In his talking points on 9/5, he declared:
It's not about race, it's about class.  If you're poor, you're in danger in America and everywhere else in the world!  The message of New Orleans is very clear.  If you don't get educated, and learn a skill, and force yourself to work hard, you will be standing on a symbolic rooftop waiting for help, and chances are that help won't be quick in coming!"

That quote is not exact.  I just heard him say it, and was stunned at the level of obnoxiousness in his remarks, even for Bill O'Reilly.  His guest for the segment suggested O'Reilly moderate his point of view and be more compassionate.  You know who it was?  Newt f**king Gingrich!

This goes hand-in-glove with Rush's scornful inquiries as to why those people in New Orleans can't afford cars.  These junkyard dog-right pundits know the federal government has turned its back on the American people.  The Bush Administration is here solely to serve capital, not people.  They're here to subsidize corporations with our tax dollars, not our welfare and security.  Guys like O'Reilly and Limbaugh know this.  They're just in denial about it.

The post-Katrina devastation in New Orleans demonstrates the ultimate failure of crony-capitalist government.  It is glaringly obvious.  They cannot hide from this failure.  Thus, the right-wing pundits are in a panic.  I expect them to call Jesse Jackson a racist, and protect Bush's rep at all costs.  I didn't quite expect them to have the audacity to suggest that our fellow Americans who lost everything, lost loved ones, and suffered in the post-hurricane heat, squalor, and deprivation are to blame for their own plight.  Hey old man, that's what you get for sharecropping instead of going to business school! 
O'Reilly ought to have his designer shorts set ablaze!
>:(

If everybody got educated, ignoring the financial impossibilty of a good education ffor a lot of people, there would be a severe shortage of willing manual laborers and a lot more educated people standing on proverbial rooftops. 

Like it or not, it's true. :-\\

If everybody got educated, ignoring the financial impossibilty of a good education ffor a lot of people, there would be a severe shortage of willing manual laborers and a lot more educated people standing on proverbial rooftops. 

Well, America is being fired as a nation because we won't work for fifty cents an hour.  Even if we would work for fifty cents an hour, we'd still get our jobs outsourced.  To whom?  To people who will work for twenty-five cents an hour!  But you know, this is the information age, we're in a service economy, and we don't need no stinking labor unions!

O'Reilly's message to the have-nots is in line with George Bush's message to the have-nots, and the Republican party's message to the have-nots.  That message, stated in a myriad of ways, boils down to: "**** you!"
That's why I have that quote from Burroughs on my siggie line.  It's too bad WSB didn't live long enough to see that clip of Bush actually giving the finger on camera, but even if Bush hadn't, the message is still the same.  "I got mine...every crumb for himself."  That's what O'Reilly is really saying.  The Repugs have no workable agenda, foreign or domestic, just a lot of fear-mongering bafflegab.
Conservative Christianity helps the Repugs in their quest to get those screwed over by crony-capitalism to feel ashamed of their neediness and their vulnerability.  Remember, poverty is not the result of economics (unless you're talking about Cuba), it's the result of indolence, character flaws, and immorality.  Jesus says so.
:D


Like it or not, it's true. :-\\

Uh, what is true?
I hope you're not going to say what I think you're going to say!
::)

Yes I'm saying what you think I am.  In a situation like a hurricane.....if you are poor and have no means of evacuating (no money no car)....you are more in danger of having to ride it out and therefore getting stuck in a situation like those in New Orleans.  Hopefully the govenment will now notice that this problem exist and in the next hurricane they will provide transportation as well as shelters in cities far away from the hurricanes target.  I think it sucks, but it happens.

Yes I'm saying what you think I am.  In a situation like a hurricane.....if you are poor and have no means of evacuating (no money no car)....you are more in danger of having to ride it out and therefore getting stuck in a situation like those in New Orleans.  Hopefully the govenment will now notice that this problem exist and in the next hurricane they will provide transportation as well as shelters in cities far away from the hurricanes target.  I think it sucks, but it happens.
Though true, sometimes reality sucks :-\\

Yes I'm saying what you think I am.  In a situation like a hurricane.....if you are poor and have no means of evacuating (no money no car)....you are more in danger of having to ride it out and therefore getting stuck in a situation like those in New Orleans.  Hopefully the govenment will now notice that this problem exist and in the next hurricane they will provide transportation as well as shelters in cities far away from the hurricanes target.  I think it sucks, but it happens.

