Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wallace offered to become a Republican if Goldwater would choose him as his VP.Well, Wallace sure as hell wouldn't be a Democrat today would he? When President Johnson said he'd lose the south for a generation, Wallace was the kind of Democrat he was talking about losing. (Goodbye to bad rubbish)
Oh, and do explain how Mrs Obama's statement "takes advantage of people's ignorance"? What would people be "ignorant" about that you feel needed clarification? What is the importance of pointing out that the slaves were "well fed" when Mrs. Obama was not saying they weren't?
Slaves worked with many other workers they didn't build it themselves
So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Wallace was a democrat
Again, yes and? Would he be one today? Would Wallace be a Democrat or a Republican today? Do try to be honest.
He wouldn't be in politics today, but the "Democratic" party is the party of slavery, segregation, and lynching... Deal with girl.
Wallace was a conservative and said so himself.
Wallace was a democrat, nothing you can say changes that.
That must be why African Americans are voting for Hillary.Hilary's e mails contained racist bigoted filth. Which one is running for president?
I don't think O'Reilly's really being personal. But, as a goper, one really has to dismiss the black vote as being illegitimate and just bought and paid for by dem graft. If you do that, and then count up "us against them" you legitimize your own view as the dems representing a real minority of "regular folk." The latino influx of voters just adds to the "call" to count yours as more worthy ... cause we ain't got numbers.O'Reilly's statement was a bizarre, perverse attempt to denigrate Michelle Obama. Nothing more, nothing less.
George Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWallace offered to become a Republican if Goldwater would choose him as his VP.Slaves worked with many other workers they didn't build it themselves
So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Wallace was a democrat
Again, yes and? Would he be one today? Would Wallace be a Democrat or a Republican today? Do try to be honest.
He wouldn't be in politics today, but the "Democratic" party is the party of slavery, segregation, and lynching... Deal with girl.
Wallace was a conservative and said so himself.
Wallace was a democrat, nothing you can say changes that.
Michelle: I wake up in a house built by slaves
O'Reilly: What's the big deal? They ate well
except that's not even close to what he said or implied. The reason your side has no credibility is that you constantly lie.
That was O'Reilly's response to the First Lady
"Slaves were well fed"....... Woop De Fucking Do Bill
Go on his website and listen to the entire quote. That is not anywhere close to what he said. At the end he said that she was basically correct, but that slaves were not the only people who built the whitehouse.
I get it that you don't like O'Reilly because he give both sides and tells the truth, telling the truth might be a good thing for you and your dem friends to try.
What is the point of claiming the slaves were 'well fed'?
I don't think O'Reilly's really being personal. But, as a goper, one really has to dismiss the black vote as being illegitimate and just bought and paid for by dem graft. If you do that, and then count up "us against them" you legitimize your own view as the dems representing a real minority of "regular folk." The latino influx of voters just adds to the "call" to count yours as more worthy ... cause we ain't got numbers.O'Reilly's statement was a bizarre, perverse attempt to denigrate Michelle Obama. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thus, blacks weren't really contributing to America until 1965 or so. But, when you confront things just not about blacks fighting in our early wars, or helping settle the west. but even having a hand in building the WH ... things that we don't teach in school and sure aren't part of John Wayne's Western .. then perhaps you have to reexamine the legitimacy of their resentment.
Pot, meet kettle.I don't think O'Reilly's really being personal. But, as a goper, one really has to dismiss the black vote as being illegitimate and just bought and paid for by dem graft. If you do that, and then count up "us against them" you legitimize your own view as the dems representing a real minority of "regular folk." The latino influx of voters just adds to the "call" to count yours as more worthy ... cause we ain't got numbers.O'Reilly's statement was a bizarre, perverse attempt to denigrate Michelle Obama. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thus, blacks weren't really contributing to America until 1965 or so. But, when you confront things just not about blacks fighting in our early wars, or helping settle the west. but even having a hand in building the WH ... things that we don't teach in school and sure aren't part of John Wayne's Western .. then perhaps you have to reexamine the legitimacy of their resentment.
