Bill O'Reilly.....Slaves that built the white house were well fed

[bodecea]

I suggest you watch the HBO movie "All In", starring Bryan Cranston. It details the fight that the Civil Rights movement went through with LBJ.

It was Democrats that got the right to vote for the blacks, and eradicated the Jim Crow laws.

Yes, and we all know the reason why:

"I'll have those niggras voting Democrat for the next 200 years". - LBJ

By the way, it is interesting to see you Moon Bats getting your history from Hollywood. LOL!

Prove that quote is true.

 

[bodecea]

Todays Republicans brag about how they freed the slaves at the same time they defend the institution of slavery

Slaves were happy and well fed
Slaves were better off for being slaves
You know...black people owned slaves too
My ancestor was Irish and he was a slave too

Ummmm, Bill O'Reilly said that, not the entire Republican party.

FWIW, it was a dumb ass thing for him to say. Just because slaves were treated well and fed doesn't make slavery okay. Every slave group I've read about from the Hebrews in Egypt to the blacks in the US to preferred freedom and hunger over being a well-fed slave. Sure, not all, but most. Just like we have people in the US who want to be Federal welfare slaves or have their college paid for by other people like they were children, there will always be weak people, but most people desire freedom over servitude.

The issue isn't that slaves built the White House but that Conservatives today are trying to justify it

When was Bill O'Reilly elected to speak for all "Conservatives"? If Rachel Maddow said something equally asinine, would you admit she spoke for all Liberals?

O'Reilly doesn't speak for all Conservatives....but many Conservatives are digging the hole deeper than O'Reilly did....all by themselves.

 

[bodecea]

The issue isn't that slaves built the White House but that Conservatives today are trying to justify it

When was Bill O'Reilly elected to speak for all "Conservatives"? If Rachel Maddow said something equally asinine, would you admit she spoke for all Liberals?

You are, of course correct

I see conservatives lining up to disavow what O'Reilly said

Where?

 

[Neotrotsky]

The afro americans actually volunteered to move building materials so the Scottish, Irish, and Italian craftsmen could construct and teach the afro american various carpentry skills the afro americans used later for their own businesses.

Partly true...

But in 1803, not many slaves were going out and starting businesses with their new found skills

Nether were they the only ones working to build the white house that narrative is ignorant.

Why do Conservatives struggle with the term "only"

To say that black lives matter does not mean "only" black lives matter
To say slaves built the White House does not mean "only" slaves built the White House

It is true that saying black lives matter does not mean that only black lives matter. However, it does look very bad upon BLM members when they throw a tantrum because a politician states that all lives matter.

I cannot help wondering why politicians didn't point out that all lives matter when people started holding up signs saying that blue lives matter.

it is the racism that the Democrats are promoting with BLM that has people concerned

because anyone can be a cop and Blue LIves Matter is not racist
BLM is racist

next question

 

[Divine Wind]

O'Reilly doesn't speak for all Conservatives....but many Conservatives are digging the hole deeper than O'Reilly did....all by themselves.

Political partisans are very good at digging themselves into holes. Their most infamous way is to claim only the opposite side is flawed, fucked up and full of shit.

 

[Neotrotsky]

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

Oh...they were "well fed"? That makes it all better then.

Freedom Schmeedom, Am I right?

States Rights trumps Slavery.

Just ask any Southern conservative, circa 50 years ago or more.

Sorry, but the constitution was amended by republicans to.prevent that...although it exists in leftwing transfer payments

The Constitution was amended by liberal Republicans to abolish slavery, but was resisted by Southern conservatives for another century who insisted states rights took precedence.

"The Constitution was amended by Classical liberal Republicans to abolish slavery, but was resisted by Southern conservatives Democrats for another century who insisted states rights took precedence"

 

[Deleted member 53821]

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

Is it a fact or not? Were they well fed? I don't understand if Bill O'Reilly is correct then he is correct on it. Are you saying they were not well fed? I don't understand your objection.

He's trying to mitigate slavery. And he's ONLY doing it because of race.

The truth would mitigate slavery not what Bill O'reilly said. What if slaves were well fed?

What does that even mean?

