O'Rielly lynching scandal

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: superstition
Harvey Milk (first openly gay mayor of a major city).

He was never mayor of San Francisco. It was Moscone who was the Mayor killed along with Milk by former Supervisor Dan White while he was raging from to many twinkies (He used that defense to beat the Murder rap)

Red, that's actually not correct about the trial. First, he didn't 'beat the rap', he was convicted of a crime many felt was too light and served five years in prison; the twinkie defense was the media hyped phrase about a trivial part of the defense, which was about depression. Note, White killed himself soon after he was released from prison.

Here are two articles I suggest you read. The first specifically addresses the mythology of the 'twinkie defense', the second is an excellent account of the real story of the murders.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.../11/23/INGRE343501.DTL

http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-01-30/news/white-in-milk

There's always gotta be one:roll:

I was living there when it happened so I know all about it, I just gave the Readers Digest version of it

What do you mean, there's always gotta be one?

While I agree with nearly all of your posts, you simply got this one very wrong, and it doesn't make me 'one' in your phrase to say so.

Your post wasn't a Reader's Digest version, it was an incorrect summary.

I can accept 'beat the rap' as a summary given the anger that he got manslaughter instead of murder, and served only five years, despite the opinion not taking into consideration the legitimate factors of his diminished capacity; but citing the twinkies as anything central to the reason why is simply propagating a false myth, and I think you should take responsibility for the error rather than falsely attack the person who points it out, and defend the mistake. Living there at the time is no guarantee of a correct understanding.

Indeed, the passions the case evoked led to many who were close to the situation holding some of the incorrect views.

Did you read the links I posted? I think the second one can add some interesting history even to those familiar with the case.

 

[bozack]

Where is the tiny violin when you need one, it is lame ass arguments like this that make me weep for the state of affairs in our country...it was obvious that he just used it as a common phrase, not because the woman was black, anyone looking to make anything more out of it is an idiot.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: superstition

This is a non-issue.

Then why are you posting about it?

just admit you're overreacting like so many others.

I'm not going to whitewash what was a very inappropriate comment, one that would have resulted in firing for people other than O'Rielly or Ann Coulter.

I take offence at your use of the word whitewash, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ok ok, I can see this is going to take somebody with a clear head, perspicacity, and total freedom from any sort of bias to give you all the straight story on this. And until such a person can be found, let me just say that from where I stand this is a total non issue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Ok ok, I can see this is going to take somebody with a clear head, perspicacity, and total freedom from any sort of bias to give you all the straight story on this. And until such a person can be found, let me just say that from where I stand this is a total non issue.

Define bias, please.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bozack
Where is the tiny violin when you need one, it is lame ass arguments like this that make me weep for the state of affairs in our country...it was obvious that he just used it as a common phrase, not because the woman was black, anyone looking to make anything more out of it is an idiot.

Probably wrong IMO. He was probably giving his audience the guilty little sort of pleasure the evil cowards enjoy.

I have never found the word lynching necessary to use regarding any black people for communications like this (I don't mean to attack her, I don't mean to go after her, I don't mean to condemn her, etc.), and if I did think of the word "lynch", I'd quickly think of the negative history and connotations fo the word regarding black people, and not use it.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bozack
Where is the tiny violin when you need one, it is lame ass arguments like this that make me weep for the state of affairs in our country...it was obvious that he just used it as a common phrase, not because the woman was black, anyone looking to make anything more out of it is an idiot.

Probably wrong IMO. He was probably giving his audience the guilty little sort of pleasure the evil cowards enjoy.

I have never found the word lynching necessary to use regarding any black people for communications like this (I don't mean to attack her, I don't mean to go after her, I don't mean to condemn her, etc.), and if I did think of the word "lynch", I'd quickly think of the negative history and connotations fo the word regarding black people, and not use it.

So you choose to limit your first amendment right to freedom of speech to appease people on their behalf just on the off chance they might take offense. Interesting why of going about the world there...

How about you say what you want to say, how you want to say it, and if they don't like it, tough sh1t?

How about white people just not speak period, then we'll have absolutely no chance of offending anyone? Or, maybe one better is we'll only just read from cue'd info provided by only minorities, that way it'll be pre-vetted and none of them will be offended?

