About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

O'Reilly again claims that if gay marriage was legalized, "you could have married a duck"

May 26, 2009 9:33 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

O'Reilly's Ark: Gay marriage could lead to goat, duck, dolphin, and turtle marriage

Shuster says O'Reilly's "marry a turtle" argument is "ridiculous" "illogical" and "stupid"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dmhack (May 26, 2009 9:45 pm ET)
      2  
      If it looks like a moron and talks like a moron then it must be an O'Reilly.

      (Megyn Kelly is an attorney? Dear God.)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (May 26, 2009 9:45 pm ET)
      7 1
      Ok O'falafel is an idiot and a bigot. When will the right get off of this astonishingly stupid argument?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (May 26, 2009 9:50 pm ET)
        2 14
        What is astonishingly stupid is that MMFA would highlight this comment after a very good discussion of Obama VS Cheney and a continuation of the expose about the crooks at acorn. But as soon as I heard it, I knew they would, it is the best they can do.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (May 26, 2009 9:52 pm ET)
          9 1
          I guess you figure a lot of people want to marry ducks, too?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (May 26, 2009 10:02 pm ET)
            2 10
            Good job, keep up the excellent critical commentary. But I guess this is the kind of story that you like.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by eweston8542983 (May 26, 2009 10:04 pm ET)
              5  
              Sure doc, but viaduct?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by lookoutoftheyard2251 (May 26, 2009 10:48 pm ET)
                1  
                Personally, I don't know viaduct. I'm a stranger here, myself. But try having the producer you're coming onto sue you for sexual harassment, then maybe you'll find out "viaduct."
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 27, 2009 12:29 am ET)
                2  
                Why-a no chicken?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by carlileb5935 (May 26, 2009 10:04 pm ET)
              5  
              I can't tell you how many people in California here were lining up to marry ducks.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 26, 2009 10:27 pm ET)
              7  
              While YOU can keep up the worthless posts. I guess that is all you are capable of
              Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (May 26, 2009 10:44 pm ET)
              5  
              Let us know when you can post an actual fact about Acorn and crooks. In the meantime, enjoy your crow. Not as glamorous as a duck, but it really does taste like chicken.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (May 26, 2009 11:23 pm ET)
                1 6
                They have a history of not only votor fraud but embezzlement as wwell...http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorn-embezzlement-case-delayed-for.html.....
                And of course they tried to cover it up....http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/acorn.investigation/

                And now they have 270 affiliated groups working out of a single building in New Orleans.....http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/05/another_acorn_s.php
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 27, 2009 12:31 am ET)
                  2 1
                  They have a history of not only votor fraud
                  WOW! ACORN is defrauding VOTORS?

                  And all your links point to sites that don't support what you say they do?

                  Why am I not surprised?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by harley (May 27, 2009 8:09 am ET)
                    3 1

                    Reich-winger terrorists, like O'Racist and faillibrul, are too stupid and pathetic to realize that ACORN actually exposed potential votor [sic] fraud by reporting questionable votor [sic] registration cards.

                    Reich-winger terrorists, like O'Racist and faillibrul, are too stupid and pathetic to understand the definition of votor [sic] fraud.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (May 27, 2009 12:48 am ET)
                  2  
                  Even if true, you basically posted info that said that due to a few hurricanes that occured during bush's term served papers were not properly served resulting in delays. And then the article somehow made the leap in logic that it was on purpose to benefit President Obama. But I give you credit, to my knowledge this was the first link you've posted supporting your claims. Well done.