The difference is you are not maligning their characters with prejudiced generalizations like O'Reilly is.  It is the nefarious practice of the Right to negate the realities of economic oppression with haughty rubbish about "hard work" and "personal responsibility."  I mean, both concepts are generally positive, but it is not true there are no barriers to success beyond the failure to apply them.
Bill O'Reilly lacks both compassion and wisdom, but those deficits are a prerequisite to current trends in conservative thought (a bit of an oxymoron there).

The difference is you are not maligning their characters with prejudiced generalizations like O'Reilly is.  It is the nefarious practice of the Right to negate the realities of economic oppression with haughty rubbish about "hard work" and "personal responsibility."  I mean, both concepts are generally positive, but it is not true there are no barriers to success beyond the failure to apply them.
Bill O'Reilly lacks both compassion and wisdom, but those deficits are a prerequisite to current trends in conservative thought (a bit of an oxymoron there).


I see your point.  I wonder if he really meant it that way or just lacked the tact say it "nicely".  I agree with a lot of Bill's opinions, but I think he is just too harsh a lot of the time.

being safe from situations do not go hand in hand with economics. Northridge, Earthquake, middleclass area, people die. Is it b/c they are middle class. No, it's b/c they can't fly with wings. Or, how about placing economics on every other natural disaster.

Give me a break.

BTW, Bill O'Reilly should really stay off his soapbox. He is in no position to judge!

being safe from situations do not go hand in hand with economics. Northridge, Earthquake, middleclass area, people die. Is it b/c they are middle class. No, it's b/c they can't fly with wings. Or, how about placing economics on every other natural disaster.

Give me a break.

BTW, Bill O'Reilly should really stay off his soapbox. He is in no position to judge!


You can't compare an earthquake with a hurricane.  Rich or poor you cannot predict and therefore avoid an earthquake.  It is correct though that in the event of a hurricane, people have the option to leave in order to avoid it.  Unfortunately many lower class people don't have the same luxury as say, someone like me.  I can get into my gas hog truck and drive it to Tessessee and pay $200.00 for gas $100.00 a night for lodging and it doesn't break the bank.  They don't have that kind of money to "waste" and therefore choose to ride it out.  Which does make it an issue of economics.  This is where the governement failed them.  The mayor and the Govenor should have known that a good amount of people did not have the ablility to flee.  They should have set something up for them.  You are right though....not all middle class or rich people evacuate and they die too.

In his talking points on 9/5, he declared:
It's not about race, it's about class.  If you're poor, you're in danger in America and everywhere else in the world!  The message of New Orleans is very clear.  If you don't get educated, and learn a skill, and force yourself to work hard, you will be standing on a symbolic rooftop waiting for help, and chances are that help won't be quick in coming!"



umm.. i'm confused.    When I read that statement, I see O'Reilly saying that the people are not so quick to help the lower class...  which is the same damn thing the liberals have been saying...and I don't see you slamming them... ??? ::)

Here is the actual Talking Points Memo  The part maxwell quoted is in red at the bottom.



Keeping the Record Straight on the Katrina Story
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly


Keeping the record straight on the Katrina story: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

Ground zero for the hate Bush movement is The New York Times Company, but its behavior in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina is so over the top, one wonders if CEO Janet Robinson has lost control over her operation.

There's no question the Bush administration was slow in getting relief to the hurricane zone. That's a legitimate criticism, but the personal attacks on President Bush by The New York Times Company, which includes The Boston Globe are beyond the pale.

Some examples:

- Far-left Globe columnist James Carroll: "The bystander-in-chief, of course, is George W. Bush, whose whining self-obsession perfectly embodies what America has done to itself."

- Far-left Times columnist Bob Herbert: "What we witnessed...was the dangerous incompetence and staggering indifference to human suffering of the president and his administration."

- Far-left Times columnist Paul Krugman: "The federal government's lethal ineptitude wasn't just a consequence of Mr. Bush's personal inadequacy; it was a consequence of ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve the public good."

So what these Bush haters are saying is that the president doesn't care if people suffer and die, and has geared the U.S. government toward putting Americans in jeopardy.

