View Full Version : Bill O'Reilly is a jackass
First of, he claims not to be a conservative, yet he was registered republican, until he was "outed." He also twice considered running for congress on the republican ticket. Hardly actions befitting a so called independent.
So, what does Billy think about gays?
"It's based around the gay lobby, which wants to mainstream homosexuality and AIDS, because, you know, AIDS is obviously an offshoot of homosexual conduct in many situations."(7/15/02)
"Shut up, don't tell anybody what you do" (7/7/00)
But wait, before you call him the picture of tolerance, listen to his openminded stance on blacks!
"that's the reason familys are breaking apart:alcohol, drugs, and infidelity. You have to reject that, and it doesn't seem-and I'm speaking broadly-but most African Americans won't reject it." (2/25/99)
While introducing a black singing group at a charity event:
"Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they're not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps!"
Reportedly, the audience was in shock and disgust, including the republicans. (Washington Post 4/14/03)
What about racial profiling?
"a bogus issue(1/16/03)
Talking to the editor of The Source:
"You sell mind poison and get rich off of it, just like a drug dealer"(2/18/03)
There are far more examples, but I don't feel like typing all night. It's hard to believe that anyone can take this guy seriously.
yeat182
05/01/04, 10:48 PM
when you list quotes from his broadcasts, you should at least list the quotes in the context in which they were said.
when you list quotes from his broadcasts, you should at least list the quotes in the context in which they were said.
The comments are blatantly homophobic and racist, no matter what context they're said in. It's not too hard to figure them out. The quote about gays originated from a discussion on gay rights, the Source quote and the quote about blacks not rejecting vices came from him speaking about what was wrong with the black community. You can spin these however you wish, but the quotes really do speak for themselves.
yeat182
05/02/04, 08:58 AM
The comments are blatantly homophobic and racist, no matter what context they're said in. It's not too hard to figure them out. The quote about gays originated from a discussion on gay rights, the Source quote and the quote about blacks not rejecting vices came from him speaking about what was wrong with the black community. You can spin these however you wish, but the quotes really do speak for themselves.
it looks like you are the one that has spun them. the quote from the source editor was talking about rap music, and there is nothing racist about it.
and the quote about gays: "shut up and don't tell anyone what you do", you have no idea what he's talking about, because you didn't bother to include the context of the conversation. he could be talking about gays in the military. we don't know because you didn't bother to put the entire conversation, only the parts that prove your point. even at that, there are only 2 quotes listed that i can see as being bad. the others aren't racist or homophobic or anything else.
cal1082
05/02/04, 10:49 AM
First of, he claims not to be a conservative, yet he was registered republican, until he was "outed." He also twice considered running for congress on the republican ticket. Hardly actions befitting a so called independent.
So, what does Billy think about gays?
"It's based around the gay lobby, which wants to mainstream homosexuality and AIDS, because, you know, AIDS is obviously an offshoot of homosexual conduct in many situations."(7/15/02)
"Shut up, don't tell anybody what you do" (7/7/00)
But wait, before you call him the picture of tolerance, listen to his openminded stance on blacks!
"that's the reason familys are breaking apart:alcohol, drugs, and infidelity. You have to reject that, and it doesn't seem-and I'm speaking broadly-but most African Americans won't reject it." (2/25/99)
While introducing a black singing group at a charity event:
"Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they're not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps!"
Reportedly, the audience was in shock and disgust, including the republicans. (Washington Post 4/14/03)
What about racial profiling?
"a bogus issue(1/16/03)
Talking to the editor of The Source:
"You sell mind poison and get rich off of it, just like a drug dealer"(2/18/03)
There are far more examples, but I don't feel like typing all night. It's hard to believe that anyone can take this guy seriously.
It's hard to believe that anyone can take this post seriously. Like Yeat's said put the entire quote or article up and not 3 simple words.
hXc_pwnage
05/02/04, 11:59 AM
The shut up quote is about this guy that told his college ( a Christian one ) that he was gay and the kicked him out of school. He is telling gays ( in general ) to stay in the closet and tell no one they are gay. I wouldn't say it is homophobic, but he isn't helping them. He makes it seem like being gay is a bad thing.
They aren't from articles, they're from his show. Well, aside from the comments about the black singing group, those can be found in the Washington Post.
