PDA

View Full Version : O Reilly interviews McCain and reveals hidden agenda, very disturbing


Socio
06-16-2007, 07:45 AM
I watched the O Reilly Factor last night; it was a re-run from May 30th where he interviewed McCain about the immigration bill.

GOP Presidential Hopeful John McCain Sits Down With Bill O'Reilly (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276732,00.html)

Part in question;


O'REILLY: Now on the left. The objection is there's not enough illegal aliens in here. The New York Times wants open borders. They want all the 12 million legal people who will be legalized to bring in their extended families. Not just wives and children, but moms and dads, brothers and sisters.

This would lead to in my calculation 40 and 50 foreign nationals being absorbed into the United States in the next 12, 13 years. That would sink the Republican Party, I believe, because we'd have a one-party system. And change, pardon the pun, the whole complexion of America. Am I wrong?

MCCAIN: No, you're right. The second thing that are on the left they're against is the temporary worker, as you know. We say two years go back for a year, two years, go back for a year. They don't want that. They don't want them to have to go back.
O'REILLY: But the strategy is?

MCCAIN: People can come and work.

O'REILLY: Do you understand ? and I'm not saying this in a condescending way, you're smarter than I am.

MCCAIN: Sure.

O'REILLY: But do you understand?

MCCAIN: No.

O'REILLY: ?what The New York Times wants and the far-left want? They want to breakdown the white Christian male power structure of which you are a part, and so am I. And they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically breakdown the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say that you've got to cap it with a number.

MCCAIN: In America today, we have a very strong economy, low unemployment. So we need additional farm workers, including by the way, agriculture. But there may come a time where we have an economic downturn and we don't need so many.

O'REILLY: OK, but in this.

MCCAIN: So I think it has to vary.

O'REILLY: In this bill, you guys got to cap it.

MCCAIN: Yes.

O'REILLY: Because you're estimated there's 12 million. There may be 20.

MCCAIN: Yes.

O'REILLY: You don't know. I don't know. You got to cap it.

MCCAIN: We do. I agree with you. But I also would remind you, again, that they have to get behind everybody else who tried to apply legally. They have to pay the fines. They have to go back to the country of origin.

O'REILLY: I got all of that.

MCCAIN: They have to take a minimum of 13 years, as you know. So to call that amnesty, in my view, is a stretch.


Bill also asked McCain if he was alright with the Republican Party going away when this happens and McCain just shrugged like it was a done deal already.

Now when Bill said "In this bill, you guys got to cap it." and McCain said yes, but not like yes and there will be it was more like yes but that is not going to happen. McCain?s whole demeanor suggested he not only knows that this is happening but he supports it.


I can see why radical minority groups would do this but what I do not get is why the likes of The New York Times wants and others the far-left which is predominantly a "white Christian male power structure" in the US are actively plotting the demise of the "white Christian male power structure" in the US?

Is this this is really what the "grand bargain" is really all about? Not to help the world poor immigrants but to push a hidden agenda?

If so the only thing I can think of;

I do not know much about the Freemasons I know Bush is a Freemason and perhaps the others whom crafted the bill and support the bill so rabidly are Freemasons as well and this is some kind of Freemason agenda.

If true that still leaves the question, why?

techs
06-16-2007, 08:23 AM
O'really shows he is a racist and sectarian bigot.
And the Republican party can easily survive changing demographics. It just has to change its policies. Which it will.
And as to Freemason conspiracies, there is a special at Newegg on tinfoil hats.

Red Dawn
06-16-2007, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by: Socio
I watched the O Reilly Factor last night; it was a re-run from May 30th where he interviewed McCain about the immigration bill.

GOP Presidential Hopeful John McCain Sits Down With Bill O'Reilly (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276732,00.html)

Part in question;


O'REILLY: Now on the left. The objection is there's not enough illegal aliens in here. The New York Times wants open borders. They want all the 12 million legal people who will be legalized to bring in their extended families. Not just wives and children, but moms and dads, brothers and sisters.

