LOL! Bill O'Reilly compared Maxine Waters' hair to a James Brown wig.

[Rudy Canoza]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bill-O-Reilly-Rep-Maxine-Waters-James-Brown-hair-11033837.php

It's a very apt comparison, too.

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/24/67/34/5469954/3/920x920.jpg


No, it wasn't "racist" to say that.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bill-O-Reilly-Rep-Maxine-Waters-James-Brown-hair-11033837.php
>
> It's a very apt comparison, too.
>

It's spot on. :)

> http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/24/67/34/5469954/3/920x920.jpg
>
>
> No, it wasn't "racist" to say that.

I think they both bought the same style wigs.... at the same store.

It's NOT racists, maybe sexist? Or maybe it's NON sexual either.

[hal lillywhite]

Who cares about her hair? It's what's under that hair that is the problem.

[Bill Shatzer]

hal lillywhite wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 2:41:30 PM UTC-7, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bill-O-Reilly-Rep-Maxine-Waters-James-Brown-hair-11033837.php

>> It's a very apt comparison, too.

>> http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/24/67/34/5469954/3/920x920.jpg

>> No, it wasn't "racist" to say that.
>
> Who cares about her hair?

Bill O'Reilly apparently does. Though why he should escapes me entirely,

> It's what's under that hair that is the problem.

Then perhaps he should restrict his criticisms to that rather than
following Trump's lead and attacking political foes on their physical
appearance.

This is an all too often strategy of the right wing.

Incidentally, has any presidential term gotten off to a worse start than
this one? Perhaps William Henry Harrison who caught pneumonia on
inauguration day and died a month later comes close but Donald J is
certainly running a close second to William Henry.

peace and justice,

[hal lillywhite]

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 12:29:13 PM UTC-7, Bill Shatzer wrote:

> > Who cares about her hair?
>
> Bill O'Reilly apparently does. Though why he should escapes me entirely,

As it escapes me. Surely he can think of more important issues to criticize her about.

> > It's what's under that hair that is the problem.
>
> Then perhaps he should restrict his criticisms to that rather than
> following Trump's lead and attacking political foes on their physical
> appearance.
>
> This is an all too often strategy of the right wing.

Of both sides, in fact. Remember the claim that Ford couldn't walk and chew gum
at the same time? And we've had lots of comments about Trump's hair, and one thread here about his necktie.

> Incidentally, has any presidential term gotten off to a worse start than
> this one? Perhaps William Henry Harrison who caught pneumonia on
> inauguration day and died a month later comes close but Donald J is
> certainly running a close second to William Henry.

Other than two issues (new health care bill and blocking immigrants from some countries), he seems to be getting things done. Latest is overturning the Obama
regulation forcing states to fund Planned Parenthood, though I do not understand
why that took Congress. If Obama issued the order, seems Trump could just cancel it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/30/2017 4:28 PM, hal lillywhite wrote:
> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 12:29:13 PM UTC-7, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>>> Who cares about her hair?
>>
>> Bill O'Reilly apparently does. Though why he should escapes me entirely,
>
> As it escapes me. Surely he can think of more important issues to criticize her about.
>
>>> It's what's under that hair that is the problem.
>>
>> Then perhaps he should restrict his criticisms to that rather than
>> following Trump's lead and attacking political foes on their physical
>> appearance.
>>
>> This is an all too often strategy of the right wing.
>
> Of both sides, in fact. Remember the claim that Ford couldn't walk and chew gum
> at the same time? And we've had lots of comments about Trump's hair, and one thread here about his necktie.

It wasn't really about his necktie, of course.

[Bill Shatzer]

hal lillywhite wrote:
> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 12:29:13 PM UTC-7, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>>> Who cares about her hair?
>>
>> Bill O'Reilly apparently does. Though why he should escapes me entirely,
>
> As it escapes me. Surely he can think of more important issues to criticize her about.
>
>>> It's what's under that hair that is the problem.
>>
>> Then perhaps he should restrict his criticisms to that rather than
>> following Trump's lead and attacking political foes on their physical
>> appearance.

>> This is an all too often strategy of the right wing.

> Of both sides, in fact. Remember the claim that Ford couldn't walk and chew gum
> at the same time?

That was Chevy Chase and Saturday Night Live. So far as I can recall, no
prominent Democrats participated in that.

And SNL has satirized just about every politician (and many
non-politicians) of every stripe since at least the Nixon administration

> And we've had lots of comments about Trump's hair, and one thread here about his necktie.

The posters on these news groups are NOT the equivalent of Bill
O'Reilly. O'Reilly is a quasi-official spokesman for the right wing
Republican party. The posters on these newsgroups are not.

>> Incidentally, has any presidential term gotten off to a worse start than
>> this one? Perhaps William Henry Harrison who caught pneumonia on
>> inauguration day and died a month later comes close but Donald J is
>> certainly running a close second to William Henry.

> Other than two issues (new health care bill and blocking immigrants from some countries),
> he seems to be getting things done.

You seem to be missing the elephant in the room. Which other president
was the subject of not one, not two, but three official investigations
less than 70 days into his term?