That's beyond ridiculous. The truth is this. Governor Blanco of Louisiana did not have a disaster plan in place, did not have enough state police and National Guard to secure a city the size of New Orleans, and did not push for federal help soon enough. President Bush was 24 hours too slow in reacting to the disaster. Why? I don't know. And the head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, seemed clueless for days.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Mr. Secretary, how is it possible that you could not have known on late Thursday, for instance, that there were thousands of people in the convention center, who didn't have food, who didn't have water, who didn't have security, when that was being reported on national television?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY: Well, Chris, you know, that's one of the issues we have to look at. I mean, we were in constant touch with what was going on in the field, getting information from state and local officials.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

So Chertoff is going to blame Louisiana. Louisiana is going to blame the Feds. So the bottom line, both were in chaos. And chaos is unacceptable in these dangerous times.

By the way, Michael Chertoff has consistently avoided confronting the border issue, which is another disaster just waiting to happen.

At this point, the office of Homeland Security does not inspire confidence, to say the least. You don't need personal attacks to make that point.

In another area that didn't take long before the race-hustlers hit the ground. They would have you believe reaction was slow because most of those stranded were black. Ultra-liberal columnist Jimmy Breslin said, "If whites were in trouble in New Orleans, I trust that this government would have been there early."

That is despicable nonsense. Newsday should be embarrassed for printing that kind of garbage. And NBC was embarrassed when rapper Kanye West (search) said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KANYE WEST, RAPPER: The way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible, they've given them permission to go down and shoot us. George Bush doesn't care about black people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NBC censored those remarks on the West Coast. And the remarks are simply nutty. I mean, come on, West is saying authorities want to shoot blacks? It doesn't get more irresponsible than that.

But what do you expect from an ideologically-driven newspaper industry and the world of rap, where anything goes? What do you expect?

"Talking Points" wants to reinforce two things. First, the huge, bureaucratic government will never be able to protect you. If you rely on government for anything, anything, you're going to be disappointed, no matter who the president is.

For example, engineers knew for decades the levee system in Louisiana could not withstand a Category 5 hurricane, but nobody wanted to pony up the $20 billion to shore it up. That kind of decision happens all day, every day.

Second point, New Orleans is not about race. It's about class. If you're poor, you're powerless, not only in America, but everywhere on earth. If you don't have enough money to protect yourself from danger, danger's going to find you. And all the political gibberish in the world is not going to change that.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina should be taught in every American school. If you don't get educated, if you don't develop a skill, and force yurself to work hard, you're most likely be poor. And sooner or later, you'll be standing on a symbolic rooftop waiting for help.

Chances are that help will not be quick in coming.
And that's "The Memo."

The way I see it is that everyone agrees that the government is set up in such a way that it doesn't help poor people in times of trouble. The point of disagreement is that I believe Maxwell believes that the government should strive to be more helpful, while O'Reilly is saying that people should strive to be less poor.

As I've said in another thread, I do happen to think that they might have been able to get aid into New Orleans much sooner if some idiots hadn't decided it would be cute to open fire on ambulances, fire trucks, and rescue helicopters.  >:(

Let's not beat around the Bush.

O'Reilly was being blunt about the social attitudes of conservatives.  Every man for himself, devil take the hindmost, and there is no such thing as economic injustice.  If you're poor it's because you're just a lazy azz mofo!

Let's not beat around the Bush.

O'Reilly was being blunt about the social attitudes of conservatives.  Every man for himself, devil take the hindmost, and there is no such thing as economic injustice.  If you're poor it's because you're just a lazy azz mofo!
What DO you think the root cause of poverty is in the United States, Max? I am inclined to believe that it is not so much laziness as it is despair and a sense of hopelessness which leads to self-destructive behavior. However, I'm also inclined to believe that if a person truly wants badly enough to improve their situation, and if they try hard enough, they can. I also know that it's much more difficult for some people than it is for others, due to their circumstances. But what's the answer? How can the cycle be broken and peoples' attitudes be changed so that they can lift themselves up? I'm not trying to put you on the spot or anything, but let's say tomorrow you wake up and find yourself in the Oval Office. You're the man in command. What would you do?

Let's not beat around the Bush.

O'Reilly was being blunt about the social attitudes of conservatives.  Every man for himself, devil take the hindmost, and there is no such thing as economic injustice.  If you're poor it's because you're just a lazy azz mofo!


Oreilly Said:
If you're poor, you're powerless, not only in America, but everywhere on earth. If you don't have enough money to protect yourself from danger, danger's going to find you.

Where do you get "There is no such thing as economic injustice" out of that!??!

I'm still trying to figure out which part of his statement you disagree with.  For each sentence he said in that memo, I could probably find at least two similar statements made by liberals/leftists on this board.