                  Personally, I welcome any factual investigation that exposes fraud, even if it is a good group like ACORN - removing those who's criminal activities would cause problems only makes them stronger. I just wish right wingers would embrace the same mentality, even though it would mean they would lose about 95% of their control over the republican party.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 27, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Did you just post a story showing us that ACORN was a victim of embezzlement by one of its employees as a justification behind your leader O'Reilly believing that gay marriage has ANYTHING to do with bestiality? You are really losing your grip on defending this nut, aren't you?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (May 27, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
                  1  
                  I think it is pretty interesting that you claim ACORN has committed "votor" fraud, when there is no evidence in your links of such activity. I think you are confused with voter registration fraud which is an entirely different animal. The case against ACORN in that regard is not even as clear cut as it seems you would prefer.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 26, 2009 10:26 pm ET)
          5  
          You calling ACORN crooks doesnt make them crooks despite your fantasy that whatever you say magically becomes true. Also this site doesnt DO politics they do how the media COVERS politics. Third it isnt UP to you what this site covers if you dont LIKE the way this site operates feel free to start your OWN website and we can drop by and tell you how to run it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (May 26, 2009 11:26 pm ET)
              7
            They can cover whatever they want, I am just pointing out how trivial their priorities are. But it does not take much to keep the loyal troops here content and happy.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 26, 2009 11:30 pm ET)
              6  
              They CAN cover what they want and their mission statement makes clear that is MEDIA not politics. Coming here and snivelling they dont cover what YOU want is like being invited to dinner and whining the whole time that they didnt serve what YOU wanted. It doesnt take much to make the trolls and wingnuts snivel though.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 27, 2009 12:21 am ET)
                3  
                I think he's gone away now...

                Lock the doors.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 27, 2009 12:32 am ET)
                  2  
                  I think he's gone away now...
                  So the ducks are safe now?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (May 27, 2009 1:02 am ET)
                    2  
                    Their feathers were ruffled, and one kept screaming AAAAFLAK when abused from behind. Poor duck had a lisp or something, cause his insurance didn't cover his rape kit.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (May 26, 2009 10:40 pm ET)
          6  
          ACORN didn't commit any crimes. Keep barking up that tree. It won't go anywhere, no matter what O'Reilly says.


          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 26, 2009 10:50 pm ET)
            5  
            I dont think he cares if it is true. It is about the repitition. It is how he has been programmed. Keep repeating whenever he can shoehorn it in that Sotomayer is racist and Acorn are crooks. It is how he is programmed. The truth, facts, reality none of those enter the picture.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tman418 (May 27, 2009 12:53 am ET)
              3  
              Fairliberal, in 90% of his/her posts, MUST mention the irrelevant ACORN in some thread even if the topic isn't about ACORN. His life depends on it.

              Fairliberal is absolutely obsessed.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mescal (May 27, 2009 1:43 am ET)
                2  
                Fauxliberal in actuality is a troll who works for the Faux News Channel. Fauxliberal is only here in order to derail these threads. Fauxliberal yammers on in mind-numbing fashion about ACORN because that is the Faux News Channel's latest Big Lie.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (May 27, 2009 12:01 am ET)
          4  
          "What is astonishingly stupid is that MMFA would highlight this comment after a very good discussion of Obama VS Cheney and a continuation of the expose about the crooks at acorn."

          Be patient.

          This idiotic blurb was low-hanging fruit that didn't require a second thought, which is why it was picked up and posted promptly. You'll likely see a more in-depth analysis of the more intricate BS tomorrow.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by harley (May 27, 2009 7:52 am ET)
          3  
          What is astonishingly stupid is that O'Racist believes gay marriage will lead to humans marrying animals.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Luis81 (May 26, 2009 10:06 pm ET)
      5  
      I'm not gay but I'd imagine that any homosexuals who heard Bill compare 2 humans who are of the same sex wanting to get married as the same as a human and an animal getting married quite condescending.
      Let me make a proposition for what should constitute as marriage:
      The recognition between 2 people who are of the legal age of consent and are not related by blood as a union of 1.
      I don't know how it could be made any simpler.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (May 26, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
      2  
      Ok, Billy likes his poultry and can't stop thinking about that hen. Duck has that nice fluffy white bottom.

      Man, He is a sick puppy. The producer he groped was fairly attractive, and a real woman. He had that going for him, but nooooooooo. He has to have the duck!!

      Billy's plan is to cross over and make his Porn debut!?!?!

      Happy Thought, or NOT!!!