The shut up quote is about this guy that told his college ( a Christian one ) that he was gay and the kicked him out of school. He is telling gays ( in general ) to stay in the closet and tell no one they are gay. I wouldn't say it is homophobic, but he isn't helping them. He makes it seem like being gay is a bad thing.
That wasn't really what I referring to as homophobic, I meant the one about AIDS being an offshoot of homosexuality. And his "Shut up" comment was "my advice to all homosexuals."
As for the racial profiling, here's the entire quote:
"It's emotional, but it's a bogus issue."
Not matter what the conversation is about, these things aren't acceptable. And these are just a few examples, lets not forget when he referred to Mexicans trying to cross the border as "wetbacks."
yeat182
05/02/04, 02:43 PM
As for the racial profiling, here's the entire quote:
"It's emotional, but it's a bogus issue."
what isn't acceptable about that? the fact that you disagree with it?
Love As Arson
05/02/04, 03:45 PM
He is self-centered and a complete jackass when it comes to debating. It's funny how he manages to spin every issue to something about him or how he rejects everything people say not with facts but with irrational emotional arguments. The other night he construed socialists and the Canadian newspapers as liars and when a journalist contradicted him with facts all he had to say was basically "No , you're wrong". He tries to mask his obvious bias by taking light jabs at the Bush administration while taking hard jabs at the democrats and liberals in general.
He is a joke nothing more and nothing less. Perhaps if he learned how to debate without using ad hominems and with some intelligence I would take him more seriously.
what isn't acceptable about that? the fact that you disagree with it?
i was wondering the same thing?
Sinister Rouge
05/02/04, 05:28 PM
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly
lol
what isn't acceptable about that? the fact that you disagree with it?
Racial profiling DOES happen, O'Reilly was painting the picture that blacks were just whining about something that doesn't happen. Are you going to say that racial profiling doesn't happen?
Safetyin#
05/02/04, 06:01 PM
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly
lol
from the mind of a perfect liberal...This page is about me and why everything I like is great. If you disagree with anything you find on this page, you are wrong. ....http://maddox.xmission.com
from the mind of a perfect liberal...This page is about me and why everything I like is great. If you disagree with anything you find on this page, you are wrong. ....http://maddox.xmission.com
Yes, and I'm sure Maddox wasn't being the least bit facetious.
cal1082
05/02/04, 07:09 PM
Racial profiling DOES happen, O'Reilly was painting the picture that blacks were just whining about something that doesn't happen. Are you going to say that racial profiling doesn't happen?
Do you have the actual transcript from the interview? He could just as easily be talking about a specific case or he could be refering to racial profiling in general. If you only put a couple of words of the conversation up though, people have no idea.
Do you have the actual transcript from the interview? He could just as easily be talking about a specific case or he could be refering to racial profiling in general. If you only put a couple of words of the conversation up though, people have no idea.
The specific instance was the Amadou Diallo case, however, he was referring to racial profiling in general.
cal1082
05/02/04, 07:21 PM
The specific instance was the Amadou Diallo case, however, he was referring to racial profiling in general.
do you have the transcript or know where to find it
what site did you pull these quotes off of?
do you have the transcript or know where to find it
I wish I did, but the quote is from 1/16/03, like I said in the original post. I could buy that he meant it was a bogus issue in this case, if he didn't say "racial profiling.." and not "in this case.." There is a book called the "Oh Really Factor" which fact checks O'Reilly and I think it has further information on some of these quotes.
cal1082
05/02/04, 07:35 PM
I wish I did, but the quote is from 1/16/03, like I said in the original post. I could buy that he meant it was a bogus issue in this case, if he didn't say "racial profiling.." and not "in this case.." There is a book called the "Oh Really Factor" which fact checks O'Reilly and I think it has further information on some of these quotes.
I wouldnt jump to conclusions then if you dont know for sure if he was talking in general or specific.
what site did you pull these from?
cal1082
05/02/04, 07:53 PM
I wish I did, but the quote is from 1/16/03, like I said in the original post. I could buy that he meant it was a bogus issue in this case, if he didn't say "racial profiling.." and not "in this case.." There is a book called the "Oh Really Factor" which fact checks O'Reilly and I think it has further information on some of these quotes.
When you said this came from the Diallo case I grabbed my copy of "The No Spin Zone". In there he interviews Susan Sarandon about the case and then he gives commentary on it. He says, "Yes, there is racial prifling and yes, it is wrong."
This being the case it's safe to say that Oreilly believes there is racial profiling. Dont jump to conclusions.
