O'Reilly ousted as keynote speaker by National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
As noted on the February 9 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children announced that it has replaced Fox News host Bill O'Reilly as keynote speaker at an upcoming fundraiser for the organization. Countdown host Keith Olbermann reported: "Bill O'Reilly, the keynote speaker at next month's $500-per-person fundraiser for the Naples, Florida, chapter of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, is tonight no longer the keynote speaker at next month's $500-per-person fundraiser for the Naples, Florida, chapter of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children."
The Center for Missing and Exploited Children statement on the subject said in its entirety:
In response to the numerous e-mails and inquiries we have received, we are providing the following update regarding the Collier County, Florida branch fundraising dinner scheduled for March 9, 2007 in Naples, Florida. Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor, will not be a speaker at the dinner. The dinner will be held as scheduled. John Walsh, host of America's Most Wanted, will be the keynote speaker.
We would like to thank everyone for their comments and e-mails.
Olbermann noted that the organization did not give a reason for its decision to replace O'Reilly, but the decision came after O'Reilly made controversial comments about kidnapping victim Shawn Hornbeck. As Media Matters for America documented, on the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said Hornbeck -- who was abducted at age 11, held for four years and then found by police in Missouri -- appeared to have "a lot more fun" with his alleged captor "than what he had under his old parents" and asserted: "[T]here was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances." As Media Matters also noted, O'Reilly repeatedly vowed to "apologize" if he was "wrong" about his "skepticism" over Hornbeck's kidnapping, yet, even though sexual-assault charges have since been brought against Hornbeck's alleged abductor, O'Reilly has yet to apologize.
From the February 9 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Nobody there or at Fox Noise is saying exactly how it happened, nor why, but Bill O'Reilly, the keynote speaker at next month's $500-per-person fundraiser for the Naples, Florida, chapter of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, is tonight no longer the keynote speaker at next month's $500-per-person fundraiser for the Naples, Florida, chapter of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
However, in our number two story on the Countdown, was he uninvited because of his grotesque remarks about how teenaged kidnap and sexual-abuse victim Shawn Hornbeck had, quote, "fun" with his abductor? You might very well think so. I could not possibly comment.
[begin video clip]
O'REILLY: 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.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN (Fox News host): Some kids like school.
O'REILLY: What?
VAN SUSTEREN: Some kids like school.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't believe this kid did. 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.
[end video clip]
OLBERMANN: Nice to know everything, isn't it? The hypocrisy that the man who trivialized what Shawn Hornbeck went through -- who suggested "was fun" -- would headline a fundraiser for the very victims he was dismissing resolved now on the website of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Quoting it: "In response to the numerous emails and inquiries we have received, Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor, will not be a speaker at the dinner. We would like to thank everyone for their comments and emails."
John Walsh will take O'Reilly's place. The rest of us are left to wish Mr. O'Reilly well, as he composes some rationalization, like a scheduling conflict, or transportation problem.
I am glad someone did the right thing and replaced Bill O'reilly as the keyneote speaker. The hate this man spews has no place on the public stage.
Media Matters; bias at it's worst.
I hate to point this out and ruin all the self-righteous ranting but O'Reilly has been the one who has led the way in pushing for Jessica's Law which gives minimum jail terms to pedophiles and he's also been the one who's been exposing nutty judges who give pedophiles light sentences. He's been publicly thanked for his efforts by John Walsh (the very one who's replacing him as the speaker at this event.) Ironically if Hornbeck's abuser Devlin is convicted of Sodomy on a child. He will get a longer sentence partially because of O'Reilly's efforts (the state of Missouri now has Jessica's Law.) But in our Media Matters world of selective moral outrage we can conveniently ignore all of this and focus STRICTLY on one statement and listen to the other news commentators/competitors (who to my knowledge are doing nothing for abused children) criticise his Hornbeck comments in order to attract attention to their failed programs.