This would lead to in my calculation 40 and 50 foreign nationals being absorbed into the United States in the next 12, 13 years. That would sink the Republican Party, I believe, because we'd have a one-party system. And change, pardon the pun, the whole complexion of America. Am I wrong?

MCCAIN: No, you're right. The second thing that are on the left they're against is the temporary worker, as you know. We say two years go back for a year, two years, go back for a year. They don't want that. They don't want them to have to go back.
O'REILLY: But the strategy is?

MCCAIN: People can come and work.

O'REILLY: Do you understand ? and I'm not saying this in a condescending way, you're smarter than I am.

MCCAIN: Sure.

O'REILLY: But do you understand?

MCCAIN: No.

O'REILLY: ?what The New York Times wants and the far-left want? They want to breakdown the white Christian male power structure of which you are a part, and so am I. And they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically breakdown the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say that you've got to cap it with a number.

MCCAIN: In America today, we have a very strong economy, low unemployment. So we need additional farm workers, including by the way, agriculture. But there may come a time where we have an economic downturn and we don't need so many.

O'REILLY: OK, but in this.

MCCAIN: So I think it has to vary.

O'REILLY: In this bill, you guys got to cap it.

MCCAIN: Yes.

O'REILLY: Because you're estimated there's 12 million. There may be 20.

MCCAIN: Yes.

O'REILLY: You don't know. I don't know. You got to cap it.

MCCAIN: We do. I agree with you. But I also would remind you, again, that they have to get behind everybody else who tried to apply legally. They have to pay the fines. They have to go back to the country of origin.

O'REILLY: I got all of that.

MCCAIN: They have to take a minimum of 13 years, as you know. So to call that amnesty, in my view, is a stretch.


Bill also asked McCain if he was alright with the Republican Party going away when this happens and McCain just shrugged like it was a done deal already.

Now when Bill said "In this bill, you guys got to cap it." and McCain said yes, but not like yes and there will be it was more like yes but that is not going to happen. McCain?s whole demeanor suggested he not only knows that this is happening but he supports it.


I can see why radical minority groups would do this but what I do not get is why the likes of The New York Times wants and others the far-left which is predominantly a "white Christian male power structure" in the US are actively plotting the demise of the "white Christian male power structure" in the US?

Is this this is really what the "grand bargain" is really all about? Not to help the world poor immigrants but to push a hidden agenda?

If so the only thing I can think of;

I do not know much about the Freemasons I know Bush is a Freemason and perhaps the others whom crafted the bill and support the bill so rabidly are Freemasons as well and this is some kind of Freemason agenda.

If true that still leaves the question, why?

:roll: While you're at it why don't you suggest that maybe it's a Knights of Templar or a Tri Lateral Commission plot:roll:

All I know is that the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political fence is against this immigration bill.

Socio
06-16-2007, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by: techs
O'really shows he is a racist and sectarian bigot.
And the Republican party can easily survive changing demographics. It just has to change its policies. Which it will.
And as to Freemason conspiracies, there is a special at Newegg on tinfoil hats.

Look we already have a fine balance now between Democrats and Republicans in the US, if and when we add 40-50 million more, most of whom will vote democrat, the balance is gone. I am sure the Republican Party will still exist but it will be like independents, they won't matter like independents today.

When this happens most smart would be Republicans will be voting Democrat just to try and elect the least far left as they can because they will know that will be the only way their votes can count for anything.

As far as "Freemason conspiracies" if you have a better idea why the predominantly a "white Christian male power structure" in the US are actively plotting the demise of the "white Christian male power structure" in the US I am all ears.

sandorski
06-16-2007, 08:50 AM
wow, racist much? Seems like the "Right" are beginning to have Freudian Slips.

techs
06-16-2007, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by: sandorski
wow, racist much? Seems like the "Right" are beginning to have Freudian Slips.
Freudian slip? Isn't that where you say one thing, and really mean a mother?

techs
06-16-2007, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by: sandorski
wow, racist much? Seems like the "Right" are beginning to have Freudian Slips.
Freudian slip? Isn't that where you say one thing, and really mean a mother?

