Bill O Reilly's "white establishment" comments

Stinicker

Pherekydes wrote: »

Is this because the "white establishment" is in the minority?

It all went downhill when women and slaves got the vote.

If you knew anything about the American voting system you would have understood what I meant.

enfant terrible

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The Republicans tried pandering, scare-mongering, buying the election, preventative measures to try and stop people voting in democrat voting areas, and lots and lots and lots of good old fashioned lying.

And they still lost.

So now it's back to the scare mongering.

This guy hates Republicans

Killer Wench

Killer Wench wrote: »

Under Obama, health care won't be free. And these entitlements include military dependents, elderly folks, and the extreme poor.

It's amazing how every time I post anything against the grain I'm replied to with something I didn't say. Obama would have fully nationalised (or state-paying) healthcare) if he could, as would many of his supporters, they're only going to vote one way. Obama would be more in favour of benefits or "entitlements" for poorer people and so on than Romney would.
It's a pretty simple statement of fact that O'Reilly made and it's hilarious seeing people trying to paint it as something else. The old "establishment" of white male voters is no longer what holds the balance of power, I don't see the issue with this statement. This quote:

“People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them those things?” he asks.

again is something I can't see any offence in. Expansion of government programmes and entitlements that Democrats want coincide more with what women and minorities want and surprise, surprise, those people are more likely to vote with the candidate whose views and promises coincide with their views and desires.

oppenheimer1

Killer Wench wrote: »

Close, but still no cigar.

POPULAR VOTE
OBAMA 60,382,105 50.4%
ROMNEY 57,590,230 48.1%

But that was my point, it was close. So to say the Republican party "the white establishment" are on the way out is ridiculous, when almost half the electorate voted for them.

oppenheimer1

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But that was my point, it was close. So to say the Republican party "the white establishment" are on the way out is ridiculous, when almost half the electorate voted for them.

Hispanics as a proportion of the electorate are increasing more quickly with each election cycle. The "white establishment" really means white men or older whites in general and they're not as important anymore. Hispanics of every age group went for Obama, Asians went for Obama, women went for Obama, Blacks went for Obama, gays went for Obama. White men in general went for Romney and I think older voters went for Romney, they're basically the only 2 demographics he won and while they're the biggest in absolute terms they're only 2 of several so not as important as it used to be.

Killer Wench

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But that was my point, it was close. So to say the Republican party "the white establishment" are on the way out is ridiculous, when almost half the electorate voted for them.

They are on the way out. In order to understand, one must be familiar with WHO is voting in these elections. Obama won the female vote, the youth vote, and the minority vote. Romney won the older, uneducated, White male vote. Older Americans tend to vote more conservatively, but with the rise of the Baby Boomer generation (those who fought in Vietnam and fought for Roe v. Wade), they are likely to be more liberal than their parents generation. They will one day be the older voters and if they are voting more liberal, then there goes the Republican Party's base.

Historically, the Republican Party could rely on those in the Midwest, the South, those in the military, and older Americans. However, many in the military retreated from Romney because they feared he was too trigger happy; Obama did a great job of proving himself to be behind the military, so he won their vote, too. The Midwest is shifting. Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin voted for Obama. Even Indiana broke the mold and voted for him back in 2008 but they went for Romney this time. Florida was a Republican stronghold because of its large retired population, but retirees aren't running to Florida any longer... they are going to Arizona and the southwest. But, even then, Obama won Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. The Republicans kept the South, but that isn't a surprise as it is the last region grasping on to the memories of the "White establishment". There is a growing number of Latinos and Asians in North Carolina which is changing the demographics of that state; this is why this was a much closer race than any of the other states, excluding Virginia and Florida.

The White establishment is on the way out because they are, quite frankly, dying out. This is why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was able to be repealed, several states have legalized same sex marriage, and a few are leaning towards de-criminalizing marijuana for social use. It is a changing America.

Squidgy Black

Obama might not be right for the US at the moment, but the Republicans really need a slap in the face. They could easily win votes if they weren't so bloody ignorant and coming out with their comments on gay marriage and abortion. They're worse than the catholic church. They need to appease the Democrats supporters to convince them to vote for them, not drive them further away. They were both poor candidates. Obama won the electoral AND the majority though, so there's no denying he won it fair and square.

Da Shins Kelly

stetyrrell wrote: »

Obama might not be right for the US at the moment, but the Republicans really need a slap in the face. They could easily win votes if they weren't so bloody ignorant and coming out with their comments on gay marriage and abortion. They're worse than the catholic church. They need to appease the Democrats supporters to convince them to vote for them, not drive them further away. They were both poor candidates. Obama won the electoral AND the majority though, so there's no denying he won it fair and square.

