O'Reilly, unapologetic for remarks about the "fun" had by kidnapping victim, claimed of rape allegations, "[W]e all knew this was coming"
SUMMARY: After being criticized for saying that a
15-year-old kidnapping victim "liked his circumstances," Bill
O'Reilly repeatedly vowed to "apologize" if he was "wrong."
The man accused of kidnapping the boy has now been charged with sexually
assaulting him as well. In reporting on the new charges, O'Reilly not
only failed to apologize, but did not mention his previous remarks at all.
Despite his repeated vows to "apologize" if he was "wrong" about his "skepticism" over 15-year-old kidnapping victim Shawn Hornbeck's "situation," Bill O'Reilly failed to do so, even while discussing the new sexual assault charges against Hornbeck's alleged kidnapper on the February 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. As Media Matters for America has noted (here and here), on the January 15 The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said that "there was an element here that this kid [Hornbeck] liked about his circumstances," and added: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted." Responding to widespread criticism for his remarks, O'Reilly vowed on the January 16, 17, and 22 editions of The O'Reilly Factor to "apologize" for his "skepticism" if his assessment proved "wrong." On January 22, he contrasted his purported willingness to apologize if proved wrong to "gutter snipes" (apparently referring to Media Matters) who "will never apologize. That is the code of the gutter." Nevertheless, on the February 5 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly not only failed to apologize for his remarks, he did not even mention them. Discussing the new charges, O'Reilly claimed: "[W]e all knew this was coming. ... These poor boys [were] subjected to this monster. ... [A]s journalists, we have to say 'alleged' and this, that, and the other thing, but ... we all know what this is."
In addition to claiming that Hornbeck "liked" his "circumstances," O'Reilly said on the January 16 O'Reilly Factor, "I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because" his alleged kidnapper "made things easy for him. No school, play all day long." Hornbeck was abducted at the age of 11 and held for four years. He was recently found in Missouri. Hornbeck's alleged kidnapper, Michael Devlin, was charged February 5 with 71 counts of kidnapping and forcible sodomy, 53 of which relate to Hornbeck. The remaining 18 charges stemmed from the alleged kidnapping of another Missouri teenager, 13-year-old Ben Ownby.
O'Reilly's comments touched off a controversy, and at least one advertiser reportedly removed its advertisements from his program as a result of his comments about Hornbeck. The website Radar reported: "Home-improvement chain Lowe's has pulled its advertising from The O'Reilly Factor following comments host Bill O'Reilly made about Shawn Hornbeck, the 15-year-old Missouri boy who recently returned to his parents after four years in captivity. ... A Fox News spokeswoman confirms the pullout, but says Lowe's advertising had simply been shifted to other programs on the network, not canceled. 'To my knowledge, no other advertisers have taken similar action,' she adds."
Despite the outrage over his remarks, O'Reilly consistently defended his comments and attacked critics, as Media Matters noted (here and here), including referring to Media Matters as a "far-left swamp pit." Yet O'Reilly vowed repeatedly to "apologize" if he was "wrong" in his "skepticism" about Hornbeck:
- January 16 O'Reilly Factor: Responding to a viewer's email demanding that O'Reilly apologize for his remarks, O'Reilly stated: "I might have to do that, but I might not," and defended his comments: "No question this monster Devlin made threats and intimidated Shawn. But teenagers have brains and Shawn had the freedom to get away if he wanted to."
- January 17 O'Reilly Factor: O'Reilly stated in response to a viewer who praised O'Reilly's "courage" in reporting on Hornbeck: "[M]y skepticism about the situation could be wrong. If it is, I will apologize."
- January 22 O'Reilly Factor: Responding to email from another viewer who asserted that "there will be a lot of people eating crow" for criticizing O'Reilly's remarks, O'Reilly stated, "Maybe, maybe not, Mr. Knox [the email's author]. As I said ... I could be wrong, and if I am, I will apologize." O'Reilly, presumably referring to Media Matters, added: "But the gutter snipes will never apologize. That is the code of the gutter."
Yet while reporting on the charges of sexual assault against Devlin, O'Reilly not only did not apologize for -- or even mention -- his previous remarks, he asserted that "we all knew this was coming" and expressed sympathy for "[t]hese poor boys [who were] subjected to this monster." O'Reilly also asserted that Devlin "is never, ever going to get out" of jail "and that "he shouldn't get out, because ... as journalists, we have to say 'alleged' and this, that, and the other thing, but ... we all know what this is."
