Comments on: Bill O’Reilly Defends Lesbian Couple’s Kids In Catholic School Controversy

By: autobahn

autobahn — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:30:14 +0000

I saw the comment above about Bill’s audience dying off. Last I heard, his ratings were through the roof. Maybe the poster could provide a link with the latest numbers.

By: writer

writer — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:00:27 +0000

No Royal, you’re the liar. I may have not quoted verbatim, but the idea remains the same. And I’ll use the above post so there’s no mistake this time. “I was not speaking to or with Farrakhan, and would not comment. In other words, I wasn’t go(sic) to speak behind his back.” Did you say that or not? Now, the question is, why do you have no such hesitation about speaking “behind backs” when the person in question is white? You don’t want to ‘label’ Farrakhan, yet you never hesitate to label (White) people as racists. Why the double standard?

By: The Real Royal King

The Real Royal King — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:22:04 +0000

None of which changes the fact that you deliberately misquoted me, that you lied. Deflection!

By: writer

writer — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:02:31 +0000

You dance like Fred Astaire. You label large numbers of white people as racist, but with blacks, even blacks like Farrakhan, you won’t do it. Hypocrite.

By: The Real Royal King

The Real Royal King — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:00:33 +0000

You are misquoting me to serve your own nefarious purposes. What said was that I was not speaking to or with Farrakhan, and would not comment. In other words, I wasn’t go to speak behind his back. I was comfortable calling you out because I was speaking to you.

By the way, I spoke with Farrakhan once, merely in passing, at O’Hare.

By: writer

writer — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:25:40 +0000

Interesting, Karl, about calling people racists. In a different thread, (White) Royal “K”ing said that since he’s never spoken with Louis Farrakhan, he would hesitate to label him a racist. But when it comes to tea party crowds, or even entire sections of the country (particularly the South) Royal has no hesitation in labeling them as racists. Do you suppose he’s spoken to each one personally, and that’s why the labeling is permissible?

By: The Real Royal King

The Real Royal King — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:09:51 +0000

Sorry, Karl, I should have included you among the “rightists” who makes sense. And, you’ve got a really good sense of humor. Was your father a Good Humor Man, as well?

By: The Real Royal King

The Real Royal King — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:08:09 +0000

Chris Jones says:
March 11, 2010 at 12:27 pm

Actually, the idea that O’Reilly ever held radical right-wing positions was a myth cooked up by the liberal media who rarely watch the show. The media has found in Glenn Beck someone to hate more than O’Reilly, thus O’Reilly appears more moderate all of a sudden.

—

Sounds something like Doris Day’s famous quip, “That was before I was a virgin.”

Actually, Chris, I always enjoy your ideas. I enjoyed this one and admit it has some merit. You are one of the few rightists around here, along with Michelle F, who makes any sense at all.

By: Karl Spensen

Karl Spensen — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:43:48 +0000

HAHAHAHAHahAHAHA I see what you’re saying – RRK is a RACIST!!!1 I LOVE LOVE LOVE calling libs RACISTS… like the rest of my fellow Right Thinking Americans, doing so gives me a huge FREEDOM CHUBBY!!1 Cause they’ve spent their whole lives WHINING about minorities and gays that when you call them RACISTS it’s the LAST thing they expect!!1 Every time you call a lib a RACIST, an angel gets his wings!!1

By: writer

writer — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:10:13 +0000

(White) Royal “K”ing, you were the one talking about O’Reilly’s ratings. So isn’t the show on opposite him relevant?

By: ImNotBlue

ImNotBlue — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:08:33 +0000

“Kids have no power over who their parents are.”

This is a pretty standard O’Reilly position. The kids can’t be blamed for the “XYZ” of their parents (where “XYZ” is equal to anything deemed “not-that-great” by someone else). In other words, as O’Reilly stated, the kids have no power or responsibility over their parents.

The Real Royal King says:
March 11, 2010 at 7:48 am

I don’t want to go too far with O’Reilly’s transformation, but I do see some hopeful signs.

It’s not a transformation… it’s the same old O’Reilly it always has been. Perhaps you’re just realizing he’s not the boogie man the left pretended he was.

I have to ask why this is happening. With O’Reilly, you always have to go to ratings, first and last. It is all that matters to him.