They need a third or fourth party in that country. The two party system creates a real 'us and them' situation that only serves to divide people.

Squidgy Black

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

They need a third or fourth party in that country. The two party system creates a real 'us and them' situation that only serves to divide people.

There's a law in their constitution over it, so they can only have two parties running. It's a joke.

af_thefragile

Cienciano wrote: »

He's right, the man that most people want gets voted in. It's a disgrace :pac:

Democracy is the oppression of the majority!

Tox56

Deleted User wrote: »

It's amazing how every time I post anything against the grain I'm replied to with something I didn't say. Obama would have fully nationalised (or state-paying) healthcare) if he could, as would many of his supporters, they're only going to vote one way. Obama would be more in favour of benefits or "entitlements" for poorer people and so on than Romney would.
It's a pretty simple statement of fact that O'Reilly made and it's hilarious seeing people trying to paint it as something else. The old "establishment" of white male voters is no longer what holds the balance of power, I don't see the issue with this statement. This quote:

again is something I can't see any offence in. Expansion of government programmes and entitlements that Democrats want coincide more with what women and minorities want and surprise, surprise, those people are more likely to vote with the candidate whose views and promises coincide with their views and desires.

And the same logic applies to the Republicans, but guess what Bill focuses on. Something tells me he was doing more than just pointing out fact

asherbassad

Temaz wrote: »

Bill shooting his mouth off as usual! How does this guy have so many viewers!



http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/07/bill-oreillys-lament-the-white-establishment-is-now-the-minority/

O'Reilly......exit him.

But I hear he's really good at anally masturbating whilst sexually harassing interns over the phone.....and then settling out of court. Fun guy that Bill. Should be taken seriously.

Reindeer

http://imgur.com/fD3Gy

Tox56

Tox56 wrote: »

And the same logic applies to the Republicans, but guess what Bill focuses on. Something tells me he was doing more than just pointing out fact

Obviously he's biased, so is CNN, CNBC etc. as much as people would like to say they're not.

take everything

There is something really satisfying knowing how much this ****head and the likes of Trump are fuming at this election result.

Skylinehead

stetyrrell wrote: »

There's a law in their constitution over it, so they can only have two parties running. It's a joke.

That's definitely not true.

Riesen_Meal

One of Bill's finer moments:

Where To

O'Reilly doesn't bother me.

What bothers me is the large swathes of Americans whose views he represents.

raah!

Sneering at Bill O Reilly isn't going to make you any less of an uninteresting uneducated nobody. People like you are the same trash that those "test your iq" spam ads are all over the place about. You all make me sick

Spiritual

raah! wrote: »

Sneering at Bill O Reilly isn't going to make you any less of an uninteresting uneducated nobody. People like you are the same trash that those "test your iq" spam ads are all over the place about. You all make me sick

What are your symptoms, do you require a Doctor?

raah!

That's a figure of speech.

Spiritual

raah! wrote: »

That's a figure of speech.

If you're not sick, don't cry wolf. When are sick no one will help and it might be fatal.

Chiqqi

It is his purpose. Fox News is owned/run by cousin of Bush...yeah that Bush. It is a right wing establishment in US. A brainwashing machine. Tune out.

marvin_spazz

misread title and thought bill had a racist slur on the football tonite

Snickers Man

Deleted User wrote: »

So recent immigrants are a majority now?

It's Mr O'Reilly who says that the "white establishment is a minority now" (watch the clip on the link in the OP)

Anyway, I believe that, depending on how one differentiates between "white" and "non white", the number of children born in the US in the latter category has exceeded those born in the former in recent years.

All of which means that in a generation or two there could be a "white" minority in the USA, depending on definition and on whether you think such a distinction is relevant.

Americans LOVE statistics. Just read their sports reports: rushing yardage, pass completion ratio, Runs Batted In, etc etc

Statistics are all very comforting. They are collections of facts and give one the impression that one's arguments are based on solid foundations. But the problem with statistics is teasing out the fine distinction between facts and truth.

Like so what if you identify one family of multiple ethnic ancestry as "white" and another as "latino"? Are there any grounds for predicting how such people will live, work and vote in the future?

None at all.

