October 27, 2006, - 5:01 pm

HOprah Watch: Bill O’Reilly Sucks Up Just a Little Much

By Debbie Schlussel
Today, on Oprah, Bill O’Reilly was the guest, promoting his book, “Culture Warrior.” But his brown-nosing of Oprah was just a tad absurd.
O’Reilly told HOprah that she’s a traditionalist. Huh? If she’s a traditionalist, who isn’t? She’s at the very center of secular progressivism, and is its chief media promoter. Her show pushes radicalism and the wrong side of the culture war, every single week day.
Bill, stop sucking up. Oprah Winfrey has traditional values on nothing. Unless you count her passion for promoting traditional, extremist Islam. As for everything else, anything goes with her. Anything but traditionalism.
She’s as much of a traditionalist as Rosie O’Donnell. The only difference between the two of them is that Rosie is gay. Oh, wait, there is no difference.

billoreilly.jpgoprahislam.jpg

(Islamofascist Oprah by Preston Taylor Holmes/Six Meat Buffet)

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , ,

26 Responses

Bill O’Reilly is a phony.
He is really a left winged media type that figured out you could make a fortune if you rallied people around conservative causes that were being ignored in the MSM.
He realized that the Liberal Media was loosing viewers so he went the opposite way to gain viewers and pretend he is an Independent
He claims he is for the folks and is a traditionalist yet he is for Amnesty and supports gay marriage.
Sucking up to oprah is not out of character for him or having Heraldo Rivera, aka Jerry Rivers, on his program for his expert advice on marriage and family issues every week.

ScottyDog on October 27, 2006 at 7:14 pm

In order to look good on the talk show circuit, O’Reilly is making a point to be nice to the hosts. He was nice to Rosie on “The View” and even called Jay Leno and Jessica Simpson culture warriors on “The Tonight Show”.
Tonight he is on Letterman, which will be interesting because the last time he was on the show, Letterman was quite the jerk towards him.

Travis on October 27, 2006 at 7:43 pm

Bill “ORal”y preaches about family values, writes a book for kids, ok, but do you really believe him if you knew that:
1 – He was engaged in phone sex with his former female intern?
2 – Enjoys interviewing porn stars?
3 – Supports liberal ideas such as homosexuality?
To mention a few.
Will you believe a hypocrite-liar?
Believing Bill “Oral”y is no difference than believing Bill “Cliton,” both are parts of the same body!

Independent Conservative on October 27, 2006 at 8:19 pm

I think O’Reilly is good when talking about domestic security, economics, foreign policy, etc. But when he talks about morality and family values, that is when I turn the channel and then change back to see if he is talking about something interesting.

Travis on October 27, 2006 at 10:35 pm

Oprah can go join Michael Jackson in Dubai. Oh, but where will her viewers go for their MSM Valium? Don’t worry, her show will resurface on Al-Jazeera.

jeebie on October 28, 2006 at 7:45 pm

I couldn’t agree more with ScottyDog and Independent Conservative.
O’Reily is a phony and his behavior with that employee who sued him showed what a creep he is. In fact, he’s used the employee suing him issue as a phony cover about “attack dog” media. How convenient and misleading.
I never have understood his popularity, but then again HOprah and Rosie O’Donnell are popular and there is a sucker born every minute.

The_Man on October 29, 2006 at 11:33 am

Bill O’Reilly is NOT a conservative. He may have SOME conservative ideals but he’s not a conservative.
Neither Rosie O’Donnell nor Oprah are traditionalists. They are both extreme leftist liberals.
What is the fixation on this site with homosexuality? Somehow, “gay” seems to either pop up in the original article or in a post somewhere. Is that all anyone thinks about on this site?
For instance, “The only difference between the two of them is that Rosie is gay. Oh, wait, there is no difference.”
OK – so why is this important to bring up? What does this have to do with Bill O’Reilly sucking up to a left-wing liberal hostess?
And, from a post above, “3 – Supports liberal ideas such as homosexuality?”
Homosexuality is an IDEA? A liberal IDEA? Since when? There ARE conservative homosexuals in the world – sorry to break it to you.
Gay marriage is an idea – homosexuality is not. Does anyone really think someone wakes up one morning and says to themselves, “Gee, I think I’ll be a homosexual today” like they were deciding on what to do for the day, like going shopping?
For those here that are fixated on a person’s sexuality – all I have to say is – get your minds out of people’s bedrooms and view people for who they are – not what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Anyone that tries to imagine what two consenting adults are doing in the privacy of their own bedroom, heterosexual or homosexual, is a pervert. That is none of your business.

