O'Reilly & Geraldo Almost Come To Blows

Very staged. Bad actors, too.

IN the case of Rivers, it is because HE HIMSELF is wrapping himself in his Hispanic ethnicity; playing the very popular divisive angle rather than the traditional “we’re all Americans” melting pot perspective.

Then we should be criticizing him, as an individual, and not as an entire ethnicity.

I don’t know why you are complaining to me. I broadened the criticism to include other hyphenated Americans beyond just Hispanics.

Because "Hispanics" is a very broad brush, based on ancestry, that has nothing to do with loyalty to the U.S. and includes me.

Under that broad brush, I am "Hispanic" because of my Cuban birth and Spanish surname but I am a retired U.S. Naval officer. My uncle was also Cuban by birth but, when the shiite hit the fan in Vietnam, he was right there at the very beginning at Landing Zone X-Ray at the Battle of Ia Drang and is referenced in seven different pages in the book "We Were Soldiers Once". That was after fighting at the Bay of Pigs.

Why is it O.K. for an American whose ancestors fought at the Alamo or with Hood's Brigade to be proud of his Texas heritage and proud to be a Texan....

...but, if an American of Puerto Rican descent whose ancestor fought in the 65Th Infantry Division is proud of his Puerto Rican heritage or an American of Cuban descent is proud of his family heritage that included shedding blood at both the Bay of Pigs and at Ia Drang, he is considered something less than a full American?

Once upon a time, being an American and being "Irish" (Irish Brigade) or "French" (55th New York Volunteer Infantry "the Lafayette Guard") or "Italian" (39th New York "the Garibaldi Guard") or "Polish" (58th New York "Pulaski Guard") or "Scottish" (79th New York "Highlanders") did not mean you were less of an American. It simply signified where your particular ancestors came from and your own particular ancestral and ethnic heritage.

More Puerto Ricans died in US uniforms in Korea 1950-1953 than Americans from more than half of the individual states. The seminal book by S.L.A Marshall, PORKCHOP HILL, is full of soldiers identified as being Puerto Rican.

No one is disputing pride in one’s heritage. You are drifting WAY off the original thesis of this thread.

Rivera was arguing basically in favor of illegal immigration. Many Americans are puzzled as to why native-born and legally immigrated Cubans, Mexicans, Salvadorans, Venezuelans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Paraguayans, Brazilians, Columbians, Chileans, Argentinians and at great risk I say, etc, would come down on the side of illegal immigration. Sorry, but on the surface it appears to be a cultural/language alliance thing, trumping their Americanism.

To me, these people are Americans first and should worry about the consequences of our current immigration enforcement and what that means to the safety and health of our country.

Thank you for your service to our country.

Just a screaming match. O’Reilly looked like a fool because he couldn’t control his temper. Geraldo did the liberal thing at first and kept talking over the top of him, but O’Reilly looked like a nutjob.

Your logic is flawed. First of all, no one lures someone into their home to be robbed. Second of all, Geraldo is absolutely correct. Many of these people are LURED here. I worked for a company that actually had an in house coyote that made trips to Mexico for that purpose.

My logical comparison is that an illegal aliens can better their conditions by coming to this country illegally or similarly any poor person can better their conditions by a successful breaking into a rich person's home and stealing valuables.

Both situations have an attraction to people on the lower economic scale. But in the case of breaking and entering it would be laughable to use the excuse of worldly goods made me do it. To me it is laughable to use the excuse that this country lures immigrants here and therefore their illegal entry is justified. - tom

No one is disputing pride in one’s heritage. You are drifting WAY off the original thesis of this thread. Rivera was arguing basically in favor of illegal immigration. Many Americans are puzzled as to why native-born and legally immigrated Cubans, Mexicans, Salvadorans, Venezuelans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Paraguayans, Brazilians, Columbians, Chileans, Argentinians and at great risk I say, etc, would come down on the side of illegal immigration.

I, however, was commenting solely on the Hispanic and "hyphenated American" references.

I am against illegal immigration as are probably most legal immigrants.

What bothers me, however, is that the irritation that many justifiably have with illegal aliens is sometimes transfered to "Hispanics" as a whole and the expectation that being a full American means becoming a generic American with no ancestral history or ethnic uniqueness.

The generic "Heinz 57" American with no ethnic or even American regional heritage is a relatively recent phenomenon in American history. Prior to World War II, most Americans described themselves along those ethnic and regional lines as "Irish" or "Italian" or "Southerner" or "Yankee" or "Okie" without any more thought than describing themselves as being tall or short or blond or redheaded.

Back then everybody knew that Joe DiMaggio was "Italian" but nobody doubted that he was as American as apple pie ....... or pizza.

Back then, being a "Southerner" meant more than having grandparents from New York, Chicago, Las Vegas and Seattle and having worked for Coca-Cola and lived in Atlanta for the past 17 years.