Each time I think I hear of another loony lefty I think, That's it, finally, we've hit rock bottom...it cannot get any worse. Then we have stupid sh1t like this come up and set the bar even lower for expectations....

Chuck

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: superstition
Harvey Milk (first openly gay mayor of a major city).

He was never mayor of San Francisco. It was Moscone who was the Mayor killed along with Milk by former Supervisor Dan White while he was raging from to many twinkies (He used that defense to beat the Murder rap)

Red, that's actually not correct about the trial. First, he didn't 'beat the rap', he was convicted of a crime many felt was too light and served five years in prison; the twinkie defense was the media hyped phrase about a trivial part of the defense, which was about depression. Note, White killed himself soon after he was released from prison.

Here are two articles I suggest you read. The first specifically addresses the mythology of the 'twinkie defense', the second is an excellent account of the real story of the murders.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.../11/23/INGRE343501.DTL

http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-01-30/news/white-in-milk

There's always gotta be one:roll:

I was living there when it happened so I know all about it, I just gave the Readers Digest version of it

What do you mean, there's always gotta be one?

While I agree with nearly all of your posts, you simply got this one very wrong, and it doesn't make me 'one' in your phrase to say so.

Your post wasn't a Reader's Digest version, it was an incorrect summary.

I can accept 'beat the rap' as a summary given the anger that he got manslaughter instead of murder, and served only five years, despite the opinion not taking into consideration the legitimate factors of his diminished capacity; but citing the twinkies as anything central to the reason why is simply propagating a false myth, and I think you should take responsibility for the error rather than falsely attack the person who points it out, and defend the mistake. Living there at the time is no guarantee of a correct understanding.

Indeed, the passions the case evoked led to many who were close to the situation holding some of the incorrect views.

Did you read the links I posted? I think the second one can add some interesting history even to those familiar with the case.

Understanding? Dan White was fucking nuts and killed two publicly elected officials. It had less to do with politics as much as it did with personal animosity between him, Milk and Moscone.

Anyway that was a lifetime ago and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[daveymark]

O'reilly didn't want to hug the tar baby over this, so he issued a statement and moved on

let's just hope Obama isn't reluctant to give or spend; stingy; or miserly

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: superstition
Harvey Milk (first openly gay mayor of a major city).

He was never mayor of San Francisco. It was Moscone who was the Mayor killed along with Milk by former Supervisor Dan White while he was raging from to many twinkies (He used that defense to beat the Murder rap)

Red, that's actually not correct about the trial. First, he didn't 'beat the rap', he was convicted of a crime many felt was too light and served five years in prison; the twinkie defense was the media hyped phrase about a trivial part of the defense, which was about depression. Note, White killed himself soon after he was released from prison.

Here are two articles I suggest you read. The first specifically addresses the mythology of the 'twinkie defense', the second is an excellent account of the real story of the murders.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.../11/23/INGRE343501.DTL

http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-01-30/news/white-in-milk

There's always gotta be one:roll:

I was living there when it happened so I know all about it, I just gave the Readers Digest version of it

What do you mean, there's always gotta be one?

While I agree with nearly all of your posts, you simply got this one very wrong, and it doesn't make me 'one' in your phrase to say so.

Your post wasn't a Reader's Digest version, it was an incorrect summary.

I can accept 'beat the rap' as a summary given the anger that he got manslaughter instead of murder, and served only five years, despite the opinion not taking into consideration the legitimate factors of his diminished capacity; but citing the twinkies as anything central to the reason why is simply propagating a false myth, and I think you should take responsibility for the error rather than falsely attack the person who points it out, and defend the mistake. Living there at the time is no guarantee of a correct understanding.

Indeed, the passions the case evoked led to many who were close to the situation holding some of the incorrect views.

Did you read the links I posted? I think the second one can add some interesting history even to those familiar with the case.

Understanding? Dan White was fucking nuts and killed two publicly elected officials. It had less to do with politics as much as it did with personal animosity between him, Milk and Moscone.

Anyway that was a lifetime ago and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

You made the incorrect comments about the central role of the 'twinkie defense', so the protestations that it was long ago and irrelevant to threat can be aimed at your post.

While you are now saying things I agree with instead of the inaccuracies about the twinkie defense, you have not acknowledged the issue and so I guess you probably won't.

