Bill O'Reilly is a curmudgeonly, repressed old man.

C

Clak

CAGiversary!
And this proves it.

Yeah sure, why would a 16 year old boy want to hang out with Kim Kardashian. Damn he needs to pull the stick out of his ass. Isn't this the same guy who was accused of sexual harassment a few years ago? The man is so repressed that he'd have us believe that he had no interest in women when he was 16 years old. I'm so sick of these hypocrites criticizing anyone who they feel doesn't conform to their "values". I'm sure that at 16 O'Reilly was a shy boy with no interest in girls, who always washed behind his ears and said his prayers before going to bed. What a crock of shit.

I have to take the Bill Maher approach and say this man needs to get fucking laid.
 
Sure he's out of touch a bit, but I can't say I'd disagree with his assessment. He is correct about the double standard issue, but that's never going to change. Also, I personally wouldn't have much interest in hanging out with Kim Kardashian no matter what my age, as I'm pretty sure she'd transmit the clap to you just by talking to her, but YMMV.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Sure he's out of touch a bit, but I can't say I'd disagree with his assessment. He is correct about the double standard issue, but that's never going to change. Also, I personally wouldn't have much interest in hanging out with Kim Kardashian no matter what my age, as I'm pretty sure she'd transmit the clap to you just by talking to her, but YMMV.[/QUOTE]

They recently released "An Education" without too much of a fuss, so as far as Hollywood is concerned the double standard issue is waning.

And who gives a fuck. It's not like you're forced to read whatever trashy rag these trashy photos were published in.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Sure he's out of touch a bit, but I can't say I'd disagree with his assessment. He is correct about the double standard issue, but that's never going to change. Also, I personally wouldn't have much interest in hanging out with Kim Kardashian no matter what my age, as I'm pretty sure she'd transmit the clap to you just by talking to her, but YMMV.[/QUOTE]

What I put in bold I agree with. Any non-gay 16 year male would kill to hang with Kim Kardashian. I would hang out her, to attract other insanely hot women to me. Most 26, 36, and 46 year old males wanna "hang out" out with her. Is O'Reilly repressed, HA!! NO!! You remember what he want to do female staffer. It's a front for his audience.
 
Bill O'Reilly is the most reasonable opinion guy at FOX News. This is something you're going to have to deal with.

Also any discussion relating in any way to Justin Bieber needs to be moved out of the vs. forum. I'm not saying Bieber may not foster debate, I'm saying any discussion of anything Bieber-related is inappropriate for this forum.
 
Do I care? Not a bit.
Is he right (about the double standard part)? "You betcha!"

Hell, Miley Cyrus took "sexy" artsy photos and the world was ready to burn her as a witch. Could you imagine if she had taken "sexy" photos with Pee Wee Herman...
 
[quote name='IRHari']Bill O'Reilly is the most reasonable opinion guy at FOX News. This is something you're going to have to deal with.

Also any discussion relating in any way to Justin Bieber needs to be moved out of the vs. forum. I'm not saying Bieber may not foster debate, I'm saying any discussion of anything Bieber-related is inappropriate for this forum.[/QUOTE]
The most reasonable person on Fox, that isn't saying much. The man once used Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong as examples for why atheists are evil. This isn't about that kid anyway, it's about O'Reilly.. He's so full of shit that he can probably taste it.

I'm so sick of these conservatives going around and acting like they have some sort of high ground on morals and values, it's bullshit.
 
[quote name='Clak']The most reasonable person on Fox, that isn't saying much. The man once used Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong as examples for why atheists are evil. This isn't about that kid anyway, it's about O'Reilly.. He's so full of shit that he can probably taste it.

I'm so sick of these conservatives going around and acting like they have some sort of high ground on morals and values, it's bullshit.[/QUOTE]


I doubt he was necessarily using Hitler, Mao, and Stalin as examples of why atheists are evil (although maybe he was, he does make some strange arguments sometimes). He was probably using these men as an argument against the belief that religion is bad and is the cause of violence and blah blah blah. The counter to that argument is to point to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. all of who DID force a completely secular society, and all of whom were in charge of some of the worst atrocities this world has ever seen.
 
