Slimes at it again.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Sadly. the Gray Lady has turned into nothing more than a slut. Her latest target is Bill O'Reilly, calling him a racist because of his stated position of wanting REGULATED immigration. This is typical of the Slimes and the loony left in general, if you disagree with any leftist ideas, you get labeled a racist, a homophobe or whatever.

Forget the threat of terrorists coming accross an unguarded border, if you want to regulate immigrants, you're a racist according to the Slimes.

I'm sure Paul will come to the Slimes defense, spinning this in his usual way that only a radical loony can. I can't wait.

[Guest Guest]

Sadly. the Gray Lady has turned into nothing more than a slut. Her latest target is Bill O'Reilly, calling him a racist because of his stated position of wanting REGULATED immigration. This is typical of the Slimes and the loony left in general, if you disagree with any leftist ideas, you get labeled a racist, a homophobe or whatever.

Forget the threat of terrorists coming accross an unguarded border, if you want to regulate immigrants, you're a racist according to the Slimes.

I'm sure Paul will come to the Slimes defense, spinning this in his usual way that only a radical loony can. I can't wait.

Opening up a thread and calling someone a slut for having different opinion (none of them sexual) makes you look ignorant and crazed. What you said next has lost its meaning.

[Guest Guest]

Sadly. the Gray Lady has turned into nothing more than a slut. Her latest target is Bill O'Reilly, calling him a racist because of his stated position of wanting REGULATED immigration. This is typical of the Slimes and the loony left in general, if you disagree with any leftist ideas, you get labeled a racist, a homophobe or whatever.

Forget the threat of terrorists coming accross an unguarded border, if you want to regulate immigrants, you're a racist according to the Slimes.

I'm sure Paul will come to the Slimes defense, spinning this in his usual way that only a radical loony can. I can't wait.

Too bad you never quote the stuff you misrepresent. You're a liar and so is Bill-O.

[Guest Guest]

Sadly. the Gray Lady has turned into nothing more than a slut. Her latest target is Bill O'Reilly, calling him a racist because of his stated position of wanting REGULATED immigration. This is typical of the Slimes and the loony left in general, if you disagree with any leftist ideas, you get labeled a racist, a homophobe or whatever.

Forget the threat of terrorists coming accross an unguarded border, if you want to regulate immigrants, you're a racist according to the Slimes.

I'm sure Paul will come to the Slimes defense, spinning this in his usual way that only a radical loony can. I can't wait.

All the Times did was quote O’Reilly’s own words. Here’s the editorial.

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/...illy&st=cse

The Times doesn’t use the word “racist.” They just quoted O’Reilly. Here are his exact words: “But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have.”

And here’s a link to the video of him saying it.

http://crooksandliars.com/2007/05/31/bill-...is-in-jeopardy/

See also http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...ower_structure/

Sigmund Freud forbid we should break down the white Christian, male power structure or any part thereof. We should go back to how our country was founded, when only property-owning white men had any say in anything. Those darkies were probably happier in the cotton fields anyway. If we keep getting away from that, someday one of those colored boys might want to be president.

So if you think what O’Reilly said was racist, that’s your conclusion --- you drew the conclusion, moron! Not that you’re wrong. O'Reilly is a racist. You just said so and you’re too stupid to realize that you did it.

[Guest Read and Listen]

Sadly. the Gray Lady has turned into nothing more than a slut. Her latest target is Bill O'Reilly, calling him a racist because of his stated position of wanting REGULATED immigration. This is typical of the Slimes and the loony left in general, if you disagree with any leftist ideas, you get labeled a racist, a homophobe or whatever.

Forget the threat of terrorists coming accross an unguarded border, if you want to regulate immigrants, you're a racist according to the Slimes.

I'm sure Paul will come to the Slimes defense, spinning this in his usual way that only a radical loony can. I can't wait.

I copied the editorial below in full. I know you don't agree with it, but what part is inaccurate? I listened to the O'Reilly piece on YouTube. The New York Times was too kind to him. It's horrifying that young people on Long Island killed a Hispanic Male for being Hispanic (the young persons arrested called it "beaner bopping"). Horrifying.

Editorial

The Nativists Are Restless

The relentlessly harsh Republican campaign against immigrants has always hidden a streak of racialist extremism. Now after several high-water years, the Republican tide has gone out, leaving exposed the nativism of fringe right-wingers clinging to what they hope will be a wedge issue.