      Dan Grady
      Report Abuse
      • Author by phredicles (May 27, 2009 12:09 am ET)
        3  
        More to the point, Bill-O's been fantasizing about being married to Mallard Fillmore again.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 27, 2009 12:24 am ET)
          2  
          Billy, I feel really sorry for whoever married you...

          Is she a "lucky ducky"?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by twseattle (May 27, 2009 4:13 am ET)
           
        The duck foot fetish group has a great website but their server always goes down. The poor guys name is Bill after all, he had to check it out. Blame his empathy for the ugly duckling, I guess it is dangerous! Just waddle away Bill, just waddle away...

        There has to be more puns but you all deserve not to be swamped with them.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by michaeldgiles4407 (May 26, 2009 10:45 pm ET)
         
      Duck marriage? That's fowl!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by underweller (May 26, 2009 11:13 pm ET)
      1  
      Is Mr. O’ Reilly really that stupid or does he hope everyone else is? To use the very false comparison of two consenting adults (whatever the sex) wanting to marry with the marrying of farm animals is on its base absurd. We have laws in this country; laws of legal age of consent. You can’t marry anyone who cannot give legal consent. The laws may vary from state to state but you get the point. So if two consenting adults, weather man-man or woman-woman want to commit to each other the sane way man and woman can; there is no difference. Now when a duck can stand there and give his or her consent, I will have no problem with it and Mr. O’Reilly getting married. You see Mr. O’Reilly can’t use the more cogent argument of polygamy because that battle has been and is still being bandied about all over the world. I just don’t think the majority of human beings living in this country have the same warped fetish as Mr. O’Reilly has.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (May 27, 2009 12:57 am ET)
         
      Have a I ever mentioned ducks are my favorite animal?

      Maybe we can just change the laws slightly so that they are they only animal we can marry, even if we already have a spouse.

      For those who don't know it...

      That was a joke.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by R.E. Maxson (May 27, 2009 1:43 am ET)
      1  
      I feel sad for people who stand for hate. The degree to which they cling to beliefs springing from hate is the degree to which they will never know true happiness.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by roninkannushi1711 (May 27, 2009 8:08 am ET)
      1  
      I knew Mr. O'Reilly was kinky. I never thought beastiality was within his sexual preferences. I kid, I think. The ladies have to play along and he claims his superior intellect. Misogyny? Fool, another way to describe intelligence without wisdom.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 27, 2009 8:19 am ET)
      1  
      *sigh* I guess this means I could also go into business with on, sell a house to one, let on make legal and/or medical decisions for me... oh wait... THAT would be absurd. Oh... WAIT! HIS WHOLE ARGUMENT IS ABSURD!!!

      If this is the best they can do in arguing AGAINST it, that fact alone is a better argument FOR gay marriage than I could ever possibly make.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 27, 2009 9:43 am ET)
      2  
      As long as gay ducks have the same rights, I have no problem.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by latanza (May 27, 2009 11:38 am ET)
        1
      Gays have the right to unite as they choose but they need to address some other things first, States have sodomy statues that gay bashers will pull out of the wood works to balance the argument. The gay community needs to address civil rights issues and laws regarding the union before they can demand the priveleges. Anyway, the semantics, marriage is not between two of the same sex. That is a title that heterosexual couples who are married can fight for and they don't have to conceed it to the gay community. We often make adaptions or is this some other ploy?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 27, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
        2  
        Good lord. Citing old sodomy laws only comes off as homophobic and doesn't "balance" anything. What "laws regarding the union" would need to be addressed? It would work exactly as heterosexual marriage does.

        Marriage was at one point not between two of different races. The word is simply not the property of those who are currently allowed to engage in it, it's a legal institution. If a court or legislative body determines that the right exists for gay couples, then straight people aren't in a position where they have to "concede" anything.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (May 28, 2009 3:01 am ET)
         
      there is something i really cant stand about megyn kelly... she just seems to come off as a very condescending, arrogant person. and fox news is actually thinking about replacing her for van susteran when her contract ends... what a joke.
      Report Abuse