30
Ha, Ha, Ha!!! Eat it, O’Reilly!
Via Crooks & Liars, we have this:
The O’Reilly Factor Holiday Ornament - Product #:FOX21001200
Put your holiday tree in “The No Spin Zone” with this silver glass “O’Reilly Factor” ornament.
Ha, ha O’Reilly! You’ve been smeared by another far-left Internets site! Now, I DEMAND you post Sadly, No! on your enemies list!
UPDATE: I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention this awesome O’Reilly rant:
O’REILLY: George Soros and Peter Lewis are the far-left, secular progressive billionaires who have funded — they pour money into the ACLU, they pour money into the smear websites, you know, they buy up a lot of the media time. And they basically want to change the country from a Christian-based philosophical country to a secular progressive country like they have in Western Europe. OK? Now, the ACLU is their legal arm, and the smear websites are their media arm. And they pour a lot of money into both. And the ACLU runs around the country suing everybody and intimidating people [...] And in tandem, you use your left-wing smear websites to go after anybody who stands up for Christmas. If you stand up for Christmas, they come after you.
Hey Mr. Soros? I’ve been smearing O’Reilly for years. Can I have some money now?
False Prophet said,
November 30, 2005 at 22:48
Is that supposed to be ironic?
Brad R. said,
November 30, 2005 at 22:55
I’m unsure, but I bet it’ll be changed by tonight
tigrismus said,
November 30, 2005 at 23:10
Because nothing says “Thank you Jesus, and Happy Birthday” like hanging one of O’Reilly’s balls on your tree.
BruceH said,
November 30, 2005 at 23:22
If I had a Christmas tree, I’d want one of Bill’s balls on it. But I’d want the real thing, you know, the brass one.
BruceH said,
November 30, 2005 at 23:27
Bill’s Balls
Gregor Samsa said,
November 30, 2005 at 23:37
Muchas Gracias Brad. That just made my day!
Jefe said,
November 30, 2005 at 23:39
Wow, that O’Reilly rant is awesome. My favorite part is where he screams, “I’m gonna bring those people down! Mark my words, I’m gonna take them down!”
Brad R. said,
November 30, 2005 at 23:40
Jefe- I love when he talks about the secret conspiracy between far-left smear sites. It ain’t no conspiracy. We just think he sucks.
BruceH said,
November 30, 2005 at 23:47
Perhaps I should explain why I believe that Falafel Bill has brass balls. It’s statements like this one that prove it: “In every secular progressive country, they’ve wiped out religion … Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, all of them. That’s the first step. Get the religion out of there, so that we can impose our big-government, progressive agenda.” (Emphasis mine)
The guy must have a custom built wheel barrow to haul around cajones that big.
Timmah420 said,
December 1, 2005 at 0:28
The guy must have a custom built wheel barrow to haul around cajones that big.
He probably just hollowed out a travel trailer and modded it to push like a wheelbarrow.
Ianua Ditis said,
December 1, 2005 at 0:49
O’Reilly the historian. At least he’s still good for a larf. Does anyone still take this clown seriously?
I suggest that O’Reilly fans savor these times, because before too long he’s going to give himself a massive stroke.
Either that or our secular progressive conspiracy will finally be successful and we can cart Bill off to the Alaskan gulags (the same ones he advocates in his book) and force him to listen to ‘re-education’ tapes of Al Franken until he admits that there was never any such thing as Christmas.
(I may have said too much there…)
Also, I would love to know what makes us a philosophical country, while those in Western Europe aren’t.
Ginger Yellow said,
December 1, 2005 at 1:15
I love the way he considers quoting him with context, and providing links to audio or video footage, smearing him. He’s basically admitting that his own words make him sound insane.
Pinko Punko said,
December 1, 2005 at 1:50
I wonder what other Fox News X-mas crap there is? I would pay nothing but the highest esteem for someone to outfit a holiday tree with Fox crap.