O'Reilly frequently casts himself as a champion of children. He has also suggested that he is "looking out for the kids" and attacked "the print press" for not "car[ing] about the children."
From the February 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Back of the Book" segment tonight: St. Louis prosecutors have charged Michael Devlin with 71 additional counts, including forcible sodomy on both Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby. Thank God Missouri has Jessica's Law, because if Devlin is convicted, he could get and should get life in prison.
Joining us now with an update, Greta Van Susteren, who is leading with this story On the Record, coming up in just over an hour.
OK. You know -- and we all knew this was coming. It's terrible to hear it. These poor boys subjected to this monster. Anything surprise you about the press conference today outlining the charges?
VAN SUSTEREN: No. I mean, it's actually quite predictable. What the prosecution does is it gathers as many as it possibly can charges and charges the defendant with it. The expectation, or at least the hope of the prosecutor, is that the defendant will want to enter into some plea agreement, because if you have 71 charges, believe me, a plea agreement would be a life in prison. And that would be the best thing for the prosecution --
O'REILLY: Yeah.
VAN SUSTEREN: -- without a trial, without putting the two young men through it.
O'REILLY: This guy is never, ever going to get out, and he shouldn't get out because, you know, this is -- you know, I know you, as journalists, we have to say "alleged" and this, that, and the other thing, but this is -- we all know what this is.
From the January 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: [Viewer], Alamogordo, New Mexico: "O'Reilly, most of the time I do not agree with your viewpoints, but in the Hornbeck case, there will be a lot of people eating crow for comments they made about you."
Maybe, maybe not, Mr. Knox. As I said to Greta, I could be wrong, and if I am, I will apologize. But the gutter snipes will never apologize. That is the code of the gutter.
From the January 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: [Viewer], Las Vegas: "Mr. O, it took some serious (courage) -- viewer used another word -- to report this story as it should be reported. Thank you."
Well, you're welcome, sir. But my skepticism about the situation could be wrong. If it is, I will apologize.
From the January 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Anger over the kidnapping of two Missouri boys -- that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."
Now, last night, I said 15-year-old Shawn Hornbeck might have accepted his kidnapping by that creep Michael Devlin rather than trying to escape. I also said I don't believe much in the Stockholm syndrome -- that is the captive becoming attached to the kidnapper. It happens, but it's rare, and Dr. Dwayne Fuselier with the FBI for 21 years will back me up on that.
Now, Greta Van Susteren disagreed with me and so did many of you. For example, [viewer], who lives in Courtland, Virginia, wrote: "Mr. O'Reilly, your comments regarding Shawn Hornbeck were way out of line. He was an 11-year old child when his victimization began; he's still only 15. Your speculative callousness is shameful. You should apologize to the Hornbeck family and to all your viewers."
Well, I might have to do that, but I might not. This is a complicated, disturbing story that is important for all Americans. After teaching teenagers in high school, it is hard for me to believe that a normal kid would stay in a horrible environment when escape was easy, especially if the child had confidence in his parents. No question this monster Devlin made threats and intimidated Shawn. But teenagers have brains, and Shawn had the freedom to get away if he wanted to.
I could be wrong, and if I am, I will apologize. But the gutter snipes will never apologize. That is the code of the gutter.(O'Reilly)
Who are the guttersnipes,and why should they apologize if BilldO's wrong?
Is BO now demanding apologies from people who are right?
If the "guttersnipes" will never apologize, then I guess Billdo has defined himself.
Quoting here The Progressive Truth blogspot
--------------
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
CAMPAIGN to stop O'Reilly
So, now there is a grassroots movement aimed to stop O'Reilly from being the Keynote speaker at a Conference.
Below is the contact information for this organization. Spread the word! Contact this organization by phone, mail, email, fax, etc. C&P the info and repost!
National Center for Missing & Exploited ChildrenCharles B. Wang International Children's Building699 Prince StreetAlexandria, Virginia 22314-3175
Phone: 703-274-3900Fax: 703-274-220024-hour Hotline: 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678 )
Hey Liberals!