Sorry to get in the way of your little snit, but your indignation should be towards NCEMC, not Media Matters.
Maybe it is because some people get information from sources like MMFA and had no idea about Bill O'Reilly's work in this area.
This is one contrast between MMFA and Newsbusters: While both are partisan, Newsbusters often tempers its comments and notes when the typical sources of liberal bias act with neutrality or even-handedness.
Here at MMFA for their chosen punching bags it is always ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK! with no moderation. It is up to the posters to provide counterbalance.
I always knew there was a lot of manure in Missouri.
Missouri: take it up with the NCMEC. They're the ones who decided that O'Reilly is not fit to speak before a group that is concerned with missing and exploited children.
I reckon they'd know.
"not fit to tpeak"
Funny, i did not read them saying that.
It's the only logical inference, since he was invited to speak then dis-invited. Or was it because he's too tall?
Congratualions! You have the last word again, again, again.
Yes we know about those things. What I am not getting is how that EXCUSES his hatefilled diatribe about this boy? If you do good things (the Jessica law issue has detractors that think it causes more problems than it solves but I cede that his heart is in the right place here) then when you do something outrageous, insensative and cruel you get a pass. See I dont get that and MMFA doesnt see it that way which DOESNT make it bias. I have criticised people who I think most of the time are good people, or right politically. When they screw up they get called on it. THAT is not bias. O'falafel said what he said, it was unconcionable and he SHOULD be called out on it even if he were Mother Theresa.
So you want noone to say boo as you crucify someone for a mistake. Are you Gentile? Do you remember the 'let he without sin cast the first stone' story?
Bill O'Reilly wouldn't have a career if he followed that teaching.
And he IS gentile.
Did he SAY it was a mistake? Did he appologize? Because if he DID then I missed it. For as long as he stands by his horrific statements he deserves the criticism and he isnt immune to criticism because he has done other good things on this issue. WHEN he appolgizes and is still being crucified you will have a point as of now YOU HAVE NO POINT. This isnt some game where you get chits for doing what you are supposed to do that you cash in when you screw up and say you cant criticise me, I have chits
Hey, Jim.....we've been down this road before with Bill O'sexylawsuit and his push for Jessica's law and 'getting rid' of judges who hand down 'light' sentences....basically- in a nut shell- LONGER mandatory sentences might make the perp think about silencing his or her victims..permantately....and MOST of these cases get plead out BEFORE going to trial SPECIFICALLY because some DAs don't want to chance a long, drawn out trial with the chance that the perp can walk because victims won't testify...and, SERIOUISLY- you think he's all for kids when he says kidnapped boys have FUN with their abductors..?!?! come on...
basically- in a nut shell- LONGER mandatory sentences might make the perp think about silencing his or her victims..permantately. Okay so in your view we should allow the possible actions of the criminals to dictate the punisments we hand out to pedophiles. Should we reduce the sentences of rape offenders for fear they might kill their female victims that might testify against them. I wonder what Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer would say to that claim.
you think he's all for kids when he says kidnapped boys have FUN with their abductors..?!?! come on. He merely speculated as to something. Considering this boy apparently had countless chances to escape and turn in his abductor to the authorities and he refused to does not make the speculation so incredibly outrageous (especially since this speculation was before the sodomy charges were filed.) Should he apologize now; yes. However considering his work with Jessica's law I think some people are making way too much of this and doing so for reasons that have more to do with political ideology rather than their genuine concern for this boy.
I think some people are making way too much of this and doing so for reasons that have more to do with political ideology rather than their genuine concern for this boy. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And you think this because your amazing mind reading powers tell you this? I think YOUR concern for O'Reilly has to do with excusing rightwing hate the victim mentality. Wow this assigning venal motives by pulling it right out of my ass is really easy. It doesnt further reasoned discussion much but it beats actually thinking about a logical response.