Oreilly Said:
If you're poor, you're powerless, not only in America, but everywhere on earth. If you don't have enough money to protect yourself from danger, danger's going to find you.
I can shoot a hole in that statement right now. Trent Lott lost his house, too.  Bang! ;)

Hi There

Been a while since I've posted from the UK but, well seeing the Hurricance scenes made me take notice and I was interested to see what you guys were saying on here.

All I can say is, that from where I am in the UK, we have been shocked at the devastation and human tragedy that has unfolded. Moreover, the ineptitude of the response by the federal government has left me open-mouthed in disbelief. It's been like watching news footage from a third world country NOT the leading economy of the first world !

Maybe I'm a victim of the Hollywood propaganda as much as the next person and expected a swift and effective response to the disaster whereas what we saw was anything but with people starving and without water in their tens of thousands.

Then to hear people discussing the validity of placing 'blame' upon the victims of the disaster for being poor just beggars belief. Trust me, the USA is a unique place in this world; usually I would say for many good reasons, but to blame poor people for not having cars and the means to escape a natural disaster is clearly insane.

On a side note - a few of my friends and I have been asking why so much of the housing in the USA is built out of timber and not out of brick and concrete. Is this an economic thing or to do with natural resources and/or custom.

There isn't much timber housing near me... maybe its a rural thing

Hi There

Been a while since I've posted from the UK but, well seeing the Hurricance scenes made me take notice and I was interested to see what you guys were saying on here.

All I can say is, that from where I am in the UK, we have been shocked at the devastation and human tragedy that has unfolded. Moreover, the ineptitude of the response by the federal government has left me open-mouthed in disbelief.
Believe me, most of us here in America feel the same way.



On a side note - a few of my friends and I have been asking why so much of the housing in the USA is built out of timber and not out of brick and concrete. Is this an economic thing or to do with natural resources and/or custom.
I can't answer this for sure, but my guess is that a good number of those houses were well over 100 years old.

Most poor people do not get wrapped up in self-destructive behavior.  Just because somebody is poor doesnt mean there a criminal or a drug addict or lazy or whatever.   People like to pat thereself on the back for being so hardworking and taking responsibility and they look down on a lot of poor people like there just lazy and don't do anything to help thereselves.  That is a bunch of crap.  All a lot of these so-called hard-working people ever did was grow up in a house in safe neighborhood where at least one parent had a decent job, and go to a decent school and get by with decent grades, maybe get into a half-decent college, get by with decent grades and get a job somewhere.  Big deal, what hard work.
If you had read my post carefully, you would have seen the part where I said I know that people can grow up in difficult, if not impossible situations. Perhaps I should have made myself more clear.
Half of these same people if they grew up with teen parents who couldn't take care of them and they went to a crappy school with crappy teachers they would end up uneducated and poor too.  Hey, I know most people don't care about poor people, but the negative stereotypes and looking down on them like there just too lazy to work as hard as you is ignorant.
You're jumping all over me and calling me ignorant and stuff, but I think you missed the point of my post. I was just asking, what can be done? You say that half the people who grew up with teen parents and went to bad schools with bad teachers wind up uneducated and poor. But this also implies that the other half go on to be successful. So what's the difference?

I can't answer this for sure, but my guess is that a good number of those houses were well over 100 years old.


And you didn't have bricks then?  'cos we did

House built in 1750

I tuned into O'Reilly for about 3 minutes today, it was about all I could stand, to hear some joker say that they reason the African American population is poor is because the kids listen and emulate rappers. O'Reilly agreed, and started to go off on a the irresponsiblity of the African American community for fostering this.  Well I wonder why there are poor whites, could that because of Rock and Roll, and those poor Hispanics with that Salsa all the time.  What about the poor Irish Catholic ghettos in Derry, I wonder what they are listening to that causes them to not want to work and live off of the dole, charity, and the church. And then there is India, what the heck must be going on over there?!!!!

I tuned into O'Reilly for about 3 minutes today, it was about all I could stand, to hear some joker say that they reason the African American population is poor is because the kids listen and emulate rappers.


I can make one comment on this.

Music works off of emotion.  And different types of music work off of different emotions.

"Mainstream" R&B works mostly off of love, heartbreak, and Religion.  It is the closest of all the "Modern Black Music" to it's blues origin.

Rock mostly works off of teen anger, teen love, and teen heartache.

Country tends to work with Love, Heartache, Patriotism, and Anger.