There is a reason why that defense still stands today.Steak and caviar at every meal
Bill O'Reilly: Slaves who built White House were 'well-fed'
"Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well. Got it all? There will be a quiz."
Conservatives are absolutely clueless
So stating simple historical facts are something to be avoided? Tell us oh all knowing one, where did he get it wrong?
Then someone who was from those times should also be believed, such as Abigail Adams, who said:
Two of our hardy N England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12, but it is true Republicanism that drive the Slaves half fed, and destitute of cloathing, ... to labour, whilst the owner waches about Idle, tho his one Slave is all the property he can boast.
How Abigail Adams Proves Bill O'Reilly Wrong About Slavery
So much for slavery apologist O'Reilly about how well they were taken care of
The argument that slaves were well cared for was common to the defense of slavery. O'Reilly, for god knows what reason, is just carrying that on.
Its the same old conservative defense of....they were better off as slaves than "jungle bunnies"
Pot, meet kettle.I don't think O'Reilly's really being personal. But, as a goper, one really has to dismiss the black vote as being illegitimate and just bought and paid for by dem graft. If you do that, and then count up "us against them" you legitimize your own view as the dems representing a real minority of "regular folk." The latino influx of voters just adds to the "call" to count yours as more worthy ... cause we ain't got numbers.O'Reilly's statement was a bizarre, perverse attempt to denigrate Michelle Obama. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thus, blacks weren't really contributing to America until 1965 or so. But, when you confront things just not about blacks fighting in our early wars, or helping settle the west. but even having a hand in building the WH ... things that we don't teach in school and sure aren't part of John Wayne's Western .. then perhaps you have to reexamine the legitimacy of their resentment.
Pelosi says Clinton struggles with white male vote because of 'guns, gays and God' | Fox News
Unfortunately all you have to prove your hypothesis is heresay and your own prejudice.
There is a reason why that defense still stands today.So stating simple historical facts are something to be avoided? Tell us oh all knowing one, where did he get it wrong?
Then someone who was from those times should also be believed, such as Abigail Adams, who said:
Two of our hardy N England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12, but it is true Republicanism that drive the Slaves half fed, and destitute of cloathing, ... to labour, whilst the owner waches about Idle, tho his one Slave is all the property he can boast.
How Abigail Adams Proves Bill O'Reilly Wrong About Slavery
So much for slavery apologist O'Reilly about how well they were taken care of
The argument that slaves were well cared for was common to the defense of slavery. O'Reilly, for god knows what reason, is just carrying that on.
Its the same old conservative defense of....they were better off as slaves than "jungle bunnies"
Michelle: I wake up in a house built by slaves
O'Reilly: What's the big deal? They ate well
except that's not even close to what he said or implied. The reason your side has no credibility is that you constantly lie.
That was O'Reilly's response to the First Lady
"Slaves were well fed"....... Woop De Fucking Do Bill
Go on his website and listen to the entire quote. That is not anywhere close to what he said. At the end he said that she was basically correct, but that slaves were not the only people who built the whitehouse.
I get it that you don't like O'Reilly because he give both sides and tells the truth, telling the truth might be a good thing for you and your dem friends to try.
What is the point of claiming the slaves were 'well fed'?
because they were. it was said to counter the lib mantra that all slaves were always abused. Some were, some were not. The ones working on the whitehouse were treated well.
That does not excuse or rationalize the horror that was slavery.
If you dems would work on things that really matter, like ISIS wanting YOU dead, instead of BS like this, you might gain some credibility for your party. But you won't, your idiotic convention proves it.
Didn't world-renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Francis Cress Welsing believe whites were child like in relation to blacks as one of her main crackpot theories?Then someone who was from those times should also be believed, such as Abigail Adams, who said:
Two of our hardy N England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12, but it is true Republicanism that drive the Slaves half fed, and destitute of cloathing, ... to labour, whilst the owner waches about Idle, tho his one Slave is all the property he can boast.
How Abigail Adams Proves Bill O'Reilly Wrong About Slavery
So much for slavery apologist O'Reilly about how well they were taken care of
The argument that slaves were well cared for was common to the defense of slavery. O'Reilly, for god knows what reason, is just carrying that on.