Woodrowfan said,
December 1, 2005 at 1:54
You know, watching Bill O’Liely have a massive stroke live on TV is one of those things I’d pay a LOT of money to watch on pay-per-view.
Brad R. said,
December 1, 2005 at 1:55
I love the way he considers quoting him with context, and providing links to audio or video footage, smearing him. He’s basically admitting that his own words make him sound insane.
I know. That requires a level of cognitive dissonance I can’t begin to imagine.
mdh?tter said,
December 1, 2005 at 2:02
Ianua, we gave Jesus to the world, and he’s the bestest philosopher, ever.
Therefore, we are more philosophical
Blowback said,
December 1, 2005 at 2:04
I bet O’Reiily’s balls aren’t as big as this blokes.
But, seriously, Marcel Berlins in the extreme left-wing Guardian asked the right question.
Just who is offended?
What have all those stories got in common - the ones about local councils banning Christmas lights, schools not putting on nativity plays, etc, etc, in order not to cause offence to religionists of other faiths? I must have read a score of such tales recently, and what links nearly all of them is that the prohibitions were ordered in anticipation of objections, not because any had actually been made. The latest story I saw on the theme a few days ago - there have probably been several since - revealed that the England and Wales Cricket Board, who confirmed it, were considering banning English cricket supporters from singing the hymn Jerusalem (it won the Ashes for us, remember) next time Pakistan come to play test matches here. It might cause offence to Muslims, because Jerusalem is also their holy city.
Was it Muslims who discovered this new area of affront? Of course not. A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain was puzzled; he couldn’t imagine why Muslims would take offence. The idea that they might was probably thought up by a bunch of white officials at Lord’s.
And when religious individuals or representatives of non-Christian religions are asked whether they really objected to Christmas lights being called Christmas lights, or to the presence of a few Father Christmases doing the rounds of local stores, the answer is almost always a negative, even surprise that the question merits asking. I am convinced that, in very many cases, the offence is in the minds of the institutions doing the banning; it is not felt by the people they are purporting to protect. The policy of accommodating the alleged sensibilities of minority religions by eliminating Christianity from December is devised by people with little idea of the realities of coexistence.
There is a serious point. We laugh, and occasionally get angry, at some of the extremes of political correctness we read of. Silly local council, silly school. But there are many who read the stories and blame the minorities. I have heard someone say: “Those Muslims, they’re now telling us what we can do at Christmas.” It’s unfair, it only exacerbates anti-Muslim and anti-minority feeling, and it feeds resentment and racism. I accept that the prohibitors think that they are acting in the interests of diversity, multiculturalism and so on; but their actions may have the contrary effect.
Could this be a some kind of disinformation exercise?
Captain O said,
December 1, 2005 at 2:06
Why is “secular and progessive” a bad thing?
Brad R. said,
December 1, 2005 at 2:08
Why is “secular and progessive” a bad thing?
BECAUSE IT RESULTS IN MASS MURDER, JUST LIKE WITH HITLER STALIN AND MAO!!! DIDN’T YOU HEAR WHAT O’REILLY SAID?@@?!!!L#@W!
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
neil said,
December 1, 2005 at 2:22
That requires a level of cognitive dissonance I can’t begin to imagine.
Nice one! That was so subtle I’m not even sure I got it!
tigrismus said,
December 1, 2005 at 2:35
Gosh, Brad, he’s right! We should eschew the path of secular, progressive Europe, and instead require people to formally declare adherence to a particular sect, use tax moneys to support churches directly, and perhaps even offically tie church headship to the head of state. That will surely restore sanctity to this country!
aaron said,
December 1, 2005 at 2:41
Wait, Hitler was secular AND a Christian? Man, no wonder he was so messed up.
mr. x said,
December 1, 2005 at 2:43
When did O’Reilly get to be such a tool? He seemed more objective in years past. Maybe I just wasn’t paying attention. Anyway, that makeup doesn’t do him any favors.