To this day, much is made about the Scotch-Irish and the term is almost synonymous with "those men that forged the United States of America". Yet, nobody that speaks of his Scots-Irish heritage is called a "hyphenated American".

In our family tree, we have a somebody that commanded a Spanish frigate during the Battle of Pensacola when Spain defeated the British in Florida during the American Revolution and secured the American Colonies' southern flank.

That is unique to our ethnic heritage and is very "American".

Yet, unless our ancestors came from Scotland, England or Ulster, the rest of us are expected to hide our non-British ethnic heritage in the closet or not be considered full Americans when we take pride our ethnic heritage that may even include combat in the American Revolutionary War.

bttt

By the way, I think I know you from another message board. Nice to see you spread your idiocy across several message boards.

I was talking about what we might hear, NOT what I thought...for cyring out loud! Get a life or take a comprehension course.

...and of course I feel horrible for these young ladies. It is beyond the realm that I as a parent can fathom. But I will tell you that my brother was killed by a trucker being illegal and it didn't matter, he was still dead and it was an horrendous loss.

UHHHHH, what other message board are you talking about? This is the only one that I am on. Please answer that question, I'd like to go see what another Pure Country's thoughts are....

Even aside from that they commit a disproportionate amount of crime. It’s so wrong I can’t believe he even said it. Now legal immigrants may commit less and there are attempts to commingle the two to produce the statistical result that allows Whoraldo’s to gloss over unmentionable facts.

My son-in-law was a cop out in Colorado and he said that the illegals were out of control and the worst to apprehend. They showed no respect and were very beligerant (sp) He often talked about the neighborhoods that were "infested" and there was an underground movement that would make the underground railroad pale in comparison.

Yeah! The whole thing was staged for viewers. Afterwards they settled down and engaged in a subdued conversation.

All three are lousy arguments attempting to justify truly valid positions

I don't think your analogy stands up. Caucasian citizens have a right to be in this Country. Unborn children have a right to their lives. Illegal aliens do not have a right to be in this Country.

I don't think your analogy stands up. Caucasian citizens have a right to be in this Country. Unborn children have a right to their lives. Illegal aliens do not have a right to be in this Country.

Well, I think it does. I'll explain further.

In my opinion this death was not caused because the driver was in in this country illegally as BOR's argument implies. He was killed because a drunk got behind the wheel of a car. Whether it was a drunk illegal immigrant, a drunk legal immigrant, a drunk white engineer, a drunk CEO of Coors, a drunk Reverend Sharpton a drunk have a right to be in this country, a drunk have a right to live or a drunk whatever... the common denominator is A DRUNK, nothing else.

If the driver was Caucasian and drunk you wouldn't hear O'Reilly saying a thing, even though the exact same man would be dead at the exact same place and exact same time.

Getting control of immigration is an issue with many valid arguments. This is simply not one of them.

O'Reilly is trying to take an anecdotal instance to fan the fires of illegal immigration. It's obvious by dissecting his argument that he is actually saying that it's OK for a LEGAL immigrant to kill someone while driving drunk, but it's a hair-on-fire crime for an ILLEGAL to run someone over. His complete argument falls apart is one runs it through a bit of logic, but his job is to get people hyperventilating at the sound of the term illegal immigrant. If he succeeds at getting people to foam at the mouth, then he wins the argument. Of course he would also be able to win the argument that 2+2=5, once froth is induced.

O'Reilly is using two logical fallacies called 'The Bandwagon' and 'Confusing cause and effect'. The Bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person P is pressured by his/her peers or threatened with rejection.

Therefore person P's claim X is false.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because peer pressure and threat of rejection do not constitute evidence for rejecting a claim. This is especially clear in the following example:

Steve: "Joe, I know you think that 1+1=2. But we don't accept that sort of thing in our group. "
Joe: "I was just joking Steve. Of course I don't believe that."

Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:

A and B regularly occur together.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B. This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A (illegal immigration) is the cause of B (death) simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.

Geraldo also used logical fallacies. The most glaring was the use of the race card when in face illegal immigrants are not a race. Another fallacy was 'an appeal to emotion'. (These poor hard working Mexicans!) Also a fallacy.

Fact is, illegal immigrants should be deported. The obvious alternative is to declare the entire world a part of the United States and all 6 billion inhabitants natural U.S. citizens. That doesn't make sense of course.

It’s not just the greedy corporations. It’s also the Democrats and Republicans bought off by said greedy corporations. Both parties really are bought off by the big corporate pigs.

Geraldo is all on board for mainstream media’s Orwellian “anti-illegal immigration = anti-immigration” doublespeak. Geraldo is the type of phony leftist Latino who would speak of the “virtues” of a “North American Union”.

Read post 135. If his own words don’t convince you, you can’t handle the truth.

FoxFan ping!

Link to video is in #2

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

Thanks for the ping!