LynnJG on October 29, 2006 at 1:20 pm

Earth to LynnJG,
Liberals are big proponents of Gay Marriage and are responsible for the war on our culture that O’ Reilly is talking about.
The American people have spoken on this issue and believe in traditional marriage by 80%. Every single state that has had the Gay Marriage issue on the ballot, it has been defeated by a large margin or supports the idea of one man and one woman.
I am not fixated on the Homosexual debate but the MSM and Liberal Democrats are definitely fixated. It is constantly being shoved down our throats in the media, movies, and our culture to accept a lifestyle that I find to be repugnant and so do the majority of the American people.
Please do not presume to lecture me about my personal opinions. We still live in a free country and if I think Rump Rangers are disgusting, I still have the right to say so.(probably not for long as the left want to make it hate speech)
I do believe Homosexuals make a behavioral choice to join the lifestyle despite your contention that they are born that way. There is no scientific evidence to prove your contention that they are born that way. None!
I am not sure why you have your underwear in a bunch over this commentary as most people know that forced acceptance of Homosexual Sex Rights is one of the lefts main Political calling cards.
You are obviously a smart person but your diatribe suggests something else is at play.
Telling me what I can discuss on this forum is none of your business.

ScottyDog on October 29, 2006 at 3:11 pm

ScottyDog -
Guess I struck a nerve – ay?
First, you know nothing about me so don’t presume I have an agenda and that you know what it is. You don’t.
Second, just like you, I have a right to state my opinions.
You’re the one whose mind is fixated on other peoples√≠ bedrooms – not me. I never EVER try to imagine what others, heterosexual or homosexual, are doing in the privacy of their bedroom. It’s NONE of my business. Why is that any of YOUR business?
The point of this article was Bill O’Reilly sucking up to the left wing hostess Oprah by calling her a traditionalist – not Bill O’Reilly sucking up to gays and calling gays traditionalists.
So, why the gay commentary? Just an opportunity to spark some homophobic gay bashing? If it was, you fell right into it. There are more important issues than that that makes her not a traditionalist.
And, if it disgusts you so much to think about it, why do you spend your time thinking about it? Do you spend time thinking about heterosexuals “getting together” because you find that pleasurable?
You have no idea what my views of gays and their agenda are. You can guess and imagine all you want but you have a fixation with sex, in particular the lower anatomy – that’s obvious from your post (i.e., underwear in a bunch, Rump Rangers, etc.)
What you see in the media is similar to radical Muslims. You are seeing radical gays.
Not all gays want to be outed or used publicly (i.e., Dick Chenney’s daughter during a VP debate with John Edwards). Not all gays want or care about gay marriage. Not all gays support the radical gay agenda.
I’m guessing you are one of those people that; if you didn’t know someone were gay, you probably wouldn’t care – but – the moment you find out, I’ll bet it’s YOU that gets your underwear in a bunch and tells everyone you know so that you out the person, instead of just letting it go – that it is NONE of your business.
I never said or suggested that being gay was a gene. That I did say that came from your vivid imagination.
What I DID say was that being gay was not an IDEA – no one wakes up in the morning and the idea hits them to become gay. That’s ludicrous.
If a gay gene is ever found, then scientists should begin looking for a red gene for all those that prefer the color red; and a blonde gene for all those that prefer blondes; and a sports car gene for all those that prefer sports cars; and so on. That’s just as ludicrous.
A choice would be to buy an SUV over your preference of a sports car – THAT’S a choice.
A choice would be to go with someone of the opposite sex over your preference of someone of the same sex – THAT’S a choice.
You are a victim of the left wing media, whether you like it or not. You can feel and speak any way you want about gays but bringing it up when that wasn’t the point of the article means you have a fixation with gays.