Rainsford
06-16-2007, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by: sandorski
wow, racist much? Seems like the "Right" are beginning to have Freudian Slips.

No freaking kidding. I think reasonable people can differ on the immigration issue, and while I don't agree with those who oppose more open immigration policies, I think some of them make honest points. But wanting our immigration policy to protect the "white Christian male power structure"...it's like the O'Reilly Factor turned into a Klan meeting.

Lemon law
06-16-2007, 09:41 AM
Like it or not, the USA is facing a demographic time bomb set to go off when the baby boomers retire. Simply not enough workers to support every retiree. Since we can't fix social security, the immigration bill is simply another attempt to confront what we don't have the political consensus to face. Another side effect is that the lack of a social security surplus is going to obsolete the policy of spend and borrow. Which has been both the Democratic and the Republican answer to public policy for the last sixty years or so.

The above is just another partial way to look at the immigration bill. Another way to look at it is regards the long established American practice by the monies interests to pump up the labor supply. Which under supply and demand tends to depress wages. The operable problem with this getting support is the illegal workers already do that, and if you legitimize them, they suddenly have rights under various US laws---and have standing to complain about mis treatment. And under the defacto system we have--you don't want to pay your illegal worker
over time and other things---no problem because they have no standing to complain. IF they get uppity, get em deported.

If we want to fix immigrants coming in, a better system of making sure they can't get work would involve laws with teeth that punish the employers. And we won't do that either.

So the band plays on as its white male hypocrisies now and forever.

Socio
06-16-2007, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sandorski
wow, racist much? Seems like the "Right" are beginning to have Freudian Slips.

No freaking kidding. I think reasonable people can differ on the immigration issue, and while I don't agree with those who oppose more open immigration policies, I think some of them make honest points. But wanting our immigration policy to protect the "white Christian male power structure"...it's like the O'Reilly Factor turned into a Klan meeting.

I guess the real question you must ask yourself is; will the United States of America be better off or worse off if and when the "white Christian male power structure" is gone and the white segment is no longer the decisive power?

When asking your self this question bare in mind all the countries that do not have a white Christian male power structure" or a white segment being the decisive power versus the ones that do. I don't think it will be hard to see why the odds of it continuing to be a success are very low and why Bill O Reilly thinks the way he does.

It is not racist at all it is just common sense.

techs
06-16-2007, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Like it or not, the USA is facing a demographic time bomb set to go off when the baby boomers retire. Simply not enough workers to support every retiree. Since we can't fix social security, the immigration bill is simply another attempt to confront what we don't have the political consensus to face. Another side effect is that the lack of a social security surplus is going to obsolete the policy of spend and borrow. Which has been both the Democratic and the Republican answer to public policy for the last sixty years or so.

The above is just another partial way to look at the immigration bill. Another way to look at it is regards the long established American practice by the monies interests to pump up the labor supply. Which under supply and demand tends to depress wages. The operable problem with this getting support is the illegal workers already do that, and if you legitimize them, they suddenly have rights under various US laws---and have standing to complain about mis treatment. And under the defacto system we have--you don't want to pay your illegal worker
over time and other things---no problem because they have no standing to complain. IF they get uppity, get em deported.

If we want to fix immigrants coming in, a better system of making sure they can't get work would involve laws with teeth that punish the employers. And we won't do that either.

So the band plays on as its white male hypocrisies now and forever.


QFT

At some point we will HAVE to allow a fairly large number of immigrants, as you stated, to get us thru the baby boomer retirements.
The time has not yet come for this, the current push for more immigrants is indeed corporations and businesses that want to reduce wages.