What part of "presumed innocent" don't you understand?
There's plenty of things to nail O'Reilly on, but this issue isn't one of them-- he qualified his remarks over and over again, and never proclaimed that this was a good thing. All he did was raise questions and doubts about the official version of events.
Even worse, has there been a trial, yet? If not, where's any evidence of anything? It's foolish for anyone to make any kind of presumptions now about the case.
I'll tell you, the left can be just as big a bunch of fascists as the right, eh? Do you guys honestly believe the word of authority figures anyway?-- especially those who let this kid out of their grasp for four years?
And since when has O'Reilly been soft on child abuse?
That is just flat-out intellectual dishonesty and you know it. O'Reilly never qualified his remarks and he never apologised! He openly suggested that this poor kid "enjoyed his circumstances" - As far as the issue of innocent nutil proven guilty 0- that's not actually relevant to the issue here. It's not about Devlin - this is about O'Reilly openly suggesting that the kid wasn't abducted when the kid had told police that he had been abducted -O'Reilly unilaterally decided to shoot off his pig-ignorant mouth to suggest that the kid liked what was happening to him. Are there lengths you people won't go to to defend this puss-filled infection on journalism?
Lemme get this straight. We're supposed to cut O'Reilly slack because the kidnapper hasn't been tried and convicted yet. However, O'Reilly didn't have to cut the "alleged" victim slack before blaming the boy.
Our O'Reilly defender has some interesting logic going on there.
My oh my, where to begin...
Hey Liberals!
Hi.
What part of "presumed innocent" don't you understand?
You're right, I'm sure that guy kidnapped a seven-year-old boy so he'd have someone to play Nintendo with (no offense to Nintendo players).
There's plenty of things to nail O'Reilly on, but this issue isn't one of them-- he qualified his remarks over and over again, and never proclaimed that this was a good thing. All he did was raise questions and doubts about the official version of events.
If I recall correctly, he claimed that being kidnapped was "fun" for the boy and said he'd apologize if things turned out differently. The boy's parents sure think so. Where's the apology? I think saying this guy deserves life in prison is pretty much admitting you were wrong about the boy he kidnapped having "fun".
Even worse, has there been a trial, yet? If not, where's any evidence of anything? It's foolish for anyone to make any kind of presumptions now about the case.
Again, Bill said the guy deserved life in prison. It's O'Reilly failing to live up to his own standards.
I'll tell you, the left can be just as big a bunch of fascists as the right, eh?
Yeah, you know how much Democrats want to lower the minimum wage and keep gays from getting married.
Do you guys honestly believe the word of authority figures anyway?-- especially those who let this kid out of their grasp for four years?
Yeah, I'm sure the parents were ecstatic when they learned their son had probably been kidnapped.
And since when has O'Reilly been soft on child abuse?
I'm pretty sure saying a kidnapped boy is having "fun" is the dictionary definition of being "soft on child abuse".
Great points.
"OK. You know -- and we all knew this was coming. It's terrible to hear it. These poor boys subjected to this monster."
I don't get it. We "Liberals" are being taken to task for not presuming his innocence, but O'Reilly is declaring him a "monster" and saying he should never be let out of jail. Maybe Carlile thinks O'Reilly is a liberal?
"All he did was raise questions and doubts about the official version of events."
What are you talking about?
"I actually hope I'm wrong about Shawn Hornbeck. I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because Devlin made things easy for him. No school, play all day long."
How would he be "wrong" if he wasn't coming to a conclusion, if he was just "raising questions"? What does he have to hope for?
"All right, you know, the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it. I've never bought it. I didn't think it happened in the Patty Hearst case. I don't think it happened here."
Is this part of the qualifying that you referred to? "I don't buy (the Stockholm syndrome thing)"? Again, sounds like a conclusion.
"I'm not buying this. If you're 11 years old or 12 years old, 13, and you have a strong bond with your family, OK, even if the guy threatens you, this and that, you're riding your bike around, you got friends. The kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff. If you can get away, you get away."
How is he not stating that Hornbeck was a willing captive here? Doesn't seem ambiguous at all.
"And I think when it all comes down, what's going to happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances."
Where's the question here? Where's the qualifier?
"I made no awful remarks, madam -- just asked questions."