Rap?  It is almost pure Anger, sex, and the "Gangsta" lifestyle.  These are hardly good rolemodels.  I can honestly say that I can think of very very few Rap songs in the last 10 years that have much of a positive message.  A lot of the early works did (Hammer and Will Smith being good examples), but now it is "All About The Benjamins", "Capping" somebody, and "Thug Life".

And before anybody gets on a high horse, I listen to and play rap, both in my spare time and as a job.  This is not a slam, but a critique.  Can anybody name a rap song in the last few years with as positive a message as "Pray"?

It is not the music that creates poverty.  Joan Baez was not responsible for the anti war movement because of her music.  The Manson family didn't kill because they listened to "Helter Skelter"  Teens didn't start having sex because they listened to "Louie Louie"  And this is probably a whole other thread

The Manson family didn't kill because they listened to "Helter Skelter"


Actually, they did kill because of Helter Skelter, and the other songs on "The White Album".

Old Charlie convinced his followers that he was Jesus Christ, and The Beatles were his prophets.  Songs like "Helter Skelter", "Revolution",  and "Piggies" he claimed contined the instructions to kill "the establishment", and commit acts that would eventually lead to a race war, and his "Family" being the white masters once the blacks killed all the other whites in the world.

They may well have latched onto some other artist, but we will never know.  Charlie considered himself a musician, and The Beach Boys even recorded one of his songs.  Even before "The White Album", he considered The Beatles as "Devine Messengers".  More then likely, he would have twisted any songs they made to fit his needs.

Everyone seems to be making comments to the effect that all poor people want to live off of charity, or welfare. People working for minimum wage is also considered poor.

Or is the poor working class so much beneath you that you lump miminum wage workers in with the bums.

Actually, they did kill because of Helter Skelter, and the other songs on "The White Album".

Old Charlie convinced his followers that he was Jesus Christ, and The Beatles were his prophets.  Songs like "Helter Skelter", "Revolution",  and "Piggies" he claimed contined the instructions to kill "the establishment", and commit acts that would eventually lead to a race war, and his "Family" being the white masters once the blacks killed all the other whites in the world.

They may well have latched onto some other artist, but we will never know.  Charlie considered himself a musician, and The Beach Boys even recorded one of his songs.  Even before "The White Album", he considered The Beatles as "Devine Messengers".  More then likely, he would have twisted any songs they made to fit his needs.


No, these songs were excuses, not reasons.

Everyone seems to be making comments to the effect that all poor people want to live off of charity, or welfare. People working for minimum wage is also considered poor.

Or is the poor working class so much beneath you that you lump miminum wage workers in with the bums.


It speaks volumes that in the richest country in the world there are people who work 2 jobs and still qualify for assistance because they make so little.  Disgrace

It speaks volumes that in the richest country in the world there are people who work 2 jobs and still make less than people in other countries who lick envelopes for a living.

Actually, they did kill because of Helter Skelter, and the other songs on "The White Album".

Old Charlie convinced his followers that he was Jesus Christ, and The Beatles were his prophets.  Songs like "Helter Skelter", "Revolution",  and "Piggies" he claimed contined the instructions to kill "the establishment", and commit acts that would eventually lead to a race war, and his "Family" being the white masters once the blacks killed all the other whites in the world.

They may well have latched onto some other artist, but we will never know.  Charlie considered himself a musician, and The Beach Boys even recorded one of his songs.  Even before "The White Album", he considered The Beatles as "Devine Messengers".  More then likely, he would have twisted any songs they made to fit his needs.

I think you're onto the truth with the last sentence.  Manson is a sociopath.  He's smart, wily, and dangerous as all hell!  You'll never know straight what Charlie really believed.  In line with the pathology of sociopaths, Charlie sees people as objects.  He asks, "what can I get from this person, and what can I get this person to do for me?"  That's the extent of his feelings for others.  Charlie would say, "Hey,man, let's drop some acid together."  His victim would drop acid, and Charlie would fake it.  While the victim was tripping, Charlie would get in there and f**k with her mind.  Besides the obvious reasons why men like pretty young women, Charlie liked them because they were impressionable.  He also like guys like Charles "Tex" Watson.  Watson was football muscle, and he was also an idiot who would do everything Charlie told him to.
Did Charlie really think the Beatles were telling him to start a race war?, or was he using the greatest pop culture icon of the time to persuade young people to do his evil biddings?
You could go over to Charlie's cell tonight and ask him about it for an hour.  You'd get five different answers, an earful of paranoid bafflegab, and walk away none the wiser.