But attacking the mistake being pointed out isn't the best response. It's disappointing from someone usually much better than that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bozack
Where is the tiny violin when you need one, it is lame ass arguments like this that make me weep for the state of affairs in our country...it was obvious that he just used it as a common phrase, not because the woman was black, anyone looking to make anything more out of it is an idiot.

Probably wrong IMO. He was probably giving his audience the guilty little sort of pleasure the evil cowards enjoy.

I have never found the word lynching necessary to use regarding any black people for communications like this (I don't mean to attack her, I don't mean to go after her, I don't mean to condemn her, etc.), and if I did think of the word "lynch", I'd quickly think of the negative history and connotations fo the word regarding black people, and not use it.

So you choose to limit your first amendment right to freedom of speech to appease people on their behalf just on the off chance they might take offense. Interesting why of going about the world there...

How about you say what you want to say, how you want to say it, and if they don't like it, tough sh1t?

How about white people just not speak period, then we'll have absolutely no chance of offending anyone? Or, maybe one better is we'll only just read from cue'd info provided by only minorities, that way it'll be pre-vetted and none of them will be offended?

Each time I think I hear of another loony lefty I think, That's it, finally, we've hit rock bottom...it cannot get any worse. Then we have stupid sh1t like this come up and set the bar even lower for expectations....

Chuck

You confuse my right to free speech with my choices of what is right to say.

I have the legal RIGHT to tell little kids in line for Santa that he's not real, but I CHOOSE not to say that to them because I don't think it's right.

I'm not limiting my right, that I cherish, I'm exercising my judgement in how to use it.

If you on the right understood that better, the country would be better off.

The fact that you see the word 'lynch' here as harmless says how poor your judgement is.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: superstition
Harvey Milk (first openly gay mayor of a major city).

He was never mayor of San Francisco. It was Moscone who was the Mayor killed along with Milk by former Supervisor Dan White while he was raging from to many twinkies (He used that defense to beat the Murder rap)

Red, that's actually not correct about the trial. First, he didn't 'beat the rap', he was convicted of a crime many felt was too light and served five years in prison; the twinkie defense was the media hyped phrase about a trivial part of the defense, which was about depression. Note, White killed himself soon after he was released from prison.

Here are two articles I suggest you read. The first specifically addresses the mythology of the 'twinkie defense', the second is an excellent account of the real story of the murders.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.../11/23/INGRE343501.DTL

http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-01-30/news/white-in-milk

There's always gotta be one:roll:

I was living there when it happened so I know all about it, I just gave the Readers Digest version of it

What do you mean, there's always gotta be one?

While I agree with nearly all of your posts, you simply got this one very wrong, and it doesn't make me 'one' in your phrase to say so.

Your post wasn't a Reader's Digest version, it was an incorrect summary.

I can accept 'beat the rap' as a summary given the anger that he got manslaughter instead of murder, and served only five years, despite the opinion not taking into consideration the legitimate factors of his diminished capacity; but citing the twinkies as anything central to the reason why is simply propagating a false myth, and I think you should take responsibility for the error rather than falsely attack the person who points it out, and defend the mistake. Living there at the time is no guarantee of a correct understanding.

Indeed, the passions the case evoked led to many who were close to the situation holding some of the incorrect views.

Did you read the links I posted? I think the second one can add some interesting history even to those familiar with the case.

Understanding? Dan White was fucking nuts and killed two publicly elected officials. It had less to do with politics as much as it did with personal animosity between him, Milk and Moscone.

Anyway that was a lifetime ago and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

You made the incorrect comments about the central role of the 'twinkie defense', so the protestations that it was long ago and irrelevant to threat can be aimed at your post.

While you are now saying things I agree with instead of the inaccuracies about the twinkie defense, you have not acknowledged the issue and so I guess you probably won't.

But attacking the mistake being pointed out isn't the best response. It's disappointing from someone usually much better than that.

:roll:<click

 

[Craig234]

Edit: nevermind, I can see I overestimated someone, and will end the pointless exchange.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What a non-issue. O'Reilly is a complete jackass, but to hang him over this is utterly ridiculous.

True. People need to drop this LYNCH MOB mentality. This is a non-issue.