He's contradicted himself in the past.
"It's intellectually dishonest to say that God is on your side, only God knows the right thing to do."
"I'm telling you that President Bush is doing exactly what Jesus would have done!"
"I've never attacked anyone personally on this show"
"She has the IQ of a tomato!" when talking about Monica Lewinsky
"Sharpton represents the worst of American society"
"Do I think Sharpton's a bad man? No I don't."
See a pattern forming?
cal1082
05/02/04, 08:12 PM
He's contradicted himself in the past.
"It's intellectually dishonest to say that God is on your side, only God knows the right thing to do."
"I'm telling you that President Bush is doing exactly what Jesus would have done!"
"I've never attacked anyone personally on this show"
"She has the IQ of a tomato!" when talking about Monica Lewinsky
"Sharpton represents the worst of American society"
"Do I think Sharpton's a bad man? No I don't."
See a pattern forming?
Way to go. You just summed up a man's entire journalism career with 6 quotes. You also were completely wrong about the racial profiling issue, so it seems you just jumped ship to other quotes (rolling eyes).
How was I wrong? I'm not summing up his entire journalistic career in a couple quotes, I'm showing his character, he has been known to contradict himself. If you can't make that simple connection, then don't bother.
cal1082
05/02/04, 08:32 PM
How was I wrong?
You said, "Racial profiling DOES happen, O'Reilly was painting the picture that blacks were just whining about something that doesn't happen."
his book says, "Yes, there is racial prifling and yes, it is wrong."
That's why you were wrong.
I'm not summing up his entire journalistic career in a couple quotes, I'm showing his character, he has been known to contradict himself. If you can't make that simple connection, then don't bother.
If you want sum up his character with 6 quotes that's fine. At least give the full context from which these quotes came. We've already seen where you can go wrong without doing that (to see where you went wrong read above point about racial profiling, in which you took a small quote and assumed O'reilly believed that racial profiling didnt occur)
You don't get it, I'm saying he has a past of contradicting himself. That's the whole reason I listed those quotes. You think you proved me wrong, when you actually just offered further evidence that O'Reilly can't decide where he stands.
You keep chanting context like some kind of mantra, but in what context could he say "Monica Lewinsky has the IQ of a tomato" that wouldn't make it a personal attack?
cal1082
05/02/04, 08:49 PM
You don't get it, I'm saying he has a past of contradicting himself. That's the whole reason I listed those quotes. You think you proved me wrong, when you actually just offered further evidence that O'Reilly can't decide where he stands.
No you werent. Your origianl posts did not mention contradictions. You were trying to show Oreilly's stance on certain issues.
The post you first made about racial profiling and Oreilly's stance on it had nothign to do with contradiction. You were trying to show his stance on this.
The first time you even brought up the contradiction idea was when i showed you what he said in his book about racial profiling.
Give me a break. Maybe you need to get the story right. Was the list at the first about contradictions or about stances?
Ugh. The contradictions were the quotes I listed AFTER you brought up the book. So far all you've done is show that O'Reilly has taken two different stances on the same issue, thanks for the help.
yeat182
05/02/04, 09:05 PM
He is self-centered and a complete jackass when it comes to debating. It's funny how he manages to spin every issue to something about him or how he rejects everything people say not with facts but with irrational emotional arguments. The other night he construed socialists and the Canadian newspapers as liars and when a journalist contradicted him with facts all he had to say was basically "No , you're wrong". He tries to mask his obvious bias by taking light jabs at the Bush administration while taking hard jabs at the democrats and liberals in general.
He is a joke nothing more and nothing less. Perhaps if he learned how to debate without using ad hominems and with some intelligence I would take him more seriously.
the lady from that newspaper was way off base, and i had no problem with anything o'reilly did in that particular interview. i'll admit he's not perfect, but in that case, that woman was incorrect.
yeat182
05/02/04, 09:08 PM
Racial profiling DOES happen, O'Reilly was painting the picture that blacks were just whining about something that doesn't happen. Are you going to say that racial profiling doesn't happen?
actually, i believe he was talking about racial profiling as it refers to the airlines and airline saftey, not blacks. and in that case, i think racial profiling is acceptable.
yeat182
05/02/04, 09:10 PM
He's contradicted himself in the past.
"It's intellectually dishonest to say that God is on your side, only God knows the right thing to do."