It means he thinks blacks should blacks should stop bitching about racism

That is not what I meant but I wouldn't disagree with it. Seriously...who gives a **** anymore if you are discriminated against.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

There is nothing in there suggesting O'Reilly was claiming slavery was ok which was being implied and in some cases said outright by you and your fellow lefties. Got it, good, so long.

Yet, O'Reilly is soft selling the institution of slavery
"well fed and had decent lodgings" is an attempt to justify the use of slave labor
It wasn't so bad

It's also the right's contrarian idiocy, that Obama is "always wrong."

I am baffled how the right is always bragging about how they were the ones who ended slavery yet seem to defend slavery and its flag at every opportunity

Slavery is a non-issue in today's politics unless you actually know of a movement to bring back slavery? I'm pretty sure the democratic party took it out of its platform after 1865 or so. Maybe this should be moved to the history section of this website?

It may be a non-issue but it is one of the only accomplishments todays Republicans can point to when asked about minority outreach

That is because some people don't consider endless state welfare proper minority outreach. The second point is why to non-whites deserve special attention in the first place?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Bill O'Reilly's credentials as an historian are mocked by real historians

His "Killing" books are looked at as entertainment fabricated for the masses

Interesting...when it is for 'the masses' it is bad but when it is for intellectuals like 'real historians' then it is somehow good. Can you tell me why you have such a disdain for 'the masses' such as everyday working Americans that the democratic party pretends to care so much about?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Did you guys know that slavery was a very small issue back in 1776? It barely ever gets a footnote in the constitution or any of the documents relating to it. The only thing I can think of was that slaves were counted as 2/3 but that was about it. I don't think it occupied a lot of time in the debate about the new constitution or the old one for that matter. Perhaps people at the time didn't think this was a major issue that deserved a lot of attention.

1776 was the year of the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution didn't come until about 11 years later. And slavery was a big thing....Slavery was the topic of the second biggest compromise that the states had to come up with or else the South would have gone out on its own. And any student of history knows it was 3/5ths...not 2/3rds.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One only has to go through the federalist document to read the word slavery only about a few times. It wasn't a big deal to most people because it wasn't that many people. Slavery didn't get bigger until about 1850 so I'm guessing that it couldn't have preoccupied the mind of most Americans at the time. The compromise that you mentioned was more of a threat to northern power since allowing slaves to be one whole vote would give the south more power in the house of representatives. It must have really bothered the north to allow blacks to be treated as equals.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yet, O'Reilly is soft selling the institution of slavery
"well fed and had decent lodgings" is an attempt to justify the use of slave labor
It wasn't so bad

It's also the right's contrarian idiocy, that Obama is "always wrong."

I am baffled how the right is always bragging about how they were the ones who ended slavery yet seem to defend slavery and its flag at every opportunity

Slavery is a non-issue in today's politics unless you actually know of a movement to bring back slavery? I'm pretty sure the democratic party took it out of its platform after 1865 or so. Maybe this should be moved to the history section of this website?

It may be a non-issue but it is one of the only accomplishments todays Republicans can point to when asked about minority outreach

That is because some people don't consider endless state welfare proper minority outreach. The second point is why to non-whites deserve special attention in the first place?

Why doesn't the GOP engage in "proper" minority outreach?
It's the hundreds of years of "special attention" that caused all of this in the first place.

 

[Rozman]

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

Would you have been happier if they were not fed?...

 

[rightwinger]

Yet, O'Reilly is soft selling the institution of slavery
"well fed and had decent lodgings" is an attempt to justify the use of slave labor
It wasn't so bad

It's also the right's contrarian idiocy, that Obama is "always wrong."

I am baffled how the right is always bragging about how they were the ones who ended slavery yet seem to defend slavery and its flag at every opportunity

Slavery is a non-issue in today's politics unless you actually know of a movement to bring back slavery? I'm pretty sure the democratic party took it out of its platform after 1865 or so. Maybe this should be moved to the history section of this website?

It may be a non-issue but it is one of the only accomplishments todays Republicans can point to when asked about minority outreach

That is because some people don't consider endless state welfare proper minority outreach. The second point is why to non-whites deserve special attention in the first place?

We are the wealthiest nation on earth

We are capable of taking care of our less fortunate

 

[rightwinger]

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

Would you have been happier if they were not fed?...

Does it matter?

They were ******* slaves not being compensated for their own labor. Their masters made a big profit on the White House contract and you brag because they had a good breakfast?