Donald wanted an investigation. He got three. The old Chinese proverb
about being careful what you wish for springs to mind.

It doesn't (yet) have a snappy name like Watergate or Iran Contra - but
patience grasshopper, patience. All in good time.

peace and justice

[hal lillywhite]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 7:29:42 PM UTC-7, Bill Shatzer wrote:

> > Of both sides, in fact. Remember the claim that Ford couldn't walk and chew gum
> > at the same time?
>
> That was Chevy Chase and Saturday Night Live. So far as I can recall, no
> prominent Democrats participated in that.

Repeating, and sanitizing, what LBJ said.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/lyndonbjo157407.html

Last I checked LBJ was rather of the democrat persuasion.

> And SNL has satirized just about every politician (and many
> non-politicians) of every stripe since at least the Nixon administration
>
> > And we've had lots of comments about Trump's hair, and one thread here about his necktie.
>
> The posters on these news groups are NOT the equivalent of Bill
> O'Reilly. O'Reilly is a quasi-official spokesman for the right wing
> Republican party. The posters on these newsgroups are not.

Huh? Much more quasi than official I would think and I certainly do not
recognize him to speak for my side.

> >> Incidentally, has any presidential term gotten off to a worse start than
> >> this one? Perhaps William Henry Harrison who caught pneumonia on
> >> inauguration day and died a month later comes close but Donald J is
> >> certainly running a close second to William Henry.
>
> > Other than two issues (new health care bill and blocking immigrants from some countries),
> > he seems to be getting things done.
>
> You seem to be missing the elephant in the room. Which other president
> was the subject of not one, not two, but three official investigations
> less than 70 days into his term?

To be expected. Maybe there is something there, maybe not, but is anyone really
surprised that the left is following Alinsky's recipe?

Meanwhile we have things like major corporations keeping jobs in the U.S.

[Bill Shatzer]

hal lillywhite wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 7:29:42 PM UTC-7, Bill Shatzer wrote:

>>> Of both sides, in fact. Remember the claim that Ford couldn't walk and chew gum
>>> at the same time?

>> That was Chevy Chase and Saturday Night Live. So far as I can recall, no
>> prominent Democrats participated in that.

> Repeating, and sanitizing, what LBJ said.
> https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/lyndonbjo157407.html

> Last I checked LBJ was rather of the democrat persuasion.

That does sound like LBJ.

Still, if was a comment on Fords mental abilities, not his physical
appearance nor his coordination. If your opponent is dumbr than a brick,
a comment on that is fair enough - although Johnson's language may have
been more colorful than most.

Incidentally, Johnson's comment can not have been directed at Ford's
physical stumbles - those occurred at least after LBJ was dead and buried.

>> And SNL has satirized just about every politician (and many
>> non-politicians) of every stripe since at least the Nixon administration

>>> And we've had lots of comments about Trump's hair, and one thread here about his necktie.

>> The posters on these news groups are NOT the equivalent of Bill
>> O'Reilly. O'Reilly is a quasi-official spokesman for the right wing
>> Republican party. The posters on these newsgroups are not.

> Huh? Much more quasi than official I would think and I certainly do not
> recognize him to speak for my side.

Trump apparently watches O'Reilly's show religiously.

Still to refer to "your side" is something of an Irish Bull - your
"side" is split into so many incongruous and feuding factions it's tough
to determine which one or ones are the true "your side".

I doubt even you can identify a spokesperson who can speak for "your
side" on all matters.

>>>> Incidentally, has any presidential term gotten off to a worse start than
>>>> this one? Perhaps William Henry Harrison who caught pneumonia on
>>>> inauguration day and died a month later comes close but Donald J is
>>>> certainly running a close second to William Henry.

>>> Other than two issues (new health care bill and blocking immigrants from some countries),
>>> he seems to be getting things done.

>> You seem to be missing the elephant in the room. Which other president
>> was the subject of not one, not two, but three official investigations
>> less than 70 days into his term?

> To be expected. Maybe there is something there, maybe not, but is anyone really
> surprised that the left is following Alinsky's recipe?

A self-inflicted wound. Absent his (libelous) tweet bout his wires being
tapped, the entire matter would have a much lower profile if it were
even being pursued at all.

> Meanwhile we have things like major corporations keeping jobs in the U.S.

Mostly Trump propaganda. Almost all of his claimed jobs were already in
the works before before the election.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/17/news/companies/donald-trump-jobs-watch/

And who is to say that the small number of "new" jobs would not have
developed regardless of who was elected?

peace and justice,

[hal lillywhite]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 4:51:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> prominent Democrats participated in that.
>
> > Repeating, and sanitizing, what LBJ said.
> > https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/lyndonbjo157407.html
>
> > Last I checked LBJ was rather of the democrat persuasion.
>
> That does sound like LBJ.

> Still, if was a comment on Fords mental abilities, not his physical
> appearance nor his coordination.

But the newsies who picked it up leaned democrat.

>If your opponent is dumbr than a brick,
> a comment on that is fair enough - although Johnson's language may have
> been more colorful than most.