Solon
And you think this because your amazing mind reading powers tell you this? Apparently MMFA cares greatly for this boy's feelings. Now I'm not sure where MMFA's concern was for the Holocaust victims who complained to the Anti-Defamation League when they were offended by Olbermann repeatedly using the "Sieg Heil" salute at public speaking engagements. The ADL had to finally send Olbermann a letter denouncing him and MMFA had nothing to say about that. But I'm sure it was only because....well...Olbermann pushes THEIR agenda and O'Reilly doesn't. Selective moral outrage based on ideology can be quite...selective.
I think YOUR concern for O'Reilly has to do with excusing rightwing hate the victim mentality. And you think this because your amazing mind reading powers tell you this? You are aware that I said O'Reilly should apologize aren't you...or does that matter? And since when does the rightwing hate victims??? They're usually the one pushing for longer jail sentences, the death penalty and everything else; Jessica's law being one of them. It's usually the far left that never gives a crap about victims and is only concerned that the accused not be inconvenienced.
Wow this assigning venal motives by pulling it right out of my ass is really easy. I like this website and I'm glad there are rational posters on these boards. Unfortunately; you don't seem like one of them...so far.
Point one, a good one, I think Olbermans nazi salute thing ( for which he did appologize unlike O'Reilly) was outrageous. The mission of THIS site only concerns conservative misinformation period. Olbermans massive insensativity for which I agree he deserved criticism, just doesnt fall into that category. This doesnt show the concern for the victim isnt real anymore than the fact an electrician doesnt fix a leaky faucet means he doesnt care about water on his clients floor. This was a good point however Point two you have gone off the rails. You missed my point entirely. Of course I dont beleive that it is completely unsupportable, see? The point was what I said it is so easy to assign venal motives as you do AGAIN later in the post making the nonsense claim the left doesnt care about victims. This is a false dichotomy. The fact you want to see trials be fair doesnt mean you dont care about victims once again you pulled a venal motive out of your ass because you really didnt have a point and this was an easy way to manufacture one. If you continue to argue this way. I will join in and see how creative I can be.
As to what you think of my reasonableness, well not to put to fine a point on it but I just dont stay up nights worrying about what you think of me. Simply put we arent friends. We arent going to take long walks in the moonlight, we arent going to do lunch. I used your own technique to show how vacuous such arguments are, by making one I freely admit was vacuous, this isnt personal. I dont have any animosity toward you, I was making a point in a pretty obvious way. This isnt that complicated.
I think Olbermans nazi salute thing ( for which he did appologize unlike O'Reilly) was outrageous. Did he apologize? I'm not doubting you because I think he'd pretty much have to but where did you read this or see it. Do you have a link?
The mission of THIS site only concerns conservative misinformation period. Yes I'm aware of the bias...I mean the mission of this site that calls itself MEDIA matters and then won't post a negative story about Olbermann (a MEDIA personality) because it doesn't help there agenda to do so. Again that's called selective moral outrage. And only partisans fall for it. If this site dropped the bias and became a genuine media watchdog site (for ALL media people, even ones they may agree with) then maybe it could evolve beyond being just one more political ideological webblog.
The point was what I said it is so easy to assign venal motives as you do AGAIN later in the post making the nonsense claim the left doesnt care about victims. This is a false dichotomy. Much like your own claim of conservatives hating victims. I was always under the impression that conservatives were all for being harsher on the criminals who create victims.
The fact you want to see trials be fair doesnt mean you dont care about victims Yes but when one endlessly becomes an advocate for the accused and endlessly looks suspiciously upon law enforcement; one might guess there's a bit of a bias there as well.
once again you pulled a venal motive out of your ass because you really didnt have a point I simply mirrored an equally venal motive that was more than likely pulled out of an orifice of your own.
As to what you think of my reasonableness, well not to put to fine a point on it but I just dont stay up nights worrying about what you think of me. That's something we have in common. Though I'll still keep hope alive for the long moonlight walk though.
