Bill O'Reilly still doesn't get it

WorldNetDaily ^ | February 14, 2004 | Stephen Bennett

[pointsal]

Billy O'Reilly is such a windbag....
Does he really stand for anything beyond this week's ratings?

[lilylangtree]

What's with O'Reilly? He's turned his back on Bush and is now for queer rights. He's not a conservative commentator. Fox needs to remove this piece of sh*t ASAP! He pretends to be a conservative but he's actually a liberal leftist. Get rid of O'Reilly!

[cricket]

"He's just a spineless opportunist who masquarades as "common folk".

. . .Well, don't see him as spineless or even as one who masquerades.

Actually think on this and many other topics, B. O'R. is himself, a victim of the Liberal mind. He would have us call him 'nice'; when in fact, he is just blinded by the Liberal log in his own eye. . .

And the truth is, O'Reilly does not have to 'masquerade' as common folk; he never has pretended to be otherwise. What he is having trouble with as of late; is simply being humble about who he has become.

And of course, recognizing that Liberal mind renders one 'reason impaired'.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Positive]

"O'Rielly has turned into the most self-promoted conceted pompous ass on TV and radio."

Oh come on!!!

I just ordered my O'Rielly coffee cup and tee shirt and calender and mouse pad and writing pen and multiple copies of his books and name and town, name and town, name and town...

[pawdoggie]

There is a real issue here that the Republicans can run with: Left-Wing activist judges, and the effects of their actions. Homosexual marriage, like banning the Boy Scouts or outlawing the Pledge of Allegiance, is but a byproduct of the decisions rendered by Left-Wing judges, AND THESE ARE THE JUDGES the Democrats have and will appoint to our courts. If that message gets out forcefully enough, it will be an effective counter to "radical right wing judges out to deny women their reproductive rights" argument the Democrats count on as an asset. If the argument is couched in those terms, and not in Pat Buchanan-esque "culture wars" rhetoric, voters can be swayed.

[lentulusgracchus]

As Dr. Bieber argues in this article, psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; and social effectiveness-‹that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively--"may coexist with psychopathology, in some cases even of a psychotic order."...

That was certainly true in the cases of the Unabomber and Terry Nichols/Tim McVeigh. Ted Kacszynski (sp?) was still functional in society at the outset of his bombing campaign. John Gacy was a less convincing case, but he was able to function in society before he was arrested, even though afterward Illinois law officers who dealt with him described him as an extremely creepy guy. Ted Bundy also comes to mind, as does O.J. Simpson.

[HitmanLV]

Thank goodness O'R is looking out for the 'folks.'

[lentulusgracchus]

I also think the best argument against gay marriage is the floodgates or slippery slope.....

Actually, I disagree. I think the best argument against the homosexual lobby is a processual one: they are mugging popular consensus using propagandistic techniques which they cheerfully admit, among themselves, were lifted from Josef Goebbels. (This in "Overhauling Straight America", the prepublication serialization of After the Ball in the Washington, DC Guide.)

Society has the right to set its sexual and familial mores in legal stone: statutory rape, age of consent, gender of married couples, adultery and abandonment, and so on.

Against that just power, and against the 98% who aren't gay, the homosexuals are making behind-the-scenes, Byzantine power plays and shopping the courts for friendly judges, and all the while lying about it in media. Just the other evening, ABC's Rich Furey tossed softballs to a homosexual advocate from the HRC, and the woman lied about the consequences of the Massachusetts liberal justices' power play against the People of Massachusetts. Rich Furey must have known, but didn't ask her about, the practical consequences for severely dissenting populations in e.g. Utah and Texas, of the Massachusetts' justices' threatened creation by decree of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. This is exactly what Evan Wolfson labored for all those years at Lambda Legal, as he describes here:

GLR: Meanwhile, many states have passed laws that expressly pre-empt the recognition of gay marriages consecrated in other states. Isn’t this a violation of the “full faith and credit” clause in the Constitution, not to mention a law that pre-empts a purely hypothetical situation?

EW: You’ve raised a lot of important questions. These anti-marriage laws that the right wing has been pushing in their state-by-state campaign will be challenged once we win marriage somewhere. You can’t go into court and say, “My marriage is being discriminated against under this discriminatory anti-marriage law,” until you have one somewhere. Civil union is a marital status but not marriage, and therefore those laws ought not to be a barrier to the basic respect that every couple is entitled to for their legal commitment, and that every state owes to one another. We should fight to protect and build on civil unions as well as other family protections. Still, full marriage is the only gateway to a vast array of protections throughout our country. There is no easy way to replicate what comes with marriage. What’s more, marriage is an indispensable part of people’s vocabulary in talking about love, family, and commitment, and we ought to claim that vocabulary. It is a mistake to try to avoid talking about our lives in language that other people can understand. We need to seize and shape the discussion about our lives in the terms that people can relate to......

Let me sum up one more thing. Lambda’s vision of how we’re going to move this civil rights movement forward is that the work we do has to have three elements, and these all have to happen together. The first is that we really need to seize and shape the terms of the debate. We need to speak to nongay people and tell our stories in powerful, resonant terms. We need to talk about marriage, we need to talk about the Boy Scouts. Second, we need to engage nongay people. We really need to be out there asking for support, not just talking to ourselves. And third, we need to undertake careful legal and political action within the climate of receptivity that we are creating.