Jaskalas
06-16-2007, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by: techs
O'really shows he is a racist and sectarian bigot.
And the Republican party can easily survive changing demographics. It just has to change its policies. Which it will.

Viva socialism eh?

If we?re so inclined to bring in a hundred million to work in poverty so deep that Americans won?t take those s*** wages, we?ll have to adopt more socialist and authoritarian policies resembling the worst nations on earth just to subsidize those workers who can?t survive on those wages. After such an expansion of our government it will be the death nail of the America whose foundation was liberty 200 years ago.

Hope you like poverty and patriot acts, mark my words, you will succeed in making those worse. Then you?ll still blame Republicans, who betrayed their libertarian base and joined your party in authoritarian/socialist values just as you wanted.

miketheidiot
06-16-2007, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
O'really shows he is a racist and sectarian bigot.
And the Republican party can easily survive changing demographics. It just has to change its policies. Which it will.

Viva socialism eh?

If we?re so inclined to bring in a hundred million to work in poverty so deep that Americans won?t take those s*** wages, we?ll have to adopt more socialist and authoritarian policies resembling the worst nations on earth just to subsidize those workers who can?t survive on those wages. After such an expansion of our government it will be the death nail of the America whose foundation was liberty 200 years ago.

Hope you like poverty and patriot acts, mark my words, you will succeed in making those worse. Then you?ll still blame Republicans, who betrayed their libertarian base and joined your party in authoritarian/socialist values just as you wanted.

rofl at this post.

Rainsford
06-16-2007, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sandorski
wow, racist much? Seems like the "Right" are beginning to have Freudian Slips.

No freaking kidding. I think reasonable people can differ on the immigration issue, and while I don't agree with those who oppose more open immigration policies, I think some of them make honest points. But wanting our immigration policy to protect the "white Christian male power structure"...it's like the O'Reilly Factor turned into a Klan meeting.

I guess the real question you must ask yourself is; will the United States of America be better off or worse off if and when the "white Christian male power structure" is gone and the white segment is no longer the decisive power?

When asking your self this question bare in mind all the countries that do not have a white Christian male power structure" or a white segment being the decisive power versus the ones that do. I don't think it will be hard to see why the odds of it continuing to be a success are very low and why Bill O Reilly thinks the way he does.

It is not racist at all it is just common sense.

Oh yeah, what was I thinking, that's totally not racist at all :roll: I mean, who DOESN'T think that white Christian men are inherently superior to everyone else?

Personally, I think your line of thinking shows a pretty appalling lack of understanding of recent history. While white Christian men make a big show of being more "civilized" than the barbarian brown people, I don't think history really backs that up. The history of slavery, racial bigotry and race related violence in this country is almost entirely white on non-white. Our enlightened European ancestors basically started out committing genocide against the American Indians, moved into slavery of Africans, and then graduated to lynching them and attacking them with dogs and firehoses before grudgingly giving them equal rights. Where are the minority versions of those events in this country?

And around the world, things don't go too much better for the dark skinned folks. Various European countries spent hundreds of years brutally oppressing indigenous people all over the world, yet you'd maintain that England is more civilized than India because English folks are white and Indians are not...never mind how many Indians the Brits killed in their quest to rule the world, or how relatively few Brits the Indians killed in return. And let's not forget one of the greatest monsters of the 20th century...Hitler, who came from, and was supported by, a population that is the very definition of white Christian male power.

But let's be fair here, while Hitler and the Germans did some pretty appalling things, the Japanese weren't very far behind in WWII, and they are non-white. The Soviet Union was pretty brutal in oppressing a huge segment of the world, and they were pretty much a white Christian male nation (if not officially on the Christian part). But then, the Chinese are doing much the same thing...at least in their own country, and they are neither white nor Christian. And Africans are killing each other with abandon, even though many of those countries have an extremely Christian and extremely male dominated culture...they aren't white, but 2 out of three doesn't look too useful. But the SOUTH Africans did have all three, and they proved themselves to be among the least civilized people on the entire continent.

