Posts Tagged ‘O’Reilly’

Shame on Bill O’Reilly Regarding Miss Kansas 2013

Posted by Troy on 20th September 2013 in Uncategorized

You know, I’m really not a fan of Bill O’Reilly.  I don’t think he’s all that smart.  He frequently misses the win.  I find him too much of a stateist.  I also think he can be a bit of a bully and lacks class.  Take, for instance, his ending remarks on his show on September 19th, 2013.  He had invited Theresa Vail, Miss Kansas 2013, on his show.  She refused to come on unless she had  a list of questions that he intended to ask her.  He said that wasn’t how their show worked, so he didn’t contract her to to come on.  So far…so good.  She asked to know what he wanted to ask.  He didn’t want to tell her.  As such, she’s not coming on his show.  Fine.  Great.  No problems.  Then O’Reilly has to come on and whine about how she want do his show without knowing the questions up front.  Dude!  Have some class!  This is just you whining and trying to defame her because she wouldn’t play your game.  She’s not a public official.  She’s not anyone truly important.  She just wants to make sure she’s not ambushed and torn apart on national TV.  Hell, she probably watched his show and didn’t want to end up like some of his other guests.  However, Bill O’Reilly can’t stand not to have his way, and so he whined like a little baby and tried to make out that this lady was a bad person just for looking out for her own reputation.  She was up front with her requirements for her appearance.  She did nothing wrong.  You, O’Reilly, are a crybaby.  Grow up.

Long Live the Constitution!

Is Marriage a Right? / Bill O’Reilly is an idiot

Posted by Troy on 7th February 2012 in Current Events

In discussing the defeat of Proposition 8 (dealing with gay marriage), O’Reilly asked the question, “Do you have a right to be married?”  To this question, his response was “Of course not.”

I disagree!  Per the Tenth Amendment, any right not given to the Federal government is granted to the states and the people themselves.  My memory may be fuzzy, but I don’t think that there is an Article giving the right to be married to the Federal government.  Ergo, this right must rest with the people themselves.  You may also ask questions like, do we have the right to eat?  Do we have the right to breathe?  Do we have the right to learn?  Do we have the right to have hobbies?  Do we have the right to own pets?  Yes, of course we do.  The state may regulate things, but the right still exists.  To deny that we have a right just because you are against something (in this case, gay marriage) is foolhardy.  If I don’t want people to be able to exercise because it makes me feel bad about how I look, I would be foolish to claim that they have no right to do so  it because it is not spelled out in the Constitution.  That argument could give the government room to argue that I have no right to pick what foods I eat because that’s not spelled out in the Constitution.

This is where I am going to get into trouble.  The fact of the matter is that the California government granted the ability of gays to marry.  The state has the right to regulate the affairs of their state.  They can state that first cousins may or may not marry and the like.  This is a fair use of their powers.  However, the people do have the right to overrule their government by use of referendums and other measures.  This should be a defeat of the bill, and gays should dust themselves off and try again.

I am a Libertarian at heart.  I am also a Tenther (a person that believes in the Tenth Amendment).  I believe that states have the power to decide who may and may not be married in their states.  I don’t believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in the matter.  If people want to enter into a strong, committed relationship, then I believe that is their right (regardless of whatever whoever calls it).  If you and your lover call yourself married and live as such, then you are married (losing the married filing joint status anyway).  However, I feel like this issue is fashionable.  I think people want the aura of marriage and aren’t thinking about the total commitment it takes.  If you are for this issue because you enjoy acting self-righteous, then you are a fool.  If you are against it because you think that it will cheapen marriage, then you are also a fool.  A committed gay couple does good for the institution of marriage.  What cheapens it are spouses that cheat, divorces at a drop of a hat, marriages of convenience, and all the other travesties that we have applied to marriage in the last fifty years.

Long Live the Constitution!