But he didn't ask any questions. He put forth his view that Hornbeck was enjoying his circumstances. But you seem to believe that he was "questioning" something just because he said so to cover himself.
I would think that the proof you seek is the fact that Hornbeck was missing for years, and he was living with the suspect. You seem to honestly believe that Hornbeck was enjoying his circumstances, otherwise what defense exists? "Innocent until proven guilty" notwithstanding, once Hornbeck makes that accusation it's going to take more than the mere assertion that he's lying to make it go away. It's not a whodunit, you realize. If you're on videotape shooting someone and your fingerprints are on the murder weapon, then a mere "I didn't do it" won't cut it in court. This seems to be in the same "open-and-shut" category.
And regarding O'Reilly's past responses to child abuse, so what? So because he's made other comments on other cases before, then he didn't say the things that we know he said about this case? It must be a mass hallucination, because he's anti-child abuse! What the hell?
Repubs - take note. What you have just seen from brabantio is an example of an intelligent, thorough, sytematic and articulate analysis of the issue. I realise that it might be a bit confusing for you, but hey, that's your problem. Brabantio has given you the example, now see if you can follow it - I know its a bit tough having to sound out words that you're not familiar with, but it's the only way you will learn.
- [link to jamnews.wordpress.com"> color="#0052a3">freakagriep Let me respond by doing to you exactly what Levine did to KO--ad-hominem attacks.
TheRick says; "Freakagriep, you're a fool."
Try arguing the message instead of the messenger. Now please, oh please, ask me why.
More so than usual I am thoroughly confused by billy Boy's logic this time.
maybe that is because you assume that anything someone like Bill O'really says contains logic.
"The code of the gutter"?
That's "Culture Warrior" talk, Rusty. You have to be one of them to understand.
I'm told that if someone turns themselves over to the Dark Lord of the Culture Warriors, it all becomes clear.
yeah, who knew they were so honorable down there in the gutter!
Can you imagine if O'Realityhasnobearing had children of his own?....they would be in therapy for life...
He does have children of his own. He just never talks about them.
I wonder why not. Maybe they're rapists, or serial killers, or liberals.
I doubt it. He has said that he doesn't talk about them because he doesn't want to put them in danger. Never know what those crazy libs might do.
Can you imagine being the female that impregnated by Bill O'Sexylawsuit...? She must be in therapy for life...
Sure. We are always killing pundit larvae.
If he's hiding his kids, it's too late: the internet found out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29#Personal_life
PS I shouldn't be so amused to find he's actually William O'Reilly Jr. - I myself am named after my father...
Yes... well all knew this was coming. Bill would be called out as the unsympathetic blowhard that he is... and he would claim to be the victim. Poor Bill. Insane.
Freakagriep would make a good a good candidate for the mental poverty program. That Mark Levin clip was nothing more than childish nonsense. If the best he could do was read some garbage articles from the NY Post and call Olbermann names, he should pack it in. As a journalist, he is a pathetic joke. The NY Post is barely above the level of The National Enquirer.
That anthrax article has been completely discredited. Levin's intellectual laziness is very obvious here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Z_TSPM6Fg&mode=related&search=
NBC catches pedophiles, O'Reilly defends pedophiles.
By denigrating the victim O'Reilly has endorsed the pedophile. By O'Reilly's own logic regarding the ACLU, he mus t now support NAMBLA. His point is irrelevant and naive. SO what if it appeared that this kid was enjoying himself. He was being raped, he was young, when in crisis situations the victime tries to normalize the situation couple that with the immaturity, no decent person questions the way O'Reilly does.
"By denigrating the victim O'Reilly has endorsed the pedophile"
Uh, that's "Homosexual pedophile", Bing. But you knew that.
When did O'Reilly "denigrate the victim?"
All he did was ask questions and express doubts about the official version of events. Or do you folks believe everything you hear on the news?
What's ridiculous about this issue is that it relies upon the premise that BOR is somehow soft on child predators. The truth is that he always has a 'hang 'em at the airport' mentality about these news stories. At least once he's not jumping to conclusions-- unlike the majority of MM posters here.
Let's wait for the trial, OK, before we start speculating? Or is that asking too much?
Ridiculous. This issue doesnt hang on ANY premise it hangs on O'falafels OWN WORDS. His stances in the past are irrlevant to WHAT HE OBVIOUSLY SAID. Whatever his views are his OWN WORDS are dispicable.