 

[rightwinger]

Bill O'Reilly's credentials as an historian are mocked by real historians

His "Killing" books are looked at as entertainment fabricated for the masses

Interesting...when it is for 'the masses' it is bad but when it is for intellectuals like 'real historians' then it is somehow good. Can you tell me why you have such a disdain for 'the masses' such as everyday working Americans that the democratic party pretends to care so much about?

Historians have distinct checks and balances on what is accepted as the historical record. O'Reilly, in his books, tends to give historical credence to conspiracy theories and myths which are popular with the public

 

[Deleted member 53821]

It's also the right's contrarian idiocy, that Obama is "always wrong."

I am baffled how the right is always bragging about how they were the ones who ended slavery yet seem to defend slavery and its flag at every opportunity

Slavery is a non-issue in today's politics unless you actually know of a movement to bring back slavery? I'm pretty sure the democratic party took it out of its platform after 1865 or so. Maybe this should be moved to the history section of this website?

It may be a non-issue but it is one of the only accomplishments todays Republicans can point to when asked about minority outreach

That is because some people don't consider endless state welfare proper minority outreach. The second point is why to non-whites deserve special attention in the first place?

We are the wealthiest nation on earth

We are capable of taking care of our less fortunate

I never thought that black people were in the same catagory as the handicap.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Bill O'Reilly's credentials as an historian are mocked by real historians

His "Killing" books are looked at as entertainment fabricated for the masses

Interesting...when it is for 'the masses' it is bad but when it is for intellectuals like 'real historians' then it is somehow good. Can you tell me why you have such a disdain for 'the masses' such as everyday working Americans that the democratic party pretends to care so much about?

Historians have distinct checks and balances on what is accepted as the historical record. O'Reilly, in his books, tends to give historical credence to conspiracy theories and myths which are popular with the public

I see...popular opinion is to stupid to be taken seriously. When should we begin to dismantle the democratic system since it is kind of ran by popular opinion of the masses.

 

[The VOR]

Bill O'Reilly's credentials as an historian are mocked by real historians

His "Killing" books are looked at as entertainment fabricated for the masses

Interesting...when it is for 'the masses' it is bad but when it is for intellectuals like 'real historians' then it is somehow good. Can you tell me why you have such a disdain for 'the masses' such as everyday working Americans that the democratic party pretends to care so much about?

Historians have distinct checks and balances on what is accepted as the historical record. O'Reilly, in his books, tends to give historical credence to conspiracy theories and myths which are popular with the public

I see...popular opinion is to stupid to be taken seriously. When should we begin to dismantle the democratic system since it is kind of ran by popular opinion of the masses.

As soon as you can put together a grammatically correct sentence, that's when we should begin to do it. In other words, a long, long, long time from now.

 

[rightwinger]

I am baffled how the right is always bragging about how they were the ones who ended slavery yet seem to defend slavery and its flag at every opportunity

Slavery is a non-issue in today's politics unless you actually know of a movement to bring back slavery? I'm pretty sure the democratic party took it out of its platform after 1865 or so. Maybe this should be moved to the history section of this website?

It may be a non-issue but it is one of the only accomplishments todays Republicans can point to when asked about minority outreach

That is because some people don't consider endless state welfare proper minority outreach. The second point is why to non-whites deserve special attention in the first place?

We are the wealthiest nation on earth

We are capable of taking care of our less fortunate

I never thought that black people were in the same catagory as the handicap.

Sorry, I have no idea what the **** you are rambling about

 

[rightwinger]

Bill O'Reilly's credentials as an historian are mocked by real historians

His "Killing" books are looked at as entertainment fabricated for the masses

Interesting...when it is for 'the masses' it is bad but when it is for intellectuals like 'real historians' then it is somehow good. Can you tell me why you have such a disdain for 'the masses' such as everyday working Americans that the democratic party pretends to care so much about?

Historians have distinct checks and balances on what is accepted as the historical record. O'Reilly, in his books, tends to give historical credence to conspiracy theories and myths which are popular with the public

I see...popular opinion is to stupid to be taken seriously. When should we begin to dismantle the democratic system since it is kind of ran by popular opinion of the masses.

What a nonsensical post

Can you actually reply to what I posted?