Last week at the National Press Club in Washington, a group seeking to speak for the future of the Republican Party declared that its November defeats in Congressional races stemmed not from having been too hard on foreigners, but too soft.

The group, the American Cause, released a report arguing that anti-immigration absolutism was still the solution for the party’s deep electoral woes, actual voting results notwithstanding. Rather than “pander to pro-amnesty Hispanics and swing voters,” as President Bush and Karl Rove once tried to do, the report’s author, Marcus Epstein, urged Republicans to double down on their efforts to run on schemes to seal the border and drive immigrants out.

This is nonsense, of course. For years Americans have rejected the cruelty of enforcement-only regimes and Latino-bashing, in opinion surveys and at the polls. In House and Senate races in 2008 and 2006, “anti- amnesty” hard-liners consistently lost to candidates who proposed comprehensive reform solutions. The wedge did not work for single-issue xenophobes like Lou Barletta, the mayor of Hazleton, Pa., or the former Arizona Congressman J. D. Hayworth. Nor did it help any of the Republican presidential candidates trying to defeat the party’s best-known voice of immigration moderation, John McCain, for the nomination.

Americans want immigration solved, and they realize that mass deportations will not do that. When you add the unprecedented engagement of growing numbers of Latino voters in 2008, it becomes clear that the nativist path is the path to permanent political irrelevance. Unless you can find a way to get rid of all the Latinos.

What was perhaps more notable than the report itself was the team that delivered it. It included Bay Buchanan, former adviser to Representative Tom Tancredo and sister of Pat, who founded the American Cause and wrote “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.” She was joined by James Pinkerton, an essayist and Fox News contributor who, as an aide to the first President Bush, took credit for the racist Willie Horton ads run against Michael Dukakis.

So far, so foul. But even more telling was the presence of Peter Brimelow, a former Forbes editor and founder of Vdare.com, an extremist anti-immigration Web site. It is named for Virginia Dare, the first white baby born in the English colonies, which tells you most of what you need to know. The site is worth a visit. There you can read Mr. Brimelow’s and Mr. Buchanan’s musings about racial dilution and the perils facing white people, and gems like this from Mr. Epstein:

“Diversity can be good in moderation — if what is being brought in is desirable. Most Americans don’t mind a little ethnic food, some Asian math whizzes, or a few Mariachi dancers — as long as these trends do not overwhelm the dominant culture.”

It is easy to mock white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out. The country has, of course, made considerable progress since the days of Know-Nothings and the Klan. But racism has a nasty habit of never going away, no matter how much we may want it to, and thus the perpetual need for vigilance.

It is all around us. Much was made of the Republican mailing of the parody song “Barack the Magic Negro,” but the same notorious CD included “The Star Spanglish Banner,” a puerile bit of Latino-baiting. It is easily found on YouTube. Google the words “Bill O’Reilly” and “white, Christian male power structure” for another YouTube taste of the Fox News host assailing the immigration views of “the far left” (including The Times) as racially traitorous.

And it takes only a cursory look at a worsening economic climate and grim national mood to realize that history is always threatening to repeat itself. Last week on Long Island, the authorities in Suffolk County unsealed new indictments against a group of teenage boys accused in a murderous attack against an Ecuadorean immigrant, Marcelo Lucero. Since that crime last year, many more victims have come forward with stories of assaults in or near the same town, Patchogue. The police in that suburb seem to have made a habit of ignoring a long and escalating trail of attacks against immigrant men, until the hatred rose up and spilled over one night, fatally.

[Guest Paul]

Sadly. the Gray Lady has turned into nothing more than a slut. Her latest target is Bill O'Reilly, calling him a racist because of his stated position of wanting REGULATED immigration. This is typical of the Slimes and the loony left in general, if you disagree with any leftist ideas, you get labeled a racist, a homophobe or whatever.

Forget the threat of terrorists coming accross an unguarded border, if you want to regulate immigrants, you're a racist according to the Slimes.

I'm sure Paul will come to the Slimes defense, spinning this in his usual way that only a radical loony can. I can't wait.