It speaks volumes that in the richest country in the world there are people who work 2 jobs and still make less than people in other countries who lick envelopes for a living.

The thing is, O'Reilly is making vulgar generalizations about tens of thousands of people.  He doesn't really know anything about them and their lives.  The important thing is that his viewers not reconsider the social structure of the country.  It is vital to O'Reilly's political agenda that nobody get the idea the government can help people.  If that means using crude and oafish rhetoric, so be it.  Let no taxes be raised on rich people to ease the plight of the vulnerable!

O'Reilly made an uncharacteristic attack on Big Oil, but that's a safe bet because gas prices are hurting the budgets of relatively well-off people who watch his program.

Did Charlie really think the Beatles were telling him to start a race war?, or was he using the greatest pop culture icon of the time to persuade young people to do his evil biddings?
You could go over to Charlie's cell tonight and ask him about it for an hour.  You'd get five different answers, an earful of paranoid bafflegab, and walk away none the wiser.


While there is considerable question as to why Charlie had the murders done, there is little question as to what The Family believed.

I am sure that Charlie knew that most of what he said came from his sick and twisted mind.  Personally, I think that at the time he was quite sane in most areas.  But he was able to convince his followers that everything he said was true.  And it was those followers who comitted the murders.

What Charlie himself believed really does not matter.

I know a lot of people that listen to rap and none of it is about violence or crime.  Of course the gangta stuff is what everybody pays attention to when they want to talk about how gutter and cheap "rap" is and how destructive it is in society.


Very true.  There is more to Rap than gangsta, but it doesn't feed the agenda.

The thing is, O'Reilly is making vulgar generalizations about tens of thousands of people.  He doesn't really know anything about them and their lives.  The important thing is that his viewers not reconsider the social structure of the country.  It is vital to O'Reilly's political agenda that nobody get the idea the government can help people.  If that means using crude and oafish rhetoric, so be it.  Let no taxes be raised on rich people to ease the plight of the vulnerable!



Oh I thoroughly agree. But it concerns me that many Americans get paid so little for the same jobs that would keep them quite comfortable in other places, and that so many seem to think that's ok.

Just a quick injection here.

Bill O'Reilly puts most of the blame on this disaster on the State and Local officials.  In the last week, that is where 80% of his criticism has been aimed at.

I just love when things are taken totally out of context, or that major parts are ignored in order to concentrate on one of the more minor points.

Just a quick injection here.

Bill O'Reilly puts most of the blame on this disaster on the State and Local officials.  In the last week, that is where 80% of his criticism has been aimed at.

I just love when things are taken totally out of context, or that major parts are ignored in order to concentrate on one of the more minor points.

I took nothing out of context.  The next night, O'Reilly implied those people in New Orleans were stranded because the lead a "gangsta" lifestyle.  He says blatantly racist things, and the tries to weasel his way out of it.  The response to the social impact of Katrina by conservative commentators is an emotional appeal to the upper classes loathe and fear poor black people.  Period.  They're race baiters one and all.
O'Reilly knows nothing about the families stranded after New Orleans.  His purpose propaganda, reality is an inconvenience.

As usual, conservatives showed more concern for wealth and property than for people.  Hannity, O'Reilly, Noonan, and the rest of them pounded the podium to prosecute "looters" from the get go regardless of how much they and their families may be suffering.  They do not want you, the public, to see the looting phenomenon for what it is, a mad and confused response to devastation.  They want you to see poor people, and especially people of color, as a threat to your well-being, and not the powers that be who so stratify the economy in favor of a slim margin of rich people.
FOX News, talk radio, the WSJ editorial paged has never shown it's ugly candor quite so clearly as it has this week.
**** all of them!

Two additional pundits who are challenging me to quell homicidal impulses: Geraldo Rivera and John Stossell.

The squawk show hosts are spinning like tops, maybe they got a call from Rove. The people working on a daily basis with the refugees have nothing but praise.  Of course the drama of praise for people isn't as ratings oriented as the "look how much better we are than they are" attitude is for the particular audiences they attract.  I turn on O'Reilly, he is slowly changing his attitude towards our embattled citizens from praise to blame.  Tune in in a weeks time, I bet it will be as ugly as ever.

After having heard Barbara Bush's statement about how the evacuees were "better off" living in the Superdome, I think it's safe to say that this is family which does NOT sypmathise with or understand the common people of this country. That comment was something on par with Antoinette's "let them eat cake."