Its the same old conservative defense of....they were better off as slaves than "jungle bunnies"
They even used the argument that slaves were better off than the working poor of Europe.
Singing...dancing...carrying on
They are such a happy race but basically child like and needing the white mans guidance
You are far more likely to change your mind about how evil slavery is than I am.There is a reason why that defense still stands today.Then someone who was from those times should also be believed, such as Abigail Adams, who said:
Two of our hardy N England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12, but it is true Republicanism that drive the Slaves half fed, and destitute of cloathing, ... to labour, whilst the owner waches about Idle, tho his one Slave is all the property he can boast.
How Abigail Adams Proves Bill O'Reilly Wrong About Slavery
So much for slavery apologist O'Reilly about how well they were taken care of
The argument that slaves were well cared for was common to the defense of slavery. O'Reilly, for god knows what reason, is just carrying that on.
Its the same old conservative defense of....they were better off as slaves than "jungle bunnies"
Hey look, a guy who wants to bring back slavery.
wow, the closet door must have fallen off its hinges.
Nice attempt at a deflection, but it very much does, and Pelosi's statement is far worse than Bill O'Reilly's.Pot, meet kettle.I don't think O'Reilly's really being personal. But, as a goper, one really has to dismiss the black vote as being illegitimate and just bought and paid for by dem graft. If you do that, and then count up "us against them" you legitimize your own view as the dems representing a real minority of "regular folk." The latino influx of voters just adds to the "call" to count yours as more worthy ... cause we ain't got numbers.O'Reilly's statement was a bizarre, perverse attempt to denigrate Michelle Obama. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thus, blacks weren't really contributing to America until 1965 or so. But, when you confront things just not about blacks fighting in our early wars, or helping settle the west. but even having a hand in building the WH ... things that we don't teach in school and sure aren't part of John Wayne's Western .. then perhaps you have to reexamine the legitimacy of their resentment.
Pelosi says Clinton struggles with white male vote because of 'guns, gays and God' | Fox News
Unfortunately all you have to prove your hypothesis is heresay and your own prejudice.
That has nothing to do with what I posted. I've posted often that Obama is a liberal elitist - his and Holder's Ferguson adventure for example. And some blacks are racist.
What I said was that it would take literally an epiphany for a person like ORielly to think we should alter our teaching of American history to fully include the experience of slaves on the same level of detail as we do with the expansion westward.
And I was saying that what O'Reilly said doesn't, to me, make him a flaming racist. Merely a RW guy who needs to retire.
You are far more likely to change your mind about how evil slavery is than I am.There is a reason why that defense still stands today.So much for slavery apologist O'Reilly about how well they were taken care of
The argument that slaves were well cared for was common to the defense of slavery. O'Reilly, for god knows what reason, is just carrying that on.
Its the same old conservative defense of....they were better off as slaves than "jungle bunnies"
Hey look, a guy who wants to bring back slavery.
wow, the closet door must have fallen off its hinges.
Saying that black slaves in America had it better than Sub-Saharan Africans is not making an argument to bring back slavery at all.
Nice attempt at a deflection, but it very much does, and Pelosi's statement is far worse than Bill O'Reilly's.Pot, meet kettle.I don't think O'Reilly's really being personal. But, as a goper, one really has to dismiss the black vote as being illegitimate and just bought and paid for by dem graft. If you do that, and then count up "us against them" you legitimize your own view as the dems representing a real minority of "regular folk." The latino influx of voters just adds to the "call" to count yours as more worthy ... cause we ain't got numbers.O'Reilly's statement was a bizarre, perverse attempt to denigrate Michelle Obama. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thus, blacks weren't really contributing to America until 1965 or so. But, when you confront things just not about blacks fighting in our early wars, or helping settle the west. but even having a hand in building the WH ... things that we don't teach in school and sure aren't part of John Wayne's Western .. then perhaps you have to reexamine the legitimacy of their resentment.
Pelosi says Clinton struggles with white male vote because of 'guns, gays and God' | Fox News
Unfortunately all you have to prove your hypothesis is heresay and your own prejudice.
That has nothing to do with what I posted. I've posted often that Obama is a liberal elitist - his and Holder's Ferguson adventure for example. And some blacks are racist.