Yes, he’s a television entertainer… ratings are what matter to ALL of them.

I am sure he hasn’t the slightest amount of journalistic integrity.

Yes, I’m sure you don’t think that… however, as evidenced in other posts, your view of “journalistic integrity,” isn’t exactly correct either.

O’Reilly has to see something that tells him that the rightist free ride is ending.

And what “free ride” has that been?

If nothing else, he sees the heart of his audience beginning to die off and fall off.

Which is why his audience is larger than ever.

More than that, I suspect O’Reilly sees the nuts Beck is drawing in and realizes that can’t long continue to build the type of network that FOX needs. In other words, I think O’Reilly is preemptively staking the ground FOX will soon try to claim.

You know this theory is based upon nothing, right? Beck has an hour, and that has been very good for FNC… we haven’t seen any ratings dips, we haven’t seen any programming problems, we haven’t seen anything to support your theory.

You get an “E” for effort… but a “D” for logic.

By: ChrisNH

ChrisNH — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:33:09 +0000

Bill has pushed to be ‘Fair & Balanced’ in a way that the Obama water-carriers at MSNBC, The New York Times (et al) never were and never will be. So when he’s got that in his favor, he can excoriate the Lib media at will…and he ought to continue that crusade. One crusade he stopped was the one aimed at GE. He just stopped it cold, and I wish he hadn’t. I won’t watch NBC in any of its flavors because the way they interject ideological bias and ‘Go Green!’ into entertainment shows is sickening.

By: Chris Jones

Chris Jones — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:27:44 +0000

By: timzank

timzank — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:15:57 +0000

O’Reilly has never had a problem with gay people per se’, much like most of us he has a problem with the San Francisco “ass-less” chaps morons on parade day and the militant gay marriage faction that seems hell bent on making everyone hate them.

Regardless of his thoughts on the matter, private Catholic School means you abide by their rules. You don’t like the rules there, then you go to the cesspool known as public schools.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:25:27 +0000

Unequivical kudos, Bill, we’re all entitled to simple common courtesy and human decency. More of this from the right, please.

By: The Real Royal King

The Real Royal King — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:21:22 +0000

Once again, we see Writer telling us how irrelevant a media personality is as he “talks” about him endlessly, obsessively.

By: Lou Phillips

Lou Phillips — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:30:55 +0000

father morris should be more concerned with catholic priests molesting little boys

By: writer

writer — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:28:44 +0000

O’Reilly already has the ratings. If Olbermann’s show ever pulls close (Satan will be freezing when that happens) then we might think O’Reilly is making a ratings grab.

By: The Real Royal King

The Real Royal King — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:30:11 +0000

In three of the biggest exporter of funds to the Vatican, Austria, Germany and the United States, we have emerging a new understanding of the relationship of Catholics to their church, their community, the world, and, indeed, to themselves. This emergence, a path ahead, causes some retrenchment by some in the Church. That process of moving ahead, retrenching, moving ahead is how the Church remains vibrant and relevant in its mission in the world. It is much the same process the Church has followed in coming to a heliocentric understanding of the Earth’s place in the universe, in coming to an understanding of its proper demeanor in dealing with tyrants in Catholic countries and in coming to an understanding that the faithful should be instructed in and worship by a language known to them. It is a mistake to ascribe to a believer caught up in this process a motive of “throwing his own faith under the bus”. If ecclesiology teaches us anything, it is that the sojourner in the lead is at least as likely to be followed by the Church as to be led by it.

By: John Boyer

John Boyer — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:18:28 +0000

So Bill O’Reilly’s “moderation” means throwing his own faith under the bus. Screw him on this issue.

By: The Real Royal King

The Real Royal King — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:48:58 +0000

I don’t want to go too far with O’Reilly’s transformation, but I do see some hopeful signs. I have to ask why this is happening. With O’Reilly, you always have to go to ratings, first and last. It is all that matters to him. I am sure he hasn’t the slightest amount of journalistic integrity. O’Reilly has to see something that tells him that the rightist free ride is ending. If nothing else, he sees the heart of his audience beginning to die off and fall off. More than that, I suspect O’Reilly sees the nuts Beck is drawing in and realizes that can’t long continue to build the type of network that FOX needs. In other words, I think O’Reilly is preemptively staking the ground FOX will soon try to claim.