Cameron said,
December 1, 2005 at 2:50
C’mon - you guys at SN have some mojo with Dr. BLT. Can’t you get him to record a Bill O’Reilly Holiday Tune? Fox could market singing Bill O’Reilly Holiday Balls….
Hysterical Woman said,
December 1, 2005 at 3:09
Yeah, Fidel’s so anti-religion, he let Pope John Paul II visit.
Hysterical Woman said,
December 1, 2005 at 3:13
O’Rielly is standing up to anti-Christian secularist like O’Rielly. O’Rielly won’t let O’Rielly win!
mr. x said,
December 1, 2005 at 3:46
Bill: They’re not arms, they’re testicles, er, I mean tentacles.
verplanck colvin said,
December 1, 2005 at 5:15
I was browsing over at newsmax earlier today, and saw an ad that said “Celebrate the Holidays with George Bush”. (Unfortunately, it was gone when I check it a few moments ago)
I think there’s some serious cognative dissonance going on.
mdh?tter said,
December 1, 2005 at 6:07
wait a minute, aaron, I’m a secular Christian!
oh, right. Good point.
GuinnessGuy said,
December 1, 2005 at 7:00
I like Christmas (I even go to the midnight Mass on Christmas Eve), and I think the bans on non-prostelyzing religion-related paraphenalia are stupid, in general (with the proviso that there should be equal opportunity for others to reasonably display their holiday paraphenalia), but O’Reilly annoys the hell out of me with his ranting.
It’s the free-market, Bill: if there were a huge demand for Christmas-only crap, then stores would have it. As it stands, Christmas has been commercialized and secularized enough that most of America doesn’t care. That very well may be a problem in of itself, and I couldn’t fault Mr. O’Reilly for dealing with that topic (however, it should be noted that Christmas is a Federal holiday, and therefore, the trappings specifically sponsored by governmental agencies should not prostelyze). However, Bill chooses to complain about corperate decision making and the ACLU’s whiny-bitch-ass, but isolated, cases on these matters, and blame us (people who don’t care about what stores put out to advertize) for causing this crap.
Don’t blame the apathetic or the religiously modest, Bill: blame the system which allows these corperations to pervert our holiday for their morally questionable practices.
Christopher said,
December 1, 2005 at 8:08
What I don’t get is why people are offended by “happy Holidays!”
It’s like, if they aren’t constantly acknowledged as being superior to everybody else, that’s a form of discrimination.
Treating christians as though their religion is just as valid as that of Muslims is discrimination.
You know what? FUCK THAT.
The problem with that article you quoted, Blowback, is that it ignores the following fact: Non-christian holidays are already absent from the public sphere. You’re never going to see Hannukah Zombie talking with kids in the local mall.
Now, if minority groups don’t get offended at this, and indeed, shouldn’t be offended at this, then why should Christians be any different?
Now, I agree that it’s stupid to ban something that doesn’t offend anybody, but let’s place the lion’s share of the blame for strife this causes where it belongs: On assholes who can’t stand to be treated as equal with everybody else.
thehim said,
December 1, 2005 at 8:21
Bill O’Reilly is as clueless about how many enemies he has as he is about everything else…
tlh lib said,
December 1, 2005 at 8:59
You obviously didn’t follow the proper protocol at the Ministry of Truth before posting this abominable bunch of lies.
You will meet us at the stadium at oh eight hundred hours for a truth session.
War…peace….war….er…fuck I forget what the proper send off is anymore.
I’ll go with Peace….it’s in the manual.
merlallen said,
December 1, 2005 at 12:34
So the German Army belt buckles that said “Gott mit uns” was supposed to be ironic?
Mal de mer said,
December 1, 2005 at 14:27
What a bunch of…secular progressives you all are! Makes me sick even to read all of this secular progressive stuff. You secular progressives are an affront to all thinking people.
…nope. Doesn’t really work as an insult. I suggest Shrill O’Liely go back to pinko-commie-fag.