^ :rofl:

EDIT: You can tell you're a homer when you make up, COMPLETELY WHOLESALE AND WITHOUT ANY PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, the entire context to make sense of an otherwise senseless statement.

"oh, I know it sounds weird that he brought up Hitler and Mao, but if he said it like this it would make sense - but i didn't see it."

fuckin' homer. :lol:
 
Nevermind O'Reilly (people actually watch his shit... ?)... Who the fuck is this Bieber idiot... I keep hearing this dumbasses name.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ :rofl:

EDIT: You can tell you're a homer when you make up, COMPLETELY WHOLESALE AND WITHOUT ANY PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, the entire context to make sense of an otherwise senseless statement.

"oh, I know it sounds weird that he brought up Hitler and Mao, but if he said it like this it would make sense - but i didn't see it."

fuckin' homer. :lol:[/QUOTE]

My point, and perhaps I went a bit over the top in reaching it, is that I find it unlikely that Bill O'Reilly would make a blanketed statement like "All atheists are evil because of Hitler", he's usually more articulate than that and can make a better argument. That line of thinking is more along the lines of Michael Savage's rhetoric, not Bill O'Reilly's.
 
Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

Dawkins believes that religion has been a bane to civilization, O'Reilly says that Atheism is, then goes on to use the aforementioned men as reasons why. Just a coincidence that all the men he mentions are considered evil by a majority of people. If he isn't saying it directly, he's implying that Atheism caused those men to do the things they did.

Let me put it this way, Hitler didn't want to wipe out the jews because they were religious. On the other hand, the fact that the crusaders were Christian is not a coincidence.
 
[quote name='Clak']Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

Dawkins believes that religion has been a bane to civilization, O'Reilly says that Atheism is, then goes on to use the aforementioned men as reasons why. Just a coincidence that all the men he mentions are considered evil by a majority of people. If he isn't saying it directly, he's implying that Atheism caused those men to do the things they did.

Let me put it this way, Hitler didn't want to wipe out the jews because they were religious. On the other hand, the fact that the crusaders were Christian is not a coincidence.[/QUOTE]

I agree with dawkins that it is a bane. Its a hinderance, its a excuse whatever is needed, it makes things simple and easy while requiring no independant thought and it makes easy people to control because it has no proof and no answers. Its this abstract thing with no foundation anyone can use however they want in any context they want.

And oreiley was wrong to reference those people as saying atheism is evil. You can take any religion or lack of religion in a group of people and find really bad people in them. Thats like saying because some kids from kentucky shoot up a school that all kids from kentucky are evil and bad. Besides from the crusades so long ago all the way to the people in this very country who were very religious and belived in christ just a couple hundred years ago that would burn their nextdoor neighbor alive for being a witch, christians killed more than hitler and his german army ever did.

I liked how dawkins asked about zeus and apollo and oreiley just makes some smart ass joke and completely avoids it entirely.

Besides, wasnt ted bundy a mormon? Does that mean oreiley doesnt think he is a bad person?
 
I will agree that Bill O' is the most somewhat sensible person featured on FNN. His arguments (from what little I've heard) seem only slightly skewed as opposed to the other anchors, most of whos every discussion smacks of mental illness.

[quote name='VipFREAK']Nevermind O'Reilly (people actually watch his shit... ?)... Who the fuck is this Bieber idiot... I keep hearing this dumbasses name.[/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV9j1Kgymbw

That's about it. :applause:
 
[quote name='gargus']I agree with dawkins that it is a bane. Its a hinderance, its a excuse whatever is needed, it makes things simple and easy while requiring no independant thought and it makes easy people to control because it has no proof and no answers. Its this abstract thing with no foundation anyone can use however they want in any context they want.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about religion or the Republican party?
 
Funny that the description is basically interchangeable, even more when you consider the christian conservative base of the republican party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top