Bill O’Reilly: whaaa?
by Hanlon on December 15, 2006 at 10:36 pm
I’m still busy as hell, but here’s some hilarious illogic for you in the meanwhile. Bill O’Reilly, somehow, said that if homosexuals were capable of caring for children then you would be able to get pregnant by eating cupcakes. Yeah, I don’t get it either.
O’REILLY: No, I’m talking about raising kids. I’m talking about — I know there are bad parents –
VINCENT: Well, there’s nothing inherent in biology –
O’REILLY: — and I know there are good gay parents. Absolutely, all right?
VINCENT: OK.
O’REILLY: But I’m talking optimum, best for the kid, having a mom and a dad. Are you going to call me a bigot for that?
VINCENT: Not at all, no. It’s a legitimate preference.
O’REILLY: Are you going to, Miss Chrisler, call me a bigot for that?
CHRISLER: Nope, I’m just going to call you wrong –
O’REILLY: Wrong.
CHRISLER: — which you are. So –
O’REILLY: You know, why wouldn’t — why wouldn’t nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake? You know? You know, you just throw –
If you can tell me what the HELL he’s talking about, I’ll give you a hundred dollars.
Posted: December 15th, 2006 under Bill O'Reilly, glbt, media, stupid.
Comments
Comment from Hanlon
Time December 19, 2006 at 1:34 am
Nei, I think that was his intention, yep. But good god damn did it come out completely retarded. By his own logic we shouldn’t allow single parents, we can even use the same cupcake ‘reasoning’.
Wil, I watch O’Reilly just so I can tell people I talk with why he’s an idiot. If I ignore him and the others, when I get into arguments with his supporters I have no basis upon which to say “Hannity’s a complete idiot”.
Comment from Ian
Time December 20, 2006 at 11:20 pm
If nature intended gays to raise children, they’d be able to procreate on their own.
Just like if nature intended us to have television, the internet, atomic weapons, cars, submarines, and airplanes, they would all grow on tress.
Also, nature is a conscious being capable of thought and intention now. Did you miss that memo?
Comment from Michele
Time December 21, 2006 at 1:51 am
bill needs to go back to being the good role model he thinks he is and stick to harassing women - he seems to know little about both.
Comment from Hanlon
Time December 21, 2006 at 2:17 am
I was unaware of that, Ian. It’s funny, I had thought nature was fairly ambivalent toward us all and we adapted to it. O’Reilly surprised me with his revelation that nature makes decisions about things on the fly.
Michele, don’t you want him to get some wine into you intravenously* and wash you with a falafel thing**? I’m sure he’d love your big boobs***.
*He said that in his phone calls with Andrea Mackis
**This too
***Again, the same. It’s not so bad, but I find “big boobs” to be a hilariously un-romantic phrase.
Comment from Nei
Time December 16, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Well, given the video clip, I’d say he’s trying to tell people like me that we shouldn’t have kids. Because biology dictate a man and a woman be present to make a child, then obviously it takes a man and a woman to raise a kid.
Nevermind that in many cultures men have little to do with raising their own children anyway, and those tasks are shared by several women, but that has no bearing whatsoever.
I think he’s trying to say that if two women were able to raise a child together properly, or two men, then it wouldn’t require a man and a woman to have a kid. Because obviously if it takes a man and a woman to make a child, it takes them to raise a child. Or something.
It’s illogical and he’s stupid.