Uh, that's "Homosexual pedophile", Bing. But you knew that.
Why the distinction, gettindooped? Do you find same sex child molesting "less hot" than opposite sex pedophilia? Just wondering.
"Uh, that's "Homosexual pedophile", Bing. But you knew that."
-----
No, it isn't. But you knew that. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals. But, given that, the fact that their victims are pre-pubescent means the pedophiles are usually excited by the innocence, and not by the gender. This has been explained in many psychological studies.
But I'm not surprised you went for the ignorant reply instead of the intelligent one.
Exposing Ones Self
Bill O'Reilly is doing more then speaking to an issue here. I think he is speaking to a part of his self who is controlling. I would bet my farm O'Reilly is into the total control of his work and home environment. I would say he is in total control of the people closest to him as well.
If O'Reilly could introspect -- to undertake a detailed mental self-examination of feelings, thoughts, and motives -- the possibility of being in total control of a person, I am sure he could come up with how, in absence of the controller, the victim can continues to act in compliance of the controller. In this case, there is a part of the controller that is O'Reilly.
If this were a "Flaming Liberal," the press and right wing heads would have a field day with the negative press associated with it.
O'Reilly is not going to get away with this. The left wing heads will have their day with this obvious flawed way of thinking.
Joseph
Unbelievable, even for him. This story should have legs, get more attention. Keith O. was out sick yesterday - hope he's back tonight, although this callous display goes way past just being deserving another "Worst Person in the World" designation. Geez, after listening to that slime, I need a shower now.
By denigrating the victim O'Reilly has endorsed the pedophile"
Uh, that's "Homosexual pedophile", Bing. But you knew that.
A pedophile is a pedophile you ingrate. Why the caveat? What are you saying exactly. Nevermind. I already know.
Sorry, Julia, didn't see your post, but I think we all know what's up with gettin-pre-poobed.
Some errors in MM's description of the story...
When I look back at this item, one thing that has struck me is the MM claim that Shawn Hornbeck was "held" in Missouri. Unfortunately, the real situation is not that simple. MM is begging the question here, and it goes to the root of the accusations against BOR.
If this were a classic captive situation, MM would be right, and BOR clearly wrong. But BOR's claims are based upon his disagreement with this premise, and that's the rub. He's not the only one, either--there were ample opportunites for escape, and Sean Hornbeck even taunted his family and rescuers on their web site.
This little discrepancy makes it a more complicated issue, and unfortunately, BOR's correct on this one. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, and intolerance and sanctimonious outrage may make some posters feel good about themselves, but it doesn't get at the truth-- especially in the absence of a trial of facts.
Which, of course, we'll never have because the prosecution doesn't want one. That's why they are overcharging with a ridiculously specific number of indictments. Van Susteren's right on that one, too.
I get the impression that this issue is all about hatred towards Bill O'Reilly and not a calm disputation over the facts. That's too bad. It's not flattering, and it makes 'liberals' look as irrational as the wingnuts.
What proof do you have that Shawn Hornbeck "taunted" his family?
Carlileb - should we take your word for it that Shawn taunted his parents? Or is Shawn "innocent until proven guilty" of taunting his parents? You know, my Aunt has a piano that needs moving - I figure given the ease and frequency with which you try to move goalposts, a Baby Grand should be a sinch! How much does O'Reilly pay you for this garbage?
I get the impression that this issue is all about a boy kidnapped from his parents.
The kidnapper has been caught. The boy has been returned to his "old" parents.
The boy is a victim of a crime. His family are crime victims. Whatever transpired between the time of the kidnapping and arrest of the kidnapper will have to be sorted out.
O'Reilly is not "lookin' out" for this kid. He outright dismisses the "Stockholm Syndrome". He doesn't believe in it. I thought his degree was in history, not Psychology?
In the past, O'Reilly has shown that he has painted himself as a professional victim. He has been victimized so much that he feels the need to fight a "Culture War".
He is not a victim. He is a whining old white man. He has tried to beat down many real victims. He is a disgrace. He is a huckster. He is pathetic.
