the members and leaders of the New Black Panthers (Malik Shabazz) are the real racists. Speaking explicitly against jews and whites is way more racist than anything O'Reilly has ever said. Why do you have to go after Bill O'Reilly for protecting the rights of actual citizens?

2007-04-12 21:47:33 · answer #2 · answered by Katie B 2 · 3 0

No, O'Reilly is OK. The biggest racists around are. . . well, you know. Hey, why did you use the word 'obfuscate' instead of 'conceal,' or 'disguise'? You know, you should never use big words unnecessarily just to make yourself look good. You misused 'obfuscate', so instead of appearing intelligent and thoughtful, you actually appear. . . well, you know. Your grammar and syntax (and your spelling!) are enough to make an opossum keel over and play dead. May I suggest that you get a solid foundation in the English language before essaying (no pun intended) politics or journalism? Until you master at least the basics of the language, in any reasonable discussion you'll be little more than a. . . well, you know.

2007-04-12 21:47:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It comes down to this.....Imus made a lot of money for the network....but only so much. Once sponsors began pulling out he was no longer a financially viable option. The sponsors get to look like their civil rights activists and so does the network. Some good PR for pretty cheap.
Bill O'Reilly on the other hand makes untold amounts of money for Fox and it's sponsors. And pulling him or pulling out the sponsorship would cost those entity's more than they could hope to make off the PR.

At the end of the day, it's not about racism..it's about profit, period. And that's the "no-spin truth".

2007-04-13 11:13:34 · answer #4 · answered by Barrett G 6 · 0 0

I think that Chris Rock, Al Sharpton, Jessie jacksom jr. are all much more racist than either of the two you mentioned. But what the hell keep the race war going, it is big business and a liberals dream come true to incite and keep the races apart. A nation divided is a nation defeated and isnt that the ultimate gaol of all socialist pig liberals.

2007-04-12 21:29:13 · answer #5 · answered by Papa Joe 4 · 4 0

Don Imus was a jerk for calling the female Basketball players that name. As a woman I was upset about that, however I don't think he should be fired over it. He needs a good kick in the butt, and if he does it again then fire him.

You don't go around calling women those kind of names, it's awful. I hate how these Rappers call women those kind names. People listen to their idiotic music and think it's ok to call women derogatory names. They can make their music without call women every bad word they can think of.

2007-04-12 23:02:22 · answer #6 · answered by MistyAnn 3 · 0 0

No, actually all racisim is wrong including reverse racists. Sharpton should be fired for perverting Dr King's message but Sharpton does not have a church; Jackson was awarded his religous "Reverend" title, from a college, as a honorary, not earned title..... the reverse racists should be fired, they are the voice of the liberal media, not fine, decent black Americans; how dare anyone degrade our black population to suggest Sharpton represents all blacck thought- look what they did to Bill Cosby, who preached self reliance, tolerance and true brotherhood- the race baiters sent a message to any black leader, if you oppose us, we will destory you.

2007-04-12 21:30:25 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 1 0

Bill O'Reily is way more dangerous than Imus and I would like to know where Al Sharpton was when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a ******? Why is it ok to be right for some but not all?

2007-04-12 21:28:36 · answer #8 · answered by liberalady 2 · 2 1

At this point, I don't think it makes any difference. Because if Bill O' has any sense at ALL, he has to be looking over his shoulder- & wondering if the boots he hears mounting the staircase are coming for HIM... :( What happend to Imus today- is a warning...

2007-04-12 21:43:35 · answer #9 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 0 0

I am not going to look at the links..who gives a rats ***..do we want our media to agree with all of us? I hope not! MSNBC and CBS have bent over for the Sharpies, and Jackasss in our world..they have now proven the only report ..HARMONY NEWS that does not touch boundries....and that is great for folks who want to listen to that...I hope FOX does not kowtow to that! go Bill and the rest of the Fox news team!

2007-04-12 22:34:06 · answer #10 · answered by yep8778 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers