That’s what Bill O’Reilly thinks.
Gay groups tossed Fox’s Bill O’Reilly into the deep fryer Thursday for mocking a gay-friendly McDonald’s airing in France – and burning up the web.
The ad features a teen chatting his boyfriend on the phone while his dad is at the Mickey D’s food counter. He hurriedly hangs up and smiles wryly when his dad sits down and tells him he can have any girl he wants.
“Do they have an Al-Qaeda ad?” O’Reilly asked Wednesday night on his Fox show.
It’s hard to see how context adds anything that helps Billo here. After he and Jane Skinner are confused over why McDonald’s would make such an ad, he compares it to the validity of an ad for al-Qaeda. They apparently don’t get that McDonald’s is trying to reach out to all parts of society. That’s why they always have a black guy, Asian woman, and a few other minorities on their products and in their commercials. They want to come across as non-discriminatory. Billo has to be stupid to think that means they want to also reach out to terrorists.
I just hope they make another ad with the same actors where the kid comes out to his dad.
Filed under: News, Politics and Social, Rights | Tagged: Bill O'Reilly, Come As You Are, Gay ad, McDonald's |
For the Sake of Science 
Terrorists are people too. You don’t think they should advertise to them?
A sequel ad with him coming out would be awesome!!!
A sequel ad is needed where the kid is laughing about the death of Bill O’Reilly from terminal ignoramus.
Because that kind of hate is perfectly fine?
We O’Reilly hates nearly everyone, except fundy WASPS. He earned it all by himself.
I think, that you would like to think that is the truth. It would somehow justify you saying hateful things.
Of course its true. Just listen to all the hateful, racist, bigoted things O’Reilly says. There are hundreds of examples. Nearly every day produces more from him.
Hateful is a point of view of course. Almost anything a conservative says is considered racist or hateful. Watch an episode of countdown and tell me who is more full of hate, O’Reilly or Olberman.
Olberman is a moron. I don’t watch him. Hateful is not a point of view at all.
Of course its a point of view.
Racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry are more easily recognizable when their sources are recognized. This almost always means social and often government institutions. But it can also mean ideology. Conservatism generally seeks a reversion or stagnation of progress and change; the status quo is good for conservatives. This lends itself to racism, sexism, bigotry, etc, because it is closer to these ancient forms of discrimination.
Take the whole episode with the caricature feminists that showed up here a couple months ago. While none of my views are based in conservative ideology, they came across that way. (In this case, because disagreeing the caricature feminists = being sexist = not being progressive/liberal.) It wasn’t especially important that my point was that intention matters; it didn’t matter that it was only on philosophical principle that we differed. Dissent for caricature feminists labels one towards the conservative side, which is an ideology bent on turning the clock back. That equals sexism.
The same could be applied to a situation where someone, say, published a picture of a black person doing something very vaguely stereotypical. Even if the point of the picture was to show people participating in whatever, the fact that a black person was shown in a stereotypical light might be viewed as racist. To then point out the point of the photo could be interpreted as racist, even though that might be the furthest thing from the truth. (Note, this is a hypothetical situation. I know of no people fighting for better race equality who have made a name being a caricature. Maybe Al Sharpton in very specific, politically viable situations, but I think that’s even a stretch. It’s hard to find a parallel to caricature feminists.)
Speaking of race equality, how is affirmative action or similar programs anything other than inequality?
Because they are the opposite of inequality. There is a sickening tactic lately by the right wing conservative movement to label things the exact opposite of what they really are. Examples:
Cconservative compassion” was anything but compassionate.
The “tea party” is the exact opposite of the original Boston tea party, which was for obtaining freedom, where the current “tea party” is poorly disguised bigotry, racism, xenophobia and misogyny.
“mission accomplished” was a laughable lunacy. Nothing was accomplished.
You still haven’t explained how favoring a person because of their race over another person is not inequality. You’ve just come out with platitudes.
The question, of course is a silly. Do you not know the reason for affirmative action? Do you not know about past and current discrimination? Are you completely uneducated on the topic? Go get yourself educated, its not my job.
You also have to learn that specifics are not platitudes. Do you expect a book of explanations for every question? Do you think I don’t realize that all you do here is provoke and mostly spew nonsense?
You certainly do more than your fair share of provocation and spewing of nonsense.
I know that hiring the best or accepting the best candidates is a better and fairer option than trying to fill a quota of black or latino persons. Take the service academies for example.
Assume Westpoint is going to accept 100 candidates. Should they not accept the top 100 regardless of race or gender? If the top 100 are all black women than that’s what they should accept. Likewise if they are all white men than that’s what they should accept.
Doing anything else only lends some credence to the idea that race or gender makes a difference. Skin color or gender is a poor basis to make almost any choice. Hiring someone because of their race is no better than not hiring someone because of their race. If diversity is the goal than diversity of ideas will make a difference not diversity of skin color.
Top 100 by what criteria? Did they all get the same education? Are the Andover prep students and the inner city Detroit students equally prepared? Should they exclude everyone from Tennessee because the schools there are sub-standard? The Supreme Court made it clear that affirmative action was needed and constitutional and they are now backing off some, as they should, as discrimination lessens. This is also an excellent example of how strict interpretation of the constitution, as if it was gospel, is wrong.
Improving those schools should be a bigger priority than accepting students because of where they are from or what race they are. It comes down to who are the best candidates for a given position.
Strict interpretation of the constitution as if it were law would be nice, since it is law. There is a method for changing the supreme law of the land when it needs to be changed and it isn’t the supreme court.