I think, if anything, being a worthless jackass is one of the few genuinely equal opportunity fields. Your Klan BS says Hitler was a good guy because he was a white male Christian, and that Ghandi was a bad guy because he wasn't...I say the individual is way more important. And given the quality of some of the white Christian folks in this country, I'm ready to see if another group has some better people in it. I understand the population concerns, so let's have a trade program. I think the first trade should be for the illegal immigrant who works at the taco stand by my apartment...how about he becomes a citizen and we ship you off to the North Pole? I think America is improving already!

Narmer
06-16-2007, 04:49 PM
I'm a freemason. If you've ever bothered yourself to understand freemasonry, you'd see that this nation is built upon its two main principals: knowledge and freedom.

The fear you have of these "Mexicans" is so ironic considering that these people are the real descendents of the native Americans that roamed this great continent. Go pound sand if you don't like pluralism. After that, you can take your ass back to the region in Europe where your ancestors came from.

Darthvoy
06-16-2007, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sandorski
wow, racist much? Seems like the "Right" are beginning to have Freudian Slips.

No freaking kidding. I think reasonable people can differ on the immigration issue, and while I don't agree with those who oppose more open immigration policies, I think some of them make honest points. But wanting our immigration policy to protect the "white Christian male power structure"...it's like the O'Reilly Factor turned into a Klan meeting.

I guess the real question you must ask yourself is; will the United States of America be better off or worse off if and when the "white Christian male power structure" is gone and the white segment is no longer the decisive power?

When asking your self this question bare in mind all the countries that do not have a white Christian male power structure" or a white segment being the decisive power versus the ones that do. I don't think it will be hard to see why the odds of it continuing to be a success are very low and why Bill O Reilly thinks the way he does.

It is not racist at all it is just common sense.

Oh yeah, what was I thinking, that's totally not racist at all :roll: I mean, who DOESN'T think that white Christian men are inherently superior to everyone else?

Personally, I think your line of thinking shows a pretty appalling lack of understanding of recent history. While white Christian men make a big show of being more "civilized" than the barbarian brown people, I don't think history really backs that up. The history of slavery, racial bigotry and race related violence in this country is almost entirely white on non-white. Our enlightened European ancestors basically started out committing genocide against the American Indians, moved into slavery of Africans, and then graduated to lynching them and attacking them with dogs and firehoses before grudgingly giving them equal rights. Where are the minority versions of those events in this country?

And around the world, things don't go too much better for the dark skinned folks. Various European countries spent hundreds of years brutally oppressing indigenous people all over the world, yet you'd maintain that England is more civilized than India because English folks are white and Indians are not...never mind how many Indians the Brits killed in their quest to rule the world, or how relatively few Brits the Indians killed in return. And let's not forget one of the greatest monsters of the 20th century...Hitler, who came from, and was supported by, a population that is the very definition of white Christian male power.

But let's be fair here, while Hitler and the Germans did some pretty appalling things, the Japanese weren't very far behind in WWII, and they are non-white. The Soviet Union was pretty brutal in oppressing a huge segment of the world, and they were pretty much a white Christian male nation (if not officially on the Christian part). But then, the Chinese are doing much the same thing...at least in their own country, and they are neither white nor Christian. And Africans are killing each other with abandon, even though many of those countries have an extremely Christian and extremely male dominated culture...they aren't white, but 2 out of three doesn't look too useful. But the SOUTH Africans did have all three, and they proved themselves to be among the least civilized people on the entire continent.