What I have read is he did appologize, I cant dig it out right now as I am leaving in a few minutes to take my wife to dinner I am sure you can find it if you care to 2 THIS sites mission is to counter conservative media misinformation there are other sites out there that cover liberal media misinformation. No one I know cares if you like this or not. If you dont feel free to make your OWN site and run it how you see fit and dont forget to drop by and give us your url so we can drop by and tell YOU how to run it. 3 Much like your own claim of conservatives hating victims <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Ah no actually nothing like that. At this point its unclear if you just stubornly refuse to see the point, dont read very well or arent very bright, I said this directly in my post You missed my point entirely. Of course I dont beleive that, it is completely unsupportable, see? The point was what I said it is so easy to assign venal motives What part of I dont believe that, it is unsupportable I was just making a point about how easy it is to assign venal motives are you congenitally incapable of understanding? YOU werent doing what someone else did to make a point, YOU were just assigning venal motives to mask the fact that you HAD NO POINT. 4 You are free to guess all you want, you are free to make things up in your head and pretend it actually represents factual reality if you want. Its just silly to expect us to take such false dichotomies seriously. It isnt either/or. There is no logical reason we cannot both want fair trials and care about victims and your strawman, oversimplified fantasy version of what you are once again USELESSLY guessing liberal are doing is pretty meaningless.
Jim...so you THINK the eleven year old boy was having fun while BEING RAPED IN THE BUTT FOR FOUR YEARS is a valid 'talking point' for Bill...that is disgusting and NOT worthy of speculation...
Mr. L
I specifically said BO should apologize now.
right...I didn't see where you said after sodomy charges have been filed- my bad...my contention is even if there were NO sodomy charges filed, it was still a forced kidnapping of a child, and holding him for four years...at some point I'm sure there was the OPPPOTUNITY to 'escape', but it didn't happen and to suggest it was because it was FUN is ludicrous...HE WAS A CHILD....they do things under EXTREME stress that defies logic...
MSNBC has done their share on child predators on line too themshelves.So I would give Bill O'Reilly all the credit here. Now who has the selected memory ?
OK, "why is this here?" comment in 3.... 2.... 1....
Everyone knows why this is here.........
Hey, MMFA doesn't have to be exclusively about reprimanding people for doing the wrong thing. Occasionally it can be about commending people for doing the right thing. I mean, O'Reilly's comments were at best puzzling, and potentially a sign of a really sick individual.
Can someone explain why O'Reilly was the #1 choice for this thing, while John Walsh was their plan B? Was Walsh too qualified to speak at this thing? (check out his resume here.) It's like they said to themselves, "Well we can get a guy that had a child that was both missing and exploited, who has been active in lobbying for improved missing children legislation for 25 years, or we can get a hot-headed, bullying moron with his head up his ass. Let's go with the moron."
I was wondering that myself. Perhaps Walsh wasn't initially available when O'Reilly was booked? Perhaps it's something so simple as the organizers of the fundraiser like the rest of the right-wing, "Pro-family" BS that Bilbo spews that they thought he'd be a good speaker?
He reminds me so much of Coulter. People adore him for his hatred until he turns his venom on something that they hold dear, and suddenly he's way outta line! It's silly.
Nick: Excellent attempt at saving a spin spun out of control.
What spin? O'Reilly said what he said, he hasnt appologized, it was egregious the only ones trying to spin anything are the conservatives he should be horsewhipped for his insane insensativity and denigration of this VICTIM.
Well duh, we hate Orye and can now run into the streets screaming our glee!!
The important question is, why on earth would any group who is trying to better exploited anyone... get O'Reilly as their key-note speaker? I thought this was a complete put-on when I first read it.
Now they can get $1000 per person.
Poor Bill...
What would have been hysterical is if the group had replaced O'Reilly with Keith Olberman as its speaker. ;>)
But poor Bill is so misunderstood... maybe the reason he is the way he is is because his parents sought a retroactive abortion and he's never gotten over that. Who knows...?