The strength of America is the way its core values CAN allow people of any faith, colour, gender and outlook to assimilate with the broad mass of the people. There is no guarantee that this will happen; after all the race laws in existence in many states of the southern US at the time of President Obama's birth were almost identical in tone, letter and spirit, if not in target, with Germany's notorious Nuremberg Laws.

But the preamble to the Declaration of Independence which asserts as a "self evident truth" that "all men are created equal" and are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that ...include life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" allowed, nearly 200 years after these words were written, the descendant of a black slave to demand that this "promissory note" which had always been "returned marked 'insufficient funds' "when it had been presented by black people should be honoured at last. (See the full text of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech).

It should be perfectly possible for immigrants of any ethnicity to buy into the essential values of the American republic. And in time, many of them will become every bit as self-centred, paranoid and obnoxious as Mr O'Reilly and other Irish Americans of his ilk.

Today, statistics show that the Republican party is favoured by white males and distrusted by latinos, women, Jews and above all, blacks. These all prefer the Democratic party of Barak Obama.

But it wasn't always thus. The Democrats used to be the party of segregation and white supremacy. The Republicans were the party of emancipation and personal liberty. Republican grandees like Charlton Heston went on Martin Luther King's civil rights marches. It was utterly in keeping with the values of that party.

There should be no place for the paranoia espoused by O'Reilly in America. Still less should he try to identify the mildest form of social democracy as championed by Obama as an un American virus imported by undesirable immigrants.

He's on to a loser anyway.

Fizman

Bigus wrote: »

I thought you were talking about the oki doke Bill

You're thinking of Bill O'Reillihy.

Hobbes

His whole rant reminded me of a scene from the Sopranos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxFQYw_MmAA

Leftist

Eli Manning wrote: »

I don't see the problem referring to white people. I presume your insinuating that he's being racist. I don't like Bill O Reilly but he's right in a lot of ways that a lot of ordinary American white people people do feel isolated.

poor white middle class. They'll never get to see the paradise of living like an hispanic or black family.

hooradiation

The meltdown on bullshit mountain is glorious to watch.

Between Trump going full retard and this delightful temper tantrum, the internet is truly living up to its potential as the best possible source for unintentional hilarity.

stevedublin

Deleted User wrote: »

I also love the narrative that only rich people vote for Republicans, America ain't doing too bad if it has that many rich folk.

They are rich on borrowed money. Its not real wealth. The American economy is doing bad.

stevedublin

Stinicker wrote: »

When Lehman Bros. went bust what did GWB do? Nothing he did nothing and left them go burst in the biggest bankruptcy ever, this was pefect market sense.

GWBs government started the TARP program after Lehmans collapse, starting the whole QE policy which Obama is just continuing. He did not do nothing, in retrospect maybe it would have been better if he did in fact do nothing.

Bannasidhe

Spiritual wrote: »

What are your symptoms, do you require a Doctor?

I'm a doctor - not a 'proper' doctor mind just a PhD - so he may die but hey, one can't expect much from an uneducated nobody who sneers at Bill O'Reilly like me.

mike65

East coast old white men like O'Reilly just fear the future as it doesn't put them centre stage.

Snickers Man

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Not true at all Snickers Man, O' Reilly has a huge knowledge of history and is very intelligent by any account. Try and stick with the truth, not deviate into a fantasy land you're just making up as you go along.

Some of the rest of what you say above could be argued in a rational and cogent manner, but you're just throwing them out like as if they were obvious even though they certainly are not.

1/10. Must try harder.

I'd reply if you weren't banned.

wp_rathead

hooradiation wrote: »

The meltdown on bullshit mountain is glorious to watch.

Between Trump going full retard and this delightful temper tantrum, the internet is truly living up to its potential as the best possible source for unintentional hilarity.

Holy sh!t that was hilarious

I liked this bit:

When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

I know where he is coming from, the Government is so totalitarian not letting its citizens starve

His best one is his idea for a Button:

"Only Nazis support Seat Belt laws"

steddyeddy

White Americans a minority? Why do white americans feel unrepresented because the president is black? If you think Obama is too left then say that. Dont bring race into it. Despite race being an artificial concept (no biological meaning for humans) it should matter to intelligent men.

opinionated3

FloatingVoter wrote: »

The guy is a museum piece - his generation has had their moment in the sun. And they screwed it up. Lets let gay black women on welfare run things - it cannot produce a worse result than his ilk did.

BTW with a name like O'Reilly I doubt he'd get into the inner circle in certain golf clubs in the Hamptons (sniff sniff)...

We won. Forward.

Who is 'we'?