I think, if anything, being a worthless jackass is one of the few genuinely equal opportunity fields. Your Klan BS says Hitler was a good guy because he was a white male Christian, and that Ghandi was a bad guy because he wasn't...I say the individual is way more important. And given the quality of some of the white Christian folks in this country, I'm ready to see if another group has some better people in it. I understand the population concerns, so let's have a trade program. I think the first trade should be for the illegal immigrant who works at the taco stand by my apartment...how about he becomes a citizen and we ship you off to the North Pole? I think America is improving already!

Let us not forget the founder of the "Evangelicals" who turned out to be soliciting male prostitutes.

Socio
06-16-2007, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by: Rainsford

Oh yeah, what was I thinking, that's totally not racist at all :roll: I mean, who DOESN'T think that white Christian men are inherently superior to everyone else?


Apparently the 10?s of millions of immigrants of color who could go to India or else where yet choose to flock to the predominantly white areas of the world like the US and Europe to live like him, work like him, and be educated by him and leech off him sure do or else they would go elsewhere or just stay home wouldn?t they?

Your dreamworld with out a "white Christian male power structure" and no white decisive power and a single party will come soon enough and we will see who is right.

UberNeuman
06-16-2007, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by: Socio
I watched the O Reilly Factor last night; it was a re-run from May 30th where he interviewed McCain about the immigration bill.

GOP Presidential Hopeful John McCain Sits Down With Bill O'Reilly (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276732,00.html)

Part in question;


O'REILLY: Now on the left. The objection is there's not enough illegal aliens in here. The New York Times wants open borders. They want all the 12 million legal people who will be legalized to bring in their extended families. Not just wives and children, but moms and dads, brothers and sisters.

This would lead to in my calculation 40 and 50 foreign nationals being absorbed into the United States in the next 12, 13 years. That would sink the Republican Party, I believe, because we'd have a one-party system. And change, pardon the pun, the whole complexion of America. Am I wrong?

MCCAIN: No, you're right. The second thing that are on the left they're against is the temporary worker, as you know. We say two years go back for a year, two years, go back for a year. They don't want that. They don't want them to have to go back.
O'REILLY: But the strategy is?

MCCAIN: People can come and work.

O'REILLY: Do you understand ? and I'm not saying this in a condescending way, you're smarter than I am.

MCCAIN: Sure.

O'REILLY: But do you understand?

MCCAIN: No.

O'REILLY: ?what The New York Times wants and the far-left want? They want to breakdown the white Christian male power structure of which you are a part, and so am I. And they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically breakdown the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say that you've got to cap it with a number.

MCCAIN: In America today, we have a very strong economy, low unemployment. So we need additional farm workers, including by the way, agriculture. But there may come a time where we have an economic downturn and we don't need so many.

O'REILLY: OK, but in this.

MCCAIN: So I think it has to vary.

O'REILLY: In this bill, you guys got to cap it.

MCCAIN: Yes.

O'REILLY: Because you're estimated there's 12 million. There may be 20.

MCCAIN: Yes.

O'REILLY: You don't know. I don't know. You got to cap it.

MCCAIN: We do. I agree with you. But I also would remind you, again, that they have to get behind everybody else who tried to apply legally. They have to pay the fines. They have to go back to the country of origin.

O'REILLY: I got all of that.

MCCAIN: They have to take a minimum of 13 years, as you know. So to call that amnesty, in my view, is a stretch.


Bill also asked McCain if he was alright with the Republican Party going away when this happens and McCain just shrugged like it was a done deal already.

Now when Bill said "In this bill, you guys got to cap it." and McCain said yes, but not like yes and there will be it was more like yes but that is not going to happen. McCain?s whole demeanor suggested he not only knows that this is happening but he supports it.


I can see why radical minority groups would do this but what I do not get is why the likes of The New York Times wants and others the far-left which is predominantly a "white Christian male power structure" in the US are actively plotting the demise of the "white Christian male power structure" in the US?

Is this this is really what the "grand bargain" is really all about? Not to help the world poor immigrants but to push a hidden agenda?