CarlileB,
Enough blaming the kid. You said he "even taunted his family and rescuers on their website." According to the child, he said he went onto the website and asked something like "How long are you planning on looking for your child?" in order to just have some sort of contact with his family and see if they still remembered/cared about him. I fail to see how this is "taunting". It seems more like "totally frightened young child seeks contact with his family." What do you think?
How you can possibly defend Billy in this is beyond me. He made his bed, but he's now refusing to lie in it. I would think that you, being in the "No Spin Zone" would make doubly sure that your messiah does not spin in his own hot wind, or else demand an apology. That's right, he should be apologizing to YOU, his own fans, for pulling the wool over your eyes (why you can't pull the wool back from over your eyes, I don't understand. Its not like Billy has that great a grip!).
-Krenith
Fascinating response by carlileb5935. Reads like something a child abuser would write: "We don't know if the boy didn't want it. The boy might have been seducing him. The boy enjoyed it."
Once again, a righty who has no valid information whatever decides that a display of mind-reading prowess is to be seen as more impressive than facts.
Perhaps Carlisle should start logging on as "The Amazing Kreskin."
Bill "sexual harraser" O'Reilly strikes again!
I don't have to go to school, I can play nintendo all day long and all I have to do is get sodomized several times a day.
WHAT A GREAT DEAL!
Bill'O is gay bashing. Pure and simple. That is the only explanation to these wacko commentaries. The interpretation of BO's comments are simple: The boy was gay so he enjoyed being raped by the man. Gay's are perverse, so having perverse sex forced on you is a something a young gay man enjoys.
This is sick. It is sick to suggest that anyone would enjoy being violated on a regular basis -- straight or gay.
If Bill had been a politician he would be eviscerated for these comments, but because he is a pundit whose audience is so tilted, and understands and supports the gay bashing subtext of his rhetoric; he not only gets a pass, he gets support from those that would cry "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal" as if it were an argument in and of itself to deflect any criticism.
Be a man Bill, apologize to the boy. And next time get a few of those pesky things called facts straight before leaping to conclusions.
Oh right, sorry, you can't. You don't have the chops to compete as a real journalist. Hate speech is the only way you can keep your audience.
*Sigh*
Can you beleive that O'Reilly is STILL going to be the keynote speaker at The Center for Missing and Exploited Children's fundraiser in Naples, Fl.? I wrote to them to reconsider.
I agree O'Reilly is doing some gay bashing. I guess that's also why a poster here mentioned "gay pedophile" instead of just pedophile.
While I am not sure I would like to think gttn is having a little fun with the reich wing's contention that all gays are pedophiles and therefore all pedophiles are gay. I could be wrong and if I am I will admit it. Oh and by the way I will admit it here in a public forum.
Why does O'Reilly give the kidnapper the benefit of a doubt while the victim is afforded no such latitude?
As long as O'Reilly is busy being a slime ball, why not assert that the kid had it coming because of the way he was dressed.
It is obvious that, to O'Reilly, the phrase "missing and exploited" does not apply if the child has piercings.
Perhaps Bill O would be so gracious as to pen the handbook on who deserves to be a victim so the police won't waste time saving children who haven't been fully exploited.
Bill sounds just like a sicko member of nambla. That's what they believe right? That the kids like it. Bill-O sees eye to eye with child predators. He is such a sick puppy.
Hey juliajane,
Thanks for the heads up about Bill-O speaking for the National center for missing and exploited children in fl. I called them to see if it was true. (forgive me for doubting you) It is true. I think every one wants to see this fine organization be as successful as possible. And it would be awful to see it pulled into a slimy controversy by Bill-O. May be if enuff people contact them out of this concern they will reconsider. (703)274-3900
This seems to be a "Bill Orally" platform here; "Be tough on crime, unless it seemed that the victim had it coming."
Young woman is raped and murdered, "she was wearing a short skirt and got drunk, she had it coming."
Boy of a non-consent age, "he probably wanted it."
Doesn't believe in the Stockholm Syndrome "maybe if it wasn't named after a city in Sweden. Lousy socialists. Maybe if it was Munich or Dublin or some non-socialist city..."
Another beef here, some right-winger mentioned that Hornbeck"taunted" his parents. My problems with that:
1) You can tell his emotions from one sentence. He might have been saying "help" or something.
2) It may not have been him. Devlin might have posted that comment to taunt his parents.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.