I thought he was cloned from a bull and a china shop owner.
Sorry for the crude humor...
But O'Reilly's comments about the kidnapped boy were so weird it really makes you wonder if there wasn't something twisted in his own childhood...
Hmmm....
“In “The O’Reilly Factor,” O’Reilly wrote that his father’s child-rearing practices “would have won praise from Mussolini.” He described growing up under a “rigid, sometimes brutal regime.” “In our house there were never any ‘time-outs’ but plenty of ‘knockouts.’” Young Bill would “quake” in his room, awaiting “punishment” to be meted out, according to his account. “Next, I heard my father’s footsteps on the stairs. Decades later I can still hear my father’s footsteps on the stairs,” he wrote. One time, his father “shocked [him] nearly senseless.” “I expected only one thing from my dad,” he wrote. “Leave me alive to celebrate my next birthday.”
David Brock -- “The Republican Noise Machine”
Why do I think of this exchange in A Fish Called Wanda:
"Our father used to beat him."
"Good."
There goes my change to be a keynote speaker!
Irony,
Please post one thing positive Olbermann has done to aid the cause of the group in question.
My opinion is that the only reason KO is discussing this matter is part of his continuing ATTACKS on Bill O'Reilly, little or nothing to do with exploited children. Now since I only catch snippets of his show, perhaps he has made significant contributions. If so, please share.
If KO has done little or nothing, his substitution at this chapter fund raiser would not be hysterical, more like pathetic.
By the way, as others here have hinted, O'Reilly and Walsh are friends, and it would not surprise me if Walsh praises O'Reilly during his speech. And I would find that "hysterical".
I think the guy from <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/06/will-oreilly-ever-apologize-to-shawn-hornbeck/”>crooks and liars</a> may have had something to do with it.</p>
crooks and liars
I think we know why this is here?O'Reilly didnt deserve to be the speaker of this group but we all hate O'Reilly. It gives us all joy in reading about his problems. We also want to continue to commercialize and help Olbermann.
Exactly Doris, It's more of Olbermann's "nipping at O'Reilly's heels" obsession, and those who revel in it.
Dumping on O'Reilly because of his remarks about Shawn Hornbeck is justified
HOWEVER, in his defense...He is a strong supporter of Jessica's Law and worked tirelessly to promote stricter penalties for child molesters.
I like Olbermann, but this feud he has going with O'Reilly is a tad childish.
Feud for thoughtOlbermann points out some dumb thing that O'Reilly said on TV, where it can be played back and scrutinized, and Bill-O's response is to call him a smear merchant then bleats he was "quoted out of context" ad nauseam, ergo Olbermann and O'Reilly are feuding?
Well then, I guess Bill-O should shut up, for the sake of peace.
but this feud he has going with O'Reilly is a tad childish.
What? No comment on O'Reilly's feuds with the ACLU, Dr. Dean, the NYT, the DNC, Hillary, Air America, rap music, Hollywood, NBC, Mr. Moore, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Franklin, etc., etc?
It is so expected that the Bill-O apologists have fake outrage with Mr. Olbermann's accurate criticism of Bill-O, yet the apologists do not dare criticize Bill-O for his obsession with everything left of Coulter. Pathetic.
Harley,
Fake outrage?
From the comments people make here about Bill O'Reilly, it is clear that these people never watch his show and only rely on MMFA and Keith Olbermann to form their opinions.
IMHO, Keith Olbermann is worthless and his low-rated TV show can be disregarded as garbage. However MMFA has redeeming qualities and is worthwhile. They have a mission statement that is quite good.
The bad part: MMFA goes on Olbermann worship excursions far from their stated mission, cheapening their whole effort. Sometimes the things just goes on and on. O'Reilly does something, MMFA reports it (OK so far), KO cites MMFA, MMFA cites KO (too much).
THAT is what I find upsetting, not the drivel, spatial comments, spooky music and the like of KO's show. That can be ignored, but I dislike how the otherwise good work at MMFA gets cheapened.