If so the only thing I can think of;

I do not know much about the Freemasons I know Bush is a Freemason and perhaps the others whom crafted the bill and support the bill so rabidly are Freemasons as well and this is some kind of Freemason agenda.

If true that still leaves the question, why?



I'm not sure if that's what O'Really believes, or he's just playing into the fear and anger that he knows makes up a huge part of his "audience."

The white Christian base just love martyrdom, they eat up it like a piggish child eats candy - can't get enough of it... more, more, more!!!

Bill, and Hannity as well, feed that fire - and profit quite nicely from it as well..... It's not clear if P.T Barnum really said this, but it remains true:
"There's a sucker born every minute."

sandorski
06-16-2007, 06:43 PM
By framing this as a White vs Non-White issue, not only does one take a Racist position, but one also guarantees the end of "American Values"("American" can be replaced by many other National identifiers where Immigration is a necessity, "Canadian" for eg). Current trends are clearly en route to Caucasian Minorities or at least Parity with other Races. Not only are Immigration rates higher for non-Caucasians, but so are Birth rates. By tying a Nations values to a Race you are excluding a segment of the population who are then forced to make their own values and as a result eventually replace the current values with their own when they gain the upper hand.

If you want to maintain the values that you deem important, you must frame them as Universal so that they can be adopted by all. Fortunately wiser people are in charge who have already framed as "Universal" and as a result these values are adopted by non-Caucasians already, but fools and their foolishness can quickly undo all this if given too much respect. O'Reilly should be ashamed for stating such things as he has. If he has no shame, he should be removed from the Airwaves.

miketheidiot
06-16-2007, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Oh yeah, what was I thinking, that's totally not racist at all :roll: I mean, who DOESN'T think that white Christian men are inherently superior to everyone else?


Apparently the 10?s of millions of immigrants of color who could go to India or else where yet choose to flock to the predominantly white areas of the world like the US and Europe to live like him, work like him, and be educated by him and leech off him sure do or else they would go elsewhere or just stay home wouldn?t they?

Your dreamworld with out a "white Christian male power structure" and no white decisive power and a single party will come soon enough and we will see who is right.


I don't think this has anything to do with "whiteness"

IronWing
06-16-2007, 07:39 PM
O'REILLY: Now on the left. The objection is there's not enough illegal aliens in here.

I stopped reading after that. Did it get any better? Why would anyone listen to OReilly?

MagicConch
06-16-2007, 08:13 PM
He should not say the Republican party won't survive it, he should say that he and his fellow dinosaurs will no longer control the Republican party if it happens. The party will definitely survive.

Rainsford
06-16-2007, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Oh yeah, what was I thinking, that's totally not racist at all :roll: I mean, who DOESN'T think that white Christian men are inherently superior to everyone else?


Apparently the 10?s of millions of immigrants of color who could go to India or else where yet choose to flock to the predominantly white areas of the world like the US and Europe to live like him, work like him, and be educated by him and leech off him sure do or else they would go elsewhere or just stay home wouldn?t they?

I did not say India was exactly like the US, and I certainly didn't say I wouldn't rather live here than there...but what does that have to do with skin color? There are some pretty crummy places in the world run by white people, and some pretty nice ones run by people "of color" (would you rather live in Iran, or Japan?). When you look at the totality of the world and human history, skin color does not seem to be a good indicator of anything other than the likelihood that you're going to sunburn at the beach.


Your dreamworld with out a "white Christian male power structure" and no white decisive power and a single party will come soon enough and we will see who is right.


I have no problem with white Christian men, just racist jackasses who think it's vital to make sure white Christian men hold all the power. I'm perfectly content to let things take their course, I couldn't possibly care less whether Congress is filled with white Christian men or dark skinned Buddhist women...the value of the individuals in Congress is far more important than their skin color, reproductive organs or how they pray. But what are you worried about? If white Christian men are so superior, they won't have any problem at all staying in power...the dark skinned folks should be clamoring for the great white man to lead them.