-- From Gay and Lesbian Review, Jan./Feb. 2001, "Why the Boy Scouts Case Went Down", interview with Evan Wolfson, Director, Marriage Project, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (emphasis added)

http://www.glreview.com/issues/2001janfeb/features/feature15-1.html#article

[lentulusgracchus]

So what is O'Reilly's deal? Is it as simple as, he's got a gay family member at home and the gays got to him that way?

Remember, they "went after" Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney that way -- that is what PFLAG was founded for, to look for converts and "singers" among people who have gays in their families. The calculation is that people will deepsix their principles and morals before they put a relative over the side. The calculation appears to be right.

[lentulusgracchus]

As for anal intercourse, fisting, and other unsafe (and, to many, disgusting) practices, these can all be performed by heterosexual couples. Should heterosexual couples who prefer those practices to ordinary intercourse be prevented from marrying?

Maybe they should be strongly dissuaded from performing certain acts listed among the sexual esoterica. After all, they can't legally produce homemade $20 bills in the sanctity of the bedroom; why can't they be forbidden to spread fecal coliform and STD's around? If someone finds a gerbil up someone's colon, maybe that someone needs to give his colon a rest in jail for a while. To allow him to reflect on his folly, et cetera.

Comments?

[leadpenny]

Based on O'Reilly's popularity on this thread and many other threads over the past year or two, I'd say he has just about used up his 15 minutes of fame.

I know most on FR are not fans of Don Imus but he has had Bill O'Reilly on his show maybe a half dozen times over the last two to three years. O'Reilly can actually be entertaining to me when he is Imus' guest. Just as with Chris Matthews, Don Imus has tried to hint and openly suggest to O'Reilly that he calm down and give his guests time to talk and to not step on their lines. I've heard both Matthews and O'Reilly acknowledge their shortcomings, but, apparently they refuse to change.

[raptor29]

"If you watch him, he could care less what you think of him."

I think you just made my point. Guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage do care what the listener thinks. They have a firm idea about right/wrong, and where this country is going and where it should be going. It matters to them, and they don't compromise their positions on issues just to be more popular, to pursue ratings increases, or to give the impression that they are "fair" and "above it all", "non-partisan", etc. They tell it straight. Being fair and balanced doesn't mean you agree with the left and the right on a 50-50 basis. It means you tell the truth on a 100% basis. Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage pursue the truth. O'Reilly now pursues ratings, popular acceptance, and merchandise sales. He's no different from a politician who gets into office saying one thing, and then sells out the constituency that put him there once he gets in.

[sinkspur]

I think you're dead wrong about O'Reilly, but it's not worth arguing about.

[Antoninus]

Bill O'Reilly is on minute 14. His show is tiresome. His radio show is soporific. I stopped listening to him during the sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church last year when he showed himself to be just another ignorant, poorly catechized baby-boom CINO.

He is so finished.

[nmh]

I don't waste my time watching him anymore.

He's pro homosexual and against capital punishment. In fact he's rather soft on punishment in general. His Catholic upbringing is what he uses as his defense.

[Antoninus]

Unless O'Reilly is a practicing homosexual he is not in contradiction to Church teaching. Unlike abortion which is a situation where advocacy of it results in the taking of innocent life, homosexual conduct, not homosexuality, is a sin. Acceptance of people who participate in homosexual behavior by others, be they a parent of a gay, or a cable TV commentator, in no way contradicts the Church.

Nice try but you are completely wrong. Acceptance and enabling of sinful behavior is ALWAYS wrong and always a sin. Using your logic, a Catholic commits no sin when they "accept" a pedophile too. Given our current crisis, which was brought on primarily by just such "acceptance," your logic is particularly outrageous.

[nmh]

I don't waste my time watching him anymore.

He's pro homosexual and against capital punishment. In fact he's rather soft on punishment in general. His Catholic upbringing is what he uses as his defense.

One more thing ... he had a FORMER homosexual on and ridiculed him. I question O'Reilly's faith if he can't believe that God changes hearts and minds. He is not a Christian if he believes God doesn't change hearts/minds including homosexuals.

[scripter]

One more thing ... he had a FORMER homosexual on and ridiculed him.

Yep. That former homosexual was Stephen Bennett, the author of this article. He knows first hand where O'Reilly stands on homosexuality - he doesn't see the bigger picture.

[EdReform]

Bill O'Reilly just doesn't seem to get it. He's right on so many issues, but on homosexuality he's dead wrong. As I've said time and time again, people such as Bill O'Reilly have fallen for the "Gay Spin Zone." Their reasoning is based on emotion, not on logic. It's based on "tolerance," not truth. It's based on believing a misinformation campaign being waged by "gay" activists – and the media are the major conduit.

And part of the reason "gay" activists succeed in accomplishing this is because the homosexual community is entrenched in the public education establishment. While the infestation of homosexuals in the Church is bad, the infestation in the education establishment is worse. From the public schools and universities, to the homosexual caucus of the National Education Association Union, to homosexual groups such as Kevin Jennins' GLSEN, PFLAG, OutRight SpeakOut, and others, the homosexual community's top priority is indoctrinating kids. And their focus now is on elementary school age kids.