So . . . just to follow your logic I will go ahead and assumer that you too have never seen Keith Olberman's show and probably don't even get the network that he is on. If you had watched his show you would know that he doesn't smear people he simply uses their words against them, whereas Bill will take one sentence or sometimes one word and . . . wait for it . . . spin the meaning into something it truly isn't.
But back to the subject. The reason that the group disinvited Bill was because they got thousands upon thousands of letters asking that after Bill insinuated that this boy enjoyed being kidnapped (nevermind that in most cases children don't run when they have the chance because their abductor has told them that if they try to escape their entire family will be killed, which of course bill calls hogwash) which is a 180 degree turn from what that group and it's supporters believe in.
Garbage? Compared to O'falafel. Olberman is Edward R Murrow. By comparison, O'falafel can best be described as chanelling Bozo the Clown. He might be found entertaining to some but so are trainwrecks. He might be popular but so is pornography. He is only taken seriously by the rightwing koolaid brigade who LOVES to be lied to and turn to mindless O to do the job for them
Jeter I agree the feud is childish and ridiculous BUT that did not excuse o"reilly for what he said about that kid. Olbermann has different motives for bringing this up (he hates O'Reilly as we all do) but at least someone brought it to the national stage.
Doris did I say he should be excused?
Nope.
I wrote:
Dumping on O'Reilly because of his remarks about Shawn Hornbeck is justified
Dear Doris...
Let me take a wild guess... you don't like Keith Olberman very much, do you? That's okay, Doris... no one on MMFA is going to hold that against you. You know how non-judgmental all of us are here. ;>)
Irony, Keith Olbermann has nothing to do with O'Reillys disgraceful statements about that poor child. He was however the only one ot bring up what BO said. However we all know that if Don Imus said those things, KO would of said nothing.
Doris...
Just pulling your leg because I'm aware of your non-fondness for Keith Olberman... and perhaps you are right that Imus has not been taken to task by Olberman for some of his outlandish remarks. But, you know me, I don't want to be too judgmental about people in the media... ;>)
The Center probably thought that Bill would have more "FUN" not doing this fun rasier. It is that simple.
The real question is why did THEY replace him? Weren't his comment at least insensitive from such a fine commentator as Bill. I believe that this is connected to Bill's stupidy and rant about these poor kids. Why doesn't he have to pay the price?
pant, pant. Out of breath from running down street, shouting with glee that Orye got what he deserves!! Oh, what a wonderfull day!! I won't be able to sleep tonight due to the anicipation of what poor little Billy will have to say about this!! Surely, his masters at FOX will have to seriously consider firing him or something?
All I have to say is this: common sense, propriety, humanity, and professionalism finally had its day.
But why do you REALLY dislike Mr. O'Reilly? Are you really any different than those you critisize if you leave out the main problem you have with him? Are you not propagandizing by default? The end result is the same---you leave people dumber than you found them.
Um... who are you talking to?
Bill O'Reilly is a controversial figure. Some pundits assert that O'Reilly doesn't have a brain. Others beg to differ, asserting that Bill merely doesn't have a soul. For my part, I'm just glad that he brings a sliver of venomous joy into my life day after day.
kick a guy when he's down,
That could MM's users motto.
B.O. may have been a little crass with his comments but the facts come out to support what he was getting at.
Obviously not the homosexual crimes committed on the young boy which will scar him 4 ever.
The big picture is the picture of the youth of America stolen by a Lib entity and how it maligns and distorts an otherwise normal youth.
That should be the story but too few are listening.
"B.O. may have been a little crass with his comments but the facts come out to support what he was getting at."