For O'Rielly to make lynching comments about his wife is absolutely despicable. Even taking race out of the equation, such a comment shouldn't happen.

Figure of speech, just like my use above of lynch-mob mentality. Let it go, admit he made a comment that if against a whtie would have been fine, and just admit you're overreacting like so many others. It's ok, you can do it.

Agreed

 

[marincounty]

What's the big deal? I don't know why some of you are so niggardly with your praise for the fair and balanced one. It's not like he reneged on some promise to not be controversial. It's mighty white of you to forgive him.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Edit: nevermind, I can see I overestimated someone, and will end the pointless exchange.

You've been overestimated Red, I just don't know how you'll manage to go on!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Edit: nevermind, I can see I overestimated someone, and will end the pointless exchange.

You've been overestimated Red, I just don't know how you'll manage to go on!

Well he was right, I wasn't exactly correct with my first post regarding the Milk/ Moscone
murders and what I had posted was just the way it was perceived at the time. I just didn't think it needed to be expounded on since it really had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Craig234

You confuse my right to free speech with my choices of what is right to say.

I have the legal RIGHT to tell little kids in line for Santa that he's not real, but I CHOOSE not to say that to them because I don't think it's right.

I'm not limiting my right, that I cherish, I'm exercising my judgement in how to use it.

If you on the right understood that better, the country would be better off.

The fact that you see the word 'lynch' here as harmless says how poor your judgement is.

That's all well and good, except we're not talking about ruining some little kids fantasy here, we're talking about you pre-limiting your right to normal speech because some adults might take offense to it.

It's nice and all of you to do that for people, but, I think if they're as civilized and mature as they purport themselves to be they'll be able to handle normal English language words being used properly.

If not, then too F'ing bad...it's a tough world, deal with it.

Chuck

 

[trenchfoot]

cracks me up how when viewed from the right everything that comes out of o'reilly's sewer pipe of a mouth has a convenient buit-in disclaimer to poo-poo away the hidden flavors he likes to infuse his drivel with.

the problem with that is that those hidden flavors have a lasting after-taste that imperceptively builds over time a message which his boss wants to ingrain into the minds of the viewer, especially for those that have become addicted by and to it.

from reading this thread, it appears 'ol rupert's hypnotic grip is strong on these forums.

 

[teclis1023]

It was a stupid comment, but despite my relative dislike for BillO, I think this outrage is stupid. Keith Olbermann is my man, but seriously bro, chill.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
cracks me up how when viewed from the right everything that comes out of o'reilly's sewer pipe of a mouth has a convenient buit-in disclaimer to poo-poo away the hidden flavors he likes to infuse his drivel with.

the problem with that is that those hidden flavors have a lasting after-taste that imperceptively builds over time a message which his boss wants to ingrain into the minds of the viewer, especially for those that have become addicted by and to it.

from reading this thread, it appears 'ol rupert's hypnotic grip is strong on these forums.

Usually falsely attributed to Freud, but the point remains:

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Sometimes things don't have hidden meanings. I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise in this case.

 

[Corporate Thug]

sooooooo, we go a few days without a primary and we have to resort to this as "news"?

 

[Rainsford]

I have more of a problem with O'Reilly's passive aggressive way of going after people than I have with his particular word choice. He keeps bringing up some trait they allegedly have, then says he's giving them the benefit of the doubt. Taken at face value, it sounds like he's being even-handed...until you realize that he KEEPS bringing up the accusation along with the "but maybe not" hedging as an excuse to keep accusing them of something without really being tied to it.

Here's what it sounds like: Is Bill O'Reilly a kiddie rapist? Well, maybe not, but if he is, he should go to jail.

Now I didn't really SAY anything there that I could be tied to, but it's easy to read something bad into that. Which is exactly why it's a propaganda technique, people don't parse things like that very well...simply mentioning someone's name next to a bad trait about them will "wire" those things together in the brain, no matter what you're really saying.

I will agree that getting upset over the word "lynch" seems silly, especially since Bill O'Reilly deserves condemnation for much more important reasons. But I have to wonder, "going on a lynching party" is not a phrase *I* use a lot, nor is it a phrase I hear other people use very often. Now maybe it's because I'm not from the south or something, but it seems a curious turn of phrase for O'Reilly...might he have been angling to create exactly this kind of uproar?