"I'm telling you that President Bush is doing exactly what Jesus would have done!"
jesus was a person, god is an idea. that isn't a contradiction.
also, i won't argue the other points, but we should all realize that situations change over time...
cal1082
05/02/04, 09:11 PM
Ugh. The contradictions were the quotes I listed AFTER you brought up the book. So far all you've done is show that O'Reilly has taken two different stances on the same issue, thanks for the help.
you've yet to show the full context of his quotes. You assume he's referring to racial profiling as a whole.
what site are you getting these from?
As I said before, I believe he was talking about the Amadou Diallo case, but if you can find more information, it would be much appreciated. Either way, he says that racial profiling doesn't happen, then he says it does. I'm not taking issue with his stance on whether or not it's right, that's a whole different argument.
you've yet to show the full context of his quotes. You assume he's referring to racial profiling as a whole.
what site are you getting these from?
Not a website, but rather a book. "The Oh Really Factor" by Peter Hart. I still fail to see what context would drastically change the meaning of any of those quotes.
yeat182
05/02/04, 09:16 PM
As I said before, I believe he was talking about the Amadou Diallo case, but if you can find more information, it would be much appreciated. Either way, he says that racial profiling doesn't happen, then he says it does. I'm not taking issue with his stance on whether or not it's right, that's a whole different argument.
i agree that he may have contradicted himself on occasion, but i don't know that it is that much different than other news personalities.
i agree that he may have contradicted himself on occasion, but i don't know that it is that much different than other news personalities.
That's the point, with the whole No Spin Zone thing, O'Reilly portrays himself as being above the fray, when in reality he's just another pundit with an agenda.
cal1082
05/02/04, 09:24 PM
Not a website, but rather a book. "The Oh Really Factor" by Peter Hart. I still fail to see what context would drastically change the meaning of any of those quotes.
It could be a big diffrence as far as your racial profiling quote goes. Like I said he could have been talking in general terms or about a specific case.
"It's emotional, but it's a bogus issue." <----- this quote doesnt tell you either way.
I found a few more specifics, he's talking about how inner cities need to accept more discpline and forget about reparations for slavery and affirmative action, he then goes on to call racial profiling a bogus issue.
yeat182
05/02/04, 09:31 PM
I found a few more specifics, he's talking about how inner cities need to accept more discpline and forget about reparations for slavery and affirmative action, he then goes on to call racial profiling a bogus issue.
the inner cities do need to forget about reparations for slavery.
Whether you think that or not, I was just trying to show that he was talking about racial profiling in general.
cal1082
05/02/04, 09:37 PM
the point is you need specifics. the quote you gave doesnt mean he thinks racial profiling is bogus.
He was saying they needed to stop complaining about those things and worry about themselves, it sounds to me like he's calling it bogus
cal1082
05/02/04, 09:41 PM
He was saying they needed to stop complaining about those things and worry about themselves, it sounds to me like he's calling it bogus
you havent showed where he said this. all you did was post this quote.
"It's emotional, but it's a bogus issue."
I found a few more specifics, he's talking about how inner cities need to accept more discpline and forget about reparations for slavery and affirmative action, he then goes on to call racial profiling a bogus issue.
...
cal1082
05/02/04, 09:54 PM
...
who was he talking to in this interview?
who was he talking to in this interview?
I haven't seen anything that indicates whether or not it was said in an interview.
cal1082
05/02/04, 10:04 PM
I haven't seen anything that indicates whether or not it was said in an interview.
where did he say this then?
open mind
05/02/04, 10:36 PM
either you think o'reilly is a douche bag or not, it doesn't really matter to me either way, cause the mass media as whole in my view sucks anyways.
Love As Arson
05/03/04, 07:33 AM
the lady from that newspaper was way off base, and i had no problem with anything o'reilly did in that particular interview. i'll admit he's not perfect, but in that case, that woman was incorrect.
He provided no reason or facts as to the truthfullness of his argument. He was using emotion and ad hominems throughout the interview. It was one of the moments when his bias was pretty evident.
yeat182
05/03/04, 07:41 AM
He provided no reason or facts as to the truthfullness of his argument. He was using emotion and ad hominems throughout the interview. It was one of the moments when his bias was pretty evident.
the reporter was blatantly biased and was throwing things out there in which she knew would cause a emotional reaction to any american. and what really pissed oreilly off was that she claimed that there were many conservative writers at her paper, when apparently there aren't.