LynnJG on October 29, 2006 at 5:07 pm

ScottyDog -
p.s., I didn’t even cite your comment in my first post and look how upset you got. I happen to be against gay marriage – as I’m assuming you are…

LynnJG on October 29, 2006 at 5:20 pm

LynnJG
I guess your reading comprehension skills are as honed as your ability to insult people with your Homosexual agenda. Does Rosie ring any bells?
If it offends you that I call homosexuals Rump Rangers or Lesbians carpet munchers, too bad.
It is far more descriptive than “Gay” which I refuse to use, just because people like you demand it.
I do know something about you, you have a chip on your shoulder and do not like people associating homosexuals to liberals which is clearly what got you under wear in bunch.
Too bad because it is liberals that push this crap and I suspect you are homosexual which is why you are so hot under the collar.
You remind me of my homosexual neighbor, constantly playing the victim and giving out psychological analysis as if being a homosexual makes you an expert.

ScottyDog on October 29, 2006 at 11:18 pm

I know it’s off topic, Deb, but I urgently would like to know what “Carl Levin,” senator from Michigan, was doing at the Nazi-sympathizing conclave in DC at which Condi Rice blabbered about the Arabs in Gaza and Judea-Samaria suffering from “occupation” and how their acts of mass murder against Jews were really some sort of “civil rights” struggle or perhaps a democratic revolution like the one led by Washington and Jefferson and Ben Franklin.

Eliyahu on October 30, 2006 at 1:50 am

LynnJG,
Homosexuality is an idea and a choice.
I know many homosexuals, some are in my extended large family. And I can tell you, after I learned about the life of each person, male and female, that they made the choice at some point in their life to be homosexuals.
Many of them were either married with kids and went through a divorce, others had problems with the boy/girl friend, others developed a physical complex (they “didn’t look good” and felt rejected), others made that choice to defy the normal rules of traditional/conservative society, and others were atheists, so they chose to do the opposite of what the Bible is forbidding, etc., etc., etc.
Homosexuals chose to be that way because they either have or had psychological, physical or social problems or complex.
The bottom line: there is always a reason for choosing to be homosexual.
You have to study or learn the history of each so-called “homosexual” to find the cause of his or her deviant behavior.
Stop being delusional.
Homosexuality is NOT genetic.

Independent Conservative on October 30, 2006 at 6:57 am

O’Reilly has yet to speak out against what Dan Rather did.

Burt on October 30, 2006 at 7:58 am

O’Reilly is NOT a conservative. I think he simply sways with the wind.
I heard him speak about the Rush Limbaugh/Michael J Fox fiasco and O’Reilly was simply speaking the liberal spin. He never bothered to listen to Rush or call him and get his take.

LynnJG on October 30, 2006 at 10:35 am

Lynnjg:
You are right. The idea that someone wakes one morning and says “Gee, I think I’ll turn gay today” is ludicrous.
I have twin cousins (fraternal). One was gay from the day he was born. Unfortunately we were mean to him when we were growing up. The idea that a five year old would choose a lifestyle that caused other kids to torment him is insane.