After having heard Barbara Bush's statement about how the evacuees were "better off" living in the Superdome, I think it's safe to say that this is family which does NOT sypmathise with or understand the common people of this country. That comment was something on par with Antoinette's "let them eat cake."


OK, context interjection here!

For one, the comment was made about the Astrodome, not the Superdome.  There is a huge difference between the two.

For two, can you deny that it is true?  Or do you think it is better to live in a how that is to live in a town drowning in sewage?  And while it is a disaster that they lost their houses, it is also an opertunity for some to move.  I understand how hard it is to leave someplace where you are not happy.  It took me 7 years to get out of LA.  Because of the aid from FEMA, Red Cross and other groups, I am sure that a lot of those people will choose to live permanently in their new locations.  This is what happened after the "Dust Bowl" in the 1930's.  And one good way to "break the cycle of poverty" is to relocate to a place with more opertunity.

And lastly, remember that she is not a politician.  And she has largely been out of the spotlight for the last 13 years.  I never look to closely at the wife of a politician when she makes a gaffe.  It seems to me that this is a case of things being taken out of context.

OK, context interjection here!

For one, the comment was made about the Astrodome, not the Superdome.  There is a huge difference between the two.

For two, can you deny that it is true?  Or do you think it is better to live in a how that is to live in a town drowning in sewage?  And while it is a disaster that they lost their houses, it is also an opertunity for some to move.  I understand how hard it is to leave someplace where you are not happy.  It took me 7 years to get out of LA.  Because of the aid from FEMA, Red Cross and other groups, I am sure that a lot of those people will choose to live permanently in their new locations.  This is what happened after the "Dust Bowl" in the 1930's.  And one good way to "break the cycle of poverty" is to relocate to a place with more opertunity.

And lastly, remember that she is not a politician.  And she has largely been out of the spotlight for the last 13 years.  I never look to closely at the wife of a politician when she makes a gaffe.  It seems to me that this is a case of things being taken out of context.


What Barbara said was that "this is working out well for them"    So you think this is the way to move people out of poverty, as opposed to paying a living wage with benefits?  It is not working out well for anyone who has to live the reality of someone close who died in a terrible way, or people and especially children who are traumatized, and losing all of your personal and familial possessions.  They way I see it, you said you sent $50, a quarter of your weekly salary, to charity, well Mushroom you are officially working poor.  Barbara figures that if this happened to you it would be an opportunity for you.  What do you think?

After having heard Barbara Bush's statement about how the evacuees were "better off" living in the Superdome, I think it's safe to say that this is family which does NOT sypmathise with or understand the common people of this country. That comment was something on par with Antoinette's "let them eat cake."

Underneath that grandmotherly veneer is a wicked witch.  Babs is horrid. 

Neither government nor business has demonstrated any interest in helping  the American working class in the last five years.  Why should they start now? 
The right-wing pundits will continue to marginalize and malign those displaced by Katrina.  They'll focus on the few criminals among them and call the lot "ingrates."  I can just see it happening six months and a year down the road.

Oh, that's just people twisting it.  I don't like her or her husband too much, but I don't think people REALLY think she REALLY thought it was a good thing people were homeless.  It was a bad choice of words maybe, but certain people's political agendas are working overtime -- maybe they can work off some of that energy volunteering or packing up some clothes they don't hardly wear or something.


The biggest thing I notice here is that people hate President Bush so much, they will attack his mother for something she says, just to try and get him.

Now come on, do you really think she was talking about anything other then their situation after the flooding?  Are you all so political, in that you disect something that is said by the wife of a former President?

This is really pathetic.

Oh, that's just people twisting it.  I don't like her or her husband too much, but I don't think people REALLY think she REALLY thought it was a good thing people were homeless.  It was a bad choice of words maybe, but certain people's political agendas are working overtime -- maybe they can work off some of that energy volunteering or packing up some clothes they don't hardly wear or something.

Yeah, well I never hear anyone from the Bush family make a "good" choice of words.  They're a nasty bunch.  Babs isn't just the wife and mother of two awful U.S. presidents, she's "the brains behind pa," as Bob Dylan would say.

Having been, at one time, deeply entrenched in the world of the Boston Brahmin culture, and hearing
their comments dealing with their attitudes Babs choice of words do not surprise me at all.  Max and I
are native Massachusetts and know well the attitudes exuded, and he is right.  I believe she was absolutely sincere in her words, after all(she thinks) they don't really have anything, and familial and social attachments aren't felt by "those people" the same way they are by "us", so,  the outcome can only be a positive change from what they had previously.