How often do facts come out to support Bill O'Reilly's bold pronouncements? Take just one example a few weeks back when someone argued to Bill that portions of Afghanistan were again crumbling and that the Taliban was resurging, Bill condescendingly dismissed the notion as pure nonsense. Shortly thereafter an official U.S. intelligence estimate said the exact same thing Bill's opponent had said. Military brass have confirmed it. Have you ever heard Bill admit he was wrong? No, because when Bill is wrong you never hear about the subject again or Bill rewrites his previous position.
What Bill said about the kidnapped boy was more than just a "little crass". A young boy was taken away involuntarily from his family and probably abused. Can you imagine the devastating psychological effects this must have had on the boy? To say that the boy did not run away from his captor because it was more "fun" than life with his "old parents" suggests, first of all, that the boy was capable of making a rational decision to stay with his captor for the "fun" of it. It cruelly demeans the boy to suggest with the certainty that O'Reilly did that the boy rationally made this decision to have fun instead of returning to his devastated parents. I was astounded, as did Greta Susteren appear stunned on camera, when Bill made these statements. But Bill insisted that he would be proven correct. To him, with his overblown ego, it became more a matter of being right in his theory than the welfare of the boy.
But please help me here... what facts have come forth since then to prove Bill's conclusions about the boy? The few times I've seen O'Reilly since then (actually since the sh*t hit the fan over his remarks), in his "reporting" on this incident his tone has changed dramatically. Now Bill feigns great concern about the boy and the "horrible" incident. But I've never heard or read of him backing off of his original certain conclusion that the boy was having too much 'fun" in his cative life to run away.
For any person to lack such basic human understanding and sensitivity honestly makes me wonder about Bill's psychological makeup. I am not an expert in the field of mental health but for someone to make such casual remarks and ignore the effects on an entire family to lose a loved one or to be hopelessly separated from your family demonstrates something emotionally very wrong with that person. I don't think you need professional experrtise in the field of mental health to see that.
Speaking of experts in mental health, why didn;t Bill explore the issue more with any before making his remarks? Why? Because everything is about Bill... he's the expert, not some (probably liberal) egghead. I've always taken a perverse pleasur in disagreeing with Bill but more and more I am beginning to see him as a pathetically disturbed man... something ain't "right" about him. Just my "unprofessional" opinion... and unlike Bill, I'll admit if I'm wrong.
You say in your last paragraph that you take pleasure in disagreeing with O'Reilly. I don't remember feeling pleasure when I disagree with someone. I feel nothing, or I feel annoyed, or I feel angry to some degree but I don't feel good. If you feel pleasure as you say, I would submit it's not because you simply disagree with him but rather because it makes you feel superior to him.
A lib entity? Back away from the crack pipe. You must have been thinking about how you ReNAMBLAcans have preyed on children and then projected, its ok. The group did the right thing ridding itself of the O'falafel stench
Classy.
Exactly as classy as the post I was responding to, no more, no less
The big picture is the picture of the youth of America stolen by a Lib entity and how it maligns and distorts an otherwise normal youth.
That should be the story but too few are listening.
================================================
Could you translate that into English, please? No one here speaks Wingnut.
Thank you.
That looks like it was a spam email that got through the filter. I think he just wants you to buy some viagra.
Huh,
Response flagged, oh well.
Sports-------I take it that he is saying that a related problem, and one that deliteriously effects the whole culture but especially impressionable youths, is the images and attitudes conveyed in the various public mediums which are run by people with a liberal agenda.
Ren,
I Bow to your superior intellect.
Brilliant post, explaining without tipping your hand as which way you lean.
Very refreshing..thanks.
Thanks, Keith--- I'm glad they came to their senses. Now if only Fox Snooews came to theirs.....
Thank Lowe's, too
Lowe's recently pulled its advertising from O'Reilly's disgraceful show. I have already registered my approval and thanks with Lowe's.
I hate to burst your bubble, but WHEN Devlin is convicted he will get a longer sentence NOT because of the efforts of O'Reilly. Bill is merely an advocate of Jessica's Law as are millions of other people including me. Jessica's Law is being adopted by more and more states not