gregdn on October 30, 2006 at 10:44 am

ScottyDog -
I think you should enhance YOUR reading comprehension skills. It is rather pointless discussing this issue if you can’t utter anything else but disgusting slang gutter talk, excuse yourself for using it and accuse me of saying things I never said.
You are allowed to use any terminology you’d like but it does say something about you and where your mind is at.
Independent Conservative -
You are correct in that there are varying reasons as to why a person is gay. But, you are wrong in stating that I said it’s genetic. I didn’t say that, nor do I believe that. You should read my posts first and make sure you understand them before responding.
If homosexuality is an idea and a choice, then heterosexuals can become gay at any time, and homosexuals can become heterosexual at any time. Maybe that explains the heterosexual fear of homosexuals – that homosexuals may teach heterosexuals to be gay.
I personally do not know of anyone that has deliberately chosen the gay life style over a heterosexual life style (except Ann Heche – who I don’t know personally but obviously has no clue who she is). I do not know of anyone that simply decided one day that they were going to be attracted to members of the same sex, pursue that life style and subject themselves to discrimination, ridicule, and nice colorful metaphors. From your post, I gather you do.
If those you know chose to be gay – I don’t believe they are gay at all. They just want to be loved by someone.
The gays that I know simply cannot tell you why they are attracted to people of the same sex, just like you cannot tell me why you are attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Anyone that figures that out will have awesome power in that they’ll be able to create or alter a persons sexuality at will.

LynnJG on October 30, 2006 at 10:52 am

O’Reilly is a hypocrite looking to get ahead
As for homosexuality, homosexuality is just a sexual deviance, there are lots of sexual deviances, some more harmful than others, e.g. pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality etc
obviously a sexual deviance should not have legal parity let alone social parity with an actual marriage, but the propaganda of the gay rights movement has been to pretend that there is such an artificial construct as the gay identity and that once someone ‘realizes’ they’re gay that it’s an unchanging revelation
the reality is they’re nothing more than sexual deviants, there’s no identity and the idea of it alone is laughable

sultan_knish on October 30, 2006 at 10:56 am

Gregdn -
I have heard and seen that before and you are right – no 5 year old has the capacity to choose to be gay.
With that said, I also do not believe scientists are ever going to find a “gay gene”. I doubt one exists.
But, something did happen that caused one twin to be gay from birth and the other not – and no one here knows what that is.

LynnJG on October 30, 2006 at 11:23 am

I’ve been listening to Bill O’Reilly for 6 years and he is a liberal who features other liberals on his program that he then argues with, lamely. He’s TV’s Savage, an actor, whose reason for being is to undermine and demoralize conservatives. He’s a McCainiac? Fox TV has gained the Right’s viewership by claiming to be “fair” and now they’re moving inexrably left (where’s Bridgette?!) as 2008 approaches.

anadromous on October 30, 2006 at 12:16 pm

LynnJG,
God did not create homosexuals. God created Men and Women. Two different beings with two different physical and emotional characteristics. And God had a purpose for His Creation:
Man and Woman shall complete each other in a physical and a spiritual union.
Any union outside what God has planned for His Creation is a deviant, an abnormal man/woman-made relation condemned by God and is a danger to God/Family oriented society.
That takes me back to the point where I mentioned previously that homosexuality is a choice, whether that choice is made at early age or later.
Of course I don’t expect atheists or homosexuals to understand what I just wrote. To understand what I just wrote, you have to believe in God and the Bible.

Independent Conservative on October 30, 2006 at 2:57 pm

Independent Conservative -
Since you appear to be elevated to a spokesman for the intents of God, I guess you would also like to lock up or exterminate all that do not have your understanding of God’s intent or the diverse world and everything in it that was created by God.
Oh, wait – Thou shalt not kill is in the Bible too!
Oh, here’s another one – Love thy neighbor as thy self is in the Bible too! It was actually spoken by Jesus!
I guess in your understanding, that excludes homosexuals since, according to you, they were NOT created by God.
===================

LynnJG on October 30, 2006 at 5:57 pm

LynnJG, while I agree with you whole-heartedly, you’re doing nothing but setting yourself up for a flamewar.

FSM-FTW!(descent) on October 30, 2006 at 6:34 pm

LynnJG,
I said that atheists or homosexuals will not understand what I wrote. And I was right.
You let your imagination take you to the extreme.
You are way over the top.
So, for the sake of a civilized argument, let’s not argue until you have some real understanding about the Bible.

Independent Conservative on October 30, 2006 at 10:35 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field