O'Reilly's a twit!  :P

Having been, at one time, deeply entrenched in the world of the Boston Brahmin culture, and hearing
their comments dealing with their attitudes Babs choice of words do not surprise me at all.  Max and I
are native Massachusetts and know well the attitudes exuded, and he is right.  I believe she was absolutely sincere in her words, after all(she thinks) they don't really have anything, and familial and social attachments aren't felt by "those people" the same way they are by "us", so,  the outcome can only be a positive change from what they had previously.

Well, the true Brahmins would find that attitude crass.  Not that the Boston Brahmins are at all populist, but their norther Protestant heritage curbs total insensitivity to the plight of the poor.  In fact, philanthropy and charitable work is a time-honored tradition among Brahmins.  Their status as consummate snobs actually grants them a sense of ease among the lower classes.
That's why Babs is so obnoxious.  She ought to know better.  That kind of talk smacks more of nouveau riche ignorance than anything else.  Perhaps it's the Texas influence.


O'Reilly's a twit!  :P

I wouldn't say "twit," exactly, I'd say...well, rhymes with twit!
:-X

After all I KNOW he has jeans and workshirts because he puts them on whenever he wants to show the newspaper photographers "look, I'm just a regular guy choppin wood and clearin brush on my little ranch here".


Now that is not quite fair.  And people said the same thing about Reagan when he was President.

Bush has owned a ranch for years, and has run it himself, even before he was GOvernor of Texas.  Now what would you expect him to wear other then jeans?

Reagan also owned a working ranch in California, long before he ever entered politics.  I remember seeing newsreel footage of him working his ranch.  And that was in the 1950's, long before he entered politics.

I find it interesting that people will put somebody down because they are NOT a member of the elite, then bash them by saying that they ARE a member of the elite.

Now that is not quite fair.  And people said the same thing about Reagan when he was President.

Bush has owned a ranch for years, and has run it himself, even before he was GOvernor of Texas.  Now what would you expect him to wear other then jeans?

Reagan also owned a working ranch in California, long before he ever entered politics.  I remember seeing newsreel footage of him working his ranch.  And that was in the 1950's, long before he entered politics.

I find it interesting that people will put somebody down because they are NOT a member of the elite, then bash them by saying that they ARE a member of the elite.
I'm not saying that all Conservatives are right but if I had the choice....and thankfully because this is a free country (unless Gore or Kerry would've won) I've always felt as long as I've been on this earth, that the liberals are the worse of the evils...thier double-standards FAR outweigh the conservatives :D

But that sounds like John Kerry must be just another patronizing clown full of white guilt. Well, no duh! We've known that up here since 1984!
  I don't think anybody should apologize for being white and rich and educated and not knowing first-hand what struggling is like.  On the other hand I WOULD expect any President to have ENOUGH clue not to wear nice silk shirts and dressy pants when there visiting people who just got lost there family, there house and everything else.  Now THAT tells me something.  After all I KNOW he has jeans and workshirts because he puts them on whenever he wants to show the newspaper photographers "look, I'm just a regular guy choppin wood and clearin brush on my little ranch here".

I don't care if the President likes to get up in white spats and ride his polo ponies!  The question I ask is, "what is his platform?  What segment of society does he favor?  What kind of men and women will he appoint to his cabinet and the judciary?"  Neither Reagan's nor Bush's "regular guy" act fooled anybody with an IQ above room temperature!
Let's face it, a guy who wants to abolish the estate tax is even more elitist the any Carnegie, Rothschild, or Getty.  Heck, that's beyond "elitist."  That's nakedly anti-democratic.  These are guys that want to turn America into a giant banana republic!


I'm not saying that all Conservatives are right but if I had the choice....and thankfully because this is a free country (unless Gore or Kerry would've won) I've always felt as long as I've been on this earth, that the liberals are the worse of the evils...thier double-standards FAR outweigh the conservatives :D

When you declare the highest principles are greed, aggression, and ruthlessness, it's hard to get accused of having a double standard about anything.  No one ever called Attilla the Hun a hypocrite!
:D
However, it is only the Ayn Rand-type conservatives who can declare such monostandardism! I contend Republican party conservatives have a most nefarious double standard.  Any person who calls himself a Christian and supports laissez-faire capitalism has a double standard as duplicitous as any double standard in the history of civilization!