Still an unfair comment. Yale law school is not known to admit dummies.

> Incidentally, Johnson's comment can not have been directed at Ford's
> physical stumbles - those occurred at least after LBJ was dead and buried.

The publicized ones, true. However LBJ would have known Ford for years while
both were in Congress. And of course the physical stumbles were not unusual. In
fact I rather suspect that many of the newsies making fun of his ski slope falls
probably couldn't ski a bunny slope.

...

> >> The posters on these news groups are NOT the equivalent of Bill
> >> O'Reilly. O'Reilly is a quasi-official spokesman for the right wing
> >> Republican party. The posters on these newsgroups are not.
>
> > Huh? Much more quasi than official I would think and I certainly do not
> > recognize him to speak for my side.
>
> Trump apparently watches O'Reilly's show religiously.

So what? Watching something does not mean agreement. In fact I would hope that
he gets information from a variety of sources.

> Still to refer to "your side" is something of an Irish Bull - your
> "side" is split into so many incongruous and feuding factions it's tough
> to determine which one or ones are the true "your side".
>
> I doubt even you can identify a spokesperson who can speak for "your
> side" on all matters.

True and I think that is a good thing. Whenever two people agree on everything,
you can be sure that one of them is doing all the thinking (if any thinking is
being done at all). A variety of viewpoints is healthy.

...

> >> You seem to be missing the elephant in the room. Which other president
> >> was the subject of not one, not two, but three official investigations
> >> less than 70 days into his term?
>
> > To be expected. Maybe there is something there, maybe not, but is anyone really
> > surprised that the left is following Alinsky's recipe?
>
> A self-inflicted wound. Absent his (libelous) tweet bout his wires being
> tapped, the entire matter would have a much lower profile if it were
> even being pursued at all.

Information coming out now makes it rather uncertain, it does look like the
Obama administration had gobs of wire-tap information. Whether that was directed
at Trump or just a wide net remains to be seen.

> > Meanwhile we have things like major corporations keeping jobs in the U.S.
>
> Mostly Trump propaganda. Almost all of his claimed jobs were already in
> the works before before the election.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/17/news/companies/donald-trump-jobs-watch/

Yet even that article (and CNN is certainly not pro-Trump) says, "Businesses
are more confident, and the pro-growth promises of President Trump are a big
reason why."

> And who is to say that the small number of "new" jobs would not have
> developed regardless of who was elected?

That is always a question for the thinking voter. However, whether because of
Trump's policies or otherwise, it does look like a success for him. That makes
for a political success which may or may not be an economic success.

[hal lillywhite]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 7:01:20 PM UTC-7, hal lillywhite wrote:

> > Incidentally, Johnson's comment can not have been directed at Ford's
> > physical stumbles - those occurred at least after LBJ was dead and buried.
>
> The publicized ones, true. However LBJ would have known Ford for years while
> both were in Congress. And of course the physical stumbles were not unusual. In
> fact I rather suspect that many of the newsies making fun of his ski slope falls
> probably couldn't ski a bunny slope.

PS. Making fun of Ford's agility was especially egregious. He was probably our
most athletic president, a former all-american on a two-time national championship
team.

And what the hell does walking and chewing gum have to do with being president?
Oh good, our economic and international problems will go away. Our president can
walk and chew gum at the same time. That seems to be what they are implying.

[Bill Shatzer]

hal lillywhite wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 4:51:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Shatzer wrote:

- snip -

>> A self-inflicted wound. Absent his (libelous) tweet bout his wires being
>> tapped, the entire matter would have a much lower profile if it were
>> even being pursued at all.

> Information coming out now makes it rather uncertain, it does look like the
> Obama administration had gobs of wire-tap information. Whether that was directed
> at Trump or just a wide net remains to be seen.

Both Comey and Rogers have effectively refuted any such allegation.

But you are falling for Trump's somewhat transparent attempt to divert
attention from what really matters.

The pertinent question is what Russia did to attempt to influence and/or
subvert the 2016 election and whether Trump or his minions were
complicit in that attempt.

Everything else is just a red herring attempting to divert our attention
from the things which really matter.

peace and justice,

[hal lillywhite]

On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 9:08:28 PM UTC-7, Bill Shatzer wrote:

> > Information coming out now makes it rather uncertain, it does look like the
> > Obama administration had gobs of wire-tap information. Whether that was directed
> > at Trump or just a wide net remains to be seen.
>
> Both Comey and Rogers have effectively refuted any such allegation.
>
> But you are falling for Trump's somewhat transparent attempt to divert
> attention from what really matters.

Beyond the Trump admin.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/03/susan-rice-requested-to-unmask-names-trump-transition-officials-sources-say.html

> The pertinent question is what Russia did to attempt to influence and/or
> subvert the 2016 election

Of course they did, just as Obama tried to influence the Israeli election. That
is one thing tyrants do. However, the real question is not if they tried but if
they successfuly affected the outcome. Almost certainly they did not.

>and whether Trump or his minions were
> complicit in that attempt.

That is indeed an important question. So far, AFIK, there is no evidence of that,
only accusations.