What I said was that it would take literally an epiphany for a person like ORielly to think we should alter our teaching of American history to fully include the experience of slaves on the same level of detail as we do with the expansion westward.
And I was saying that what O'Reilly said doesn't, to me, make him a flaming racist. Merely a RW guy who needs to retire.
In case you forgot, and/or can't read your own post, you were talking about conservatives thinking of their constituency as "regular folk", and of minorities as "illegitimate".
Nancy Pelosi revealed that Democrats think of white males(and females) as the "illegitimate" ones and turned your heresay-based opinions on their head.
It is an argument that even the lowest class in a western society has a better life than the highest class in a non-western country(region of a continent).You are far more likely to change your mind about how evil slavery is than I am.There is a reason why that defense still stands today.The argument that slaves were well cared for was common to the defense of slavery. O'Reilly, for god knows what reason, is just carrying that on.
Its the same old conservative defense of....they were better off as slaves than "jungle bunnies"
Hey look, a guy who wants to bring back slavery.
wow, the closet door must have fallen off its hinges.
Saying that black slaves in America had it better than Sub-Saharan Africans is not making an argument to bring back slavery at all.
It's an argument that being enslaved is better than being free.
Wallace was right wing, nothing you can say changes that.Well, Wallace sure as hell wouldn't be a Democrat today would he? When President Johnson said he'd lose the south for a generation, Wallace was the kind of Democrat he was talking about losing. (Goodbye to bad rubbish)
Oh, and do explain how Mrs Obama's statement "takes advantage of people's ignorance"? What would people be "ignorant" about that you feel needed clarification? What is the importance of pointing out that the slaves were "well fed" when Mrs. Obama was not saying they weren't?
Slaves worked with many other workers they didn't build it themselves
So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Wallace was a democrat
Again, yes and? Would he be one today? Would Wallace be a Democrat or a Republican today? Do try to be honest.
He wouldn't be in politics today, but the "Democratic" party is the party of slavery, segregation, and lynching... Deal with girl.
Wallace was a conservative and said so himself.
Wallace was a democrat, nothing you can say changes that.
Stop whining when I challenge your hateful attacks on Conservatives with actual facts. Don't you see enough dishonest strawmen against Republicans all over the media?Nice attempt at a deflection, but it very much does, and Pelosi's statement is far worse than Bill O'Reilly's.Pot, meet kettle.I don't think O'Reilly's really being personal. But, as a goper, one really has to dismiss the black vote as being illegitimate and just bought and paid for by dem graft. If you do that, and then count up "us against them" you legitimize your own view as the dems representing a real minority of "regular folk." The latino influx of voters just adds to the "call" to count yours as more worthy ... cause we ain't got numbers.O'Reilly's statement was a bizarre, perverse attempt to denigrate Michelle Obama. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thus, blacks weren't really contributing to America until 1965 or so. But, when you confront things just not about blacks fighting in our early wars, or helping settle the west. but even having a hand in building the WH ... things that we don't teach in school and sure aren't part of John Wayne's Western .. then perhaps you have to reexamine the legitimacy of their resentment.
Pelosi says Clinton struggles with white male vote because of 'guns, gays and God' | Fox News
Unfortunately all you have to prove your hypothesis is heresay and your own prejudice.
That has nothing to do with what I posted. I've posted often that Obama is a liberal elitist - his and Holder's Ferguson adventure for example. And some blacks are racist.
What I said was that it would take literally an epiphany for a person like ORielly to think we should alter our teaching of American history to fully include the experience of slaves on the same level of detail as we do with the expansion westward.
And I was saying that what O'Reilly said doesn't, to me, make him a flaming racist. Merely a RW guy who needs to retire.
In case you forgot, and/or can't read your own post, you were talking about conservatives thinking of their constituency as "regular folk", and of minorities as "illegitimate".
Nancy Pelosi revealed that Democrats think of white males(and females) as the "illegitimate" ones and turned your heresay-based opinions on their head.
Dude, the thread is about ORielly, you want to deflect start another thread, knock you're focking dishonest ass out.
