William O'Reilly, 63, is a man of the cloth (for the most part) and a man of few rational quips on cable television. Year by year, he vigorously campaigns on behalf of the church against secular ideals eroding the traditions he defends. And although Bill knows where his allegiance lies, he doesn't want you, the viewer, to know what it is. That's because doing so will diminish his credibility and show the world how far behind he actually is. Somehow, though,
Bill "Sore Loser" O'Reilly made some steps in an oft-discussed topic mucking up American politics. I think you'll figure that one out for yourself quite easily if you read further.
On his March 26th program, speaking to Megyn Kelly about the hot-button topic that is gay marriage equality, O'Reilly said this:
Less than ten years ago,
Bill O'Reilly held a decidedly insane view on gay marriage, equating it with polygamy. In the statement above, O'Reilly seemed to have a verbal tic of some sort, where he essentially repeated himself one sentence after another ("The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That's where the compelling argument is."). However, what he's said in the past, and yes I know, people do change sometimes, are frightfully contradictory. More than once he brought up bestial marriage, as if it would be a logical follow-up to the allowance of gay folk being recognized by law as a married couple.
Billy celebrates a significant position on any issue, boasting his rather stalwart media outreach to communicate with at least 1% of the American population.
That number, though still rather small (99% or so, give or take, don't much pay attention to his mostly mad ramblings on late-night television), is nonetheless significant. With such numbers in mind, and his true political allegiance in question, you can't deny that whatever stance he takes on an issue, something big is going on. Short of Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, he's often noted as the most far-right political commentator around.
And now, apparently, O'Reilly advocates same-sex marriage.
With his rather advanced age in mind, you've got to wonder just how far he's gone along in order to side with those who want more social freedoms than those who do not. One can commend O'Reilly for his newfound position on the matter, but then you can take the following into account and remember how insane he is.
Dana Milbank, of The Washington Post, just passingly mentioned Bill O'Reilly with this smidgeon of opinion:
"…Bill O'Reilly criticized opponents of same-sex marriage as Bible-thumpers" (
Dana Milbank: Rep. Don Young faces backlash for 'wetback' slur by Dana Milbank, The Washington Post, 01/04/2013)
That is ALL that he said about
O'Reilly, yet Bill grossly overreacted by calling Milbank, a fellow conservative, a liar. O'Reilly topped Greg Gutfeld & Bernard McGuirk's contributions and said this himself on his program during his
"Biggest Pinheads of the Week" segment on Friday, April 5th:
The beautiful thing is, O'Reilly is calling a guy who simply pointed out exactly what Billy said a liar. If you aren't laughing at all, then what the hell is wrong with you? Would you, my reader, ever call someone a liar if they point out exactly what you say, even if they don't take you out of context? I like to believe in you as a fellow human and say
'no'. You wouldn't wrongfully say anything so preposterous in response to a very passing mention of something you said, because you're not insane.
Bill O'Reilly, though, is quite insane. He said that those who oppose gay-marriage are essentially thumping the bible, hence being bible thumpers, and when someone does nothing more than point that out in a column (which isn't even about him, though his ego gets the best of him most of the time), he calls them a deceiver.
All Milbank did is point out what he said. I know I am repeating myself, but you need to keep this in mind, because it's tough to wrap my head around how insane one would have to be to say stuff like this. I agree that when someone takes your words out of context, or flat-out inserts words that you never said are liars, but in this case the distinction is undeserved. How can you be a liar if you simply point out what someone else said, and nothing more?
What in the actual fuck?
,