Love As Arson
05/03/04, 07:46 AM
the reporter was blatantly biased and was throwing things out there in which she knew would cause a emotional reaction to any american. and what really pissed oreilly off was that she claimed that there were many conservative writers at her paper, when apparently there aren't.
O'Reilly was already mad about her being in favor of letting the deserters stay , he was basically looking for an excuse to go off on her. As for there being conservative writers at the paper she said there was and I think she even named a few. It didn't seem as if that was good enough. Not to mention it is completely hypocritical of him to criticize her about bias considering the television company he works for.
yeat182
05/03/04, 07:50 AM
O'Reilly was already mad about her being in favor of letting the deserters stay , he was basically looking for an excuse to go off on her. As for there being conservative writers at the paper she said there was and I think she even named a few. It didn't seem as if that was good enough. Not to mention it is completely hypocritical of him to criticize her about bias considering the television company he works for.
the thing is, she is so far left, that an average liberal seems conservative to her, and especially in canada, where they are much further left then we are. and i agree that he was angry that she supported the deserters, as every american should be, but she rather than give him answers to his questions, she simply said things she knew would upset him and most americans.
where did he say this then?
He might have said it at the top of the show, or something. I won't speculate because I don't know.
The Bled 13
05/03/04, 05:02 PM
Any who listens to Bill O'Reilly is twisted. The guy is a pure looney bin.
The Bled 13
05/03/04, 05:02 PM
Even a few of my teachers and my girlfreinds dad who is pretty conservative think he is a jack ass. I do agree with him and his beliefs that our president is incompetent.
Love As Arson
05/04/04, 07:04 AM
the thing is, she is so far left, that an average liberal seems conservative to her, and especially in canada, where they are much further left then we are. and i agree that he was angry that she supported the deserters, as every american should be, but she rather than give him answers to his questions, she simply said things she knew would upset him and most americans.
I don't see how she said things that she knew would upset him. He asked her questions and she spoke her beliefs and those beliefs angered him. Also he has no right at all the comment on whether or not they are bias because he works for a bias new station. As for their conservatives well he asked for names and she gave them to him , whether or not they were conservatives by American standards is not the point.
He is in a debate type setting and in that setting there are rules and you shouldn't resort to personal attacks or emotional arguments. You certainly shouldn't resort to threats against ones country that you cannot back up.
yeat182
05/04/04, 10:53 AM
As for their conservatives well he asked for names and she gave them to him , whether or not they were conservatives by American standards is not the point.
actually, that is his point.
Love As Arson
05/04/04, 11:27 AM
actually, that is his point.
He asked for conservatives and she gave him names of people she considered conservative. What more did he want?
yeat182
05/04/04, 11:32 AM
He asked for conservatives and she gave him names of people she considered conservative. What more did he want?
he is an american and his audience is american, so he wanted someone that fits the US defenition of a conservative, not a Canadian one, and the woman freely admitted they wouldn't be considered a conservative in the US and is only considered so in Canada because liberals are so far left that a mild US liberal would be considered conservative in Canada. that is kind of confusing...sorry.
hXc_pwnage
05/04/04, 12:47 PM
Did he directly say he wanted conservatives "by American standards."?
Love As Arson
05/04/04, 01:26 PM
Did he directly say he wanted conservatives "by American standards."?
Exactly. He said conservatives. He never said conservative by our standards.
Safetyin#
05/04/04, 01:38 PM
Did he directly say he wanted conservatives "by American standards."?
No, I think he meant from an ideological standpoint.....Which, if that was the case, means the womyn didn't answer his question truthfully....
Its kind of like the recent San Francisco mayoral race, which pitted a “Socialist” Green party candidate against a “Far Left” Democrat..…In the green parties “ads” the Democrat (Newsom) was shown as a "Conservative" or “holding right wing values”…when in all actuality he was too "liberal" to get elected anywhere else in America other then SF or Washington (state)..…So although he wasn't a "conservative" in any way, when compared to his opponent, he was more to the right...But in reality that doesn't make him a conservative, it just makes his opponent is an "extremist"....
yeat182
05/04/04, 02:49 PM
Did he directly say he wanted conservatives "by American standards."?
did he need to?
hXc_pwnage
05/04/04, 03:01 PM
did he need to?
Yes.
She lives in a whole different place.
They have different standards. How was she to know he meant by American standards?
yeat182
05/04/04, 08:24 PM
Yes.
She lives in a whole different place.
They have different standards. How was she to know he meant by American standards?
you are supposed to put it in terms your audience can understand
hXc_pwnage
05/04/04, 08:36 PM
you are supposed to put it in terms your audience can understand
Do Candians not watch Fox News as well?
boysdontcry
05/04/04, 08:41 PM
i used to watch fox news but as soon as 9/11 happened the little bit of bias it had blew up into the most biased television station ever (save for nazi propaganda radio shows in germany during WWII). now i just watch the daily show.
hXc_pwnage
05/04/04, 09:18 PM
I am watching the Daily Show now. That, Chapelle Show, and South Park are the best political/current issue shows. Fuck everything else.
boysdontcry
05/04/04, 09:22 PM
yes. yes they are.
hXc_pwnage
05/04/04, 09:23 PM
Are you watching it now?
If so: man, that is totaly fucked up. The administration is fucking cooky.
yeat182
05/04/04, 09:24 PM
Do Candians not watch Fox News as well?
it isn't broadcast in canada as far as i know, o'reilly has mentioned several time over the past few weeks, there is apparently a petition to get it offered in canada? i'm not sure the specifics, but i'm pretty sure the answer is no, it is not offered.
boysdontcry
05/04/04, 09:25 PM
no i'm not, it's only 8 here, it's not on until 11. what's going on?
yeat182
05/04/04, 09:25 PM
I am watching the Daily Show now. That, Chapelle Show, and South Park are the best political/current issue shows. Fuck everything else.
you forgot the simpsons.
hXc_pwnage
05/04/04, 09:26 PM
Ok.
Has she been to the United States for an elongated period of time?
If you ask a vague question, you are going to get a vague answer. O'Reilly's actions in that case are just idiotic.
hXc_pwnage
05/04/04, 09:26 PM
you forgot the simpsons.
True...thanks for catching me on that.
I think South Park is the best though.
boysdontcry
05/04/04, 09:27 PM
south park's season is insane this year. it's like they just don't care anymore. :lol2:
hXc_pwnage
05/04/04, 09:27 PM
no i'm not, it's only 8 here, it's not on until 11. what's going on?
Oh. I live on East Coast...that's why.
Well they are talking about the Ambassador guy ( forgot his name ) whose wife's identity in the CIA was revealed after he wrote an artical about the yellow cake charge on Iraq was false.
hXc_pwnage
05/04/04, 09:28 PM
south park's season is insane this year. it's like they just don't care anymore. :lol2:
Haha, fuck yeah. I am so buying all the seasons next time I go to Best Buy ( well the ones they have that is. )
boysdontcry
05/04/04, 09:36 PM
yeah if they keep it up this will be south park's best season.
but back to the subject at hand.
*AHEM* bill o'reilly is a mother fucker.
Safetyin#
05/05/04, 12:45 AM
Do Candians not watch Fox News as well?
Nope it’s banned.... By their equivalent of the FCC (and you think ours is bad?)....But they are allowed CNN and NPR which should help show you something about their governments mind set...
lfdfforever
10/14/10, 04:04 PM
25uyFwWPOZg Bill is a jackass.
loveisdead
10/14/10, 04:34 PM
Wow. What a bump.
Is Elizabeth Hasselbeck the stupidest person on the planet? Jesus fucking Christ.
loveisdead
10/14/10, 05:01 PM
Is Elizabeth Hasselbeck the stupidest person on the planet? Jesus fucking Christ.
You know she isn't haha.
softcoeur
10/14/10, 05:08 PM
Is Elizabeth Hasselbeck the stupidest person on the planet? Jesus fucking Christ.
ugh, she is awful.
kidinthebushes
10/14/10, 05:17 PM
Da Coach doesn't believe in politic correctness. Nor do I.
saysmydoctor
10/14/10, 05:40 PM
Is Elizabeth Hasselbeck the stupidest person on the planet? Jesus fucking Christ.
She did vote for McCain/Palin.
Smash Adams
10/14/10, 05:51 PM
Whoopi thinks Mel Gibson and Polanski were right but Bill O'Reilly isn't, just throwing it out there
Is Elizabeth Hasselbeck the stupidest person on the planet? Jesus fucking Christ.
yes...but she's hot.
samsara
10/14/10, 07:34 PM
oh hey understatement of the decade.
Thriftstoresuit
10/14/10, 08:46 PM
O'Reilly needs to be a permanent fixture on this show. would be awesome.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.