Now, pardon me while I torture some people I hate with a gift of a FoxNews Christmas tree ornaments.
…Jesus Christ.
george said,
December 1, 2005 at 15:36
This is obviously meant to be ironic. They call it a “christmas ornament,” then sarcastically mention “holiday trees.”
Tom Allen said,
December 1, 2005 at 15:47
I agree with Christopher, in a sort of parallel universe way.
Although I am an atheist, my family is Christian, so I wish them a “Merry Christmas” and we do presents and such. The best thing is that my nephew will be almost three this Christmas, so he will finally probably realize a child’s anticipation of getting gifts. I doubt he has views on the Trinity and such, but he sure knows that his family loves him, and that we like to celebrate, and that he gets loads of attention.
Among my pals, several of whom might not be Christian, we wish each other Happy Holidays. Because, you know, I really can’t tell offhand whether my bar buds are Christian or Jewish or Muslim or atheist or whatnot. If they say “Merry Christmas” I say “and to you, too”. Which is what I would say were I wished a “Happy Chanukah” or whatnot.
So I don’t get — well, I do understand Murdoch’s and O’Reilly’s fearmongering for profit, I suppose — what the big deal is. It seems like they would even object to my saying “goodbye” instead of “God be with you.”
You know, sometimes it’s just dang polite to respect others’ beliefs. I may not agree with said beliefs, but hey, as long as there’s a party involved, with cookies and such, I can stop with the critiques and start with the munchies. Just like my friends do. Really, I don’t entirely get why O’Reilly et al. are so Grinchy in a season that’s supposed to be devoted to peace and joy and understanding.
a.j. said,
December 1, 2005 at 16:00
why does fox news hate baby jesus?
Tom Allen said,
December 1, 2005 at 17:00
Goodness, a.j. Haven’t you ever heard the wisdom of Rod Flanders?
“Lies make Baby Jesus cry.”
http://www.simpsonscollectors.com/wospdb/figure.asp?fig=F0098
DaDoxPublicist said,
December 2, 2005 at 0:40
Official word from the doc:
“I did not write the words to that song!” (sounding a bit Clintonesque).
Yes, this was the sandwich doc’s unequivocal response when asked if he wrote the words to this Christmas parody:
“Deck the balls of
Bill O’Reilly
Fa la la la la la la la la
‘Tis the season to be
ballsy
Fa la la la la la la la…”
Oh, really?
No, O’Reilly
bulbul said,
December 2, 2005 at 3:46
Be vewy vewy quite. I’m huntin’ chwistians…
Gus said,
December 2, 2005 at 5:01
Love that “very secret plan…to diminish Christian philosophy in the USA.” Why does anybody listen to this paranoid nutter? He’s Howard Beale come to life. If Network was released today, it could be mistaken for a documentary.
Ginger Yellow said,
December 2, 2005 at 5:10
“You obviously didn’t follow the proper protocol at the Ministry of Truth before posting this abominable bunch of lies.”
The only protocols O’Reilly cares about were written by the Elders of Zion.
Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger said,
December 2, 2005 at 5:57
Rowan, I think that’s your cue to chime in.
Dan Someone said,
December 2, 2005 at 16:48
Rowan’s probably too busy translating Italian fascists for Stormfront.
Timmah420 said,
December 3, 2005 at 17:39
It’s not ironic, they changed the site. Now it says christmas…
Daniel Davis said,
December 9, 2005 at 22:27
I really appreciate what you’re doing here. Very interesting site. Good is feature of Memorizing Player: http://www.moviegallery.com/ , right Tournament will Increase Corner without any questions Lazy Tournament is always Beautiful Table , Standard, Lazy, Industrious nothing comparative to White Tremendous, Beautiful, Red nothing comparative to Collective
DrJeff said,
May 25, 2006 at 17:12
A very interesting idea. No discourse involving issues, just simply mockery of those with whom you diagree. No substance.