I'll be happy to oblige you, but perhaps you can post the link to where you think they wrote that. It would be most uncharacteristic, so I doubt that they did. I read the Times every day and haven't seen anything like that.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I'll be happy to oblige you, but perhaps you can post the link to where you think they wrote that. It would be most uncharacteristic, so I doubt that they did. I read the Times every day and haven't seen anything like that.

Editorial page director Andrew Rosenthal, Monday edition.

[WilliamK]

It would be unfair to characterize the Republican party in general as racist. But there's no reasonable denying that it has a racist element within its constituency, and that this is becoming a larger and larger problem for them. Their election of Michael Steele as chairman of the RNC was a good move towards dispelling some of the perceived association with racism, and also has delivered a rebuke to some of the genuine racism within their ranks. In the long run, this is a good trend, if it holds. But in the short term, it comes with a cost. There is an extremist element inside the party that is very unhappy, and threatening to revolt.

According to David Duke, a former Louisiana State Representative and a former KKK Grand Wizard (not simultaneously):

"As a former Republican official," writes Duke, "I can tell you that millions of rank-and-file Republicans are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore! We will either take the Republican Party back over the next four years or we will say, 'To Hell With the Republican Party!' And we will take 90 percent of Republicans with us into a New Party that will take its current place!"

(see http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2009/02/dav...nit-001572.php)

Now, I don't believe that David Duke represents mainstream Republican thinking, and I don't for a minute believe that he and his ilk would take anything even vaguely resembling "90 percent of Republicans" with them if they depart. But he does represent the views of a piece of the conservative base that the Republican party would certainly feel the loss of. The electorate is very divided, and many recent elections have been very close, so the loss of even a small constituency has the potential to produce a string of losses.

[Guest Paul]

Editorial page director Andrew Rosenthal, Monday edition.

No, it wasn't the Monday edition, but the full text is reprinted in post # 5 on this topic. O'Reilly's comment does suggest racism, whether intended or not. He's also guilty of religious bigotry and sexism.

Just as food for thought, why do you always state bare conclusions with no facts? Instead of parroting whatever O'Reilly says, just post the link. People can decide for themselves what the editorial says.

[Guest Patriot]

Editorial page director Andrew Rosenthal, Monday edition.

How's this for a kicker, the Slimes quoted "YouTube" and "Google" as sources. The old gray mare ain't what she used to be.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, it wasn't the Monday edition, but the full text is reprinted in post # 5 on this topic. O'Reilly's comment does suggest racism, whether intended or not. He's also guilty of religious bigotry and sexism.

Just as food for thought, why do you always state bare conclusions with no facts? Instead of parroting whatever O'Reilly says, just post the link. People can decide for themselves what the editorial says.

"He's also guilty of religious bigotry and sexism"? Is that statement a "bare conclusion with no facts" that you so deplore? I watch the O'Reilly Factor regularly and have never seen any examples of that. Could it be your bigotry on display here?

[Guest Read and Listen]

How's this for a kicker, the Slimes quoted "YouTube" and "Google" as sources. The old gray mare ain't what she used to be.

Huh? YouTube contains the tape of O'Reilly saying the offensive words. It's not serving as a "source" it's serving as proof what was said. Do you want to defend O'Reilly's words?

[Guest Paul]

"He's also guilty of religious bigotry and sexism"? Is that statement a "bare conclusion with no facts" that you so deplore? I watch the O'Reilly Factor regularly and have never seen any examples of that. Could it be your bigotry on display here?

Read O'Reilly's exact words: "But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have.”

He's linking power to race, religion and gender. None of those is a legitimate basis for power. In this context they are irrelevant to any appropriate public concern. That renders the statement racist, sexist and religiously bigoted. It isn't otherwise just because O'Reilly decided to complain about it.

Think about it for a change, instead of just parroting what O'Reilly tells you. There are reasons to restrict immigration. These include the applicant's life history, how the applicant's skills and abilities fit into our needs and of course our desire to admit people who follow the law. Race, religion and gender are not reasons to restrict an immigrant. That's why O'Reilly's remarks are so horribly wrong. He's bringing up race, religion and gender where they don't belong, and of course he's in the majority on all three counts. In fact, he explicitly said so. It's why he said it. He said that, too. That's the very essence of bigotry.

So the bigotry is his, and yours. By all indications, you didn't even consider the merit of the critique. By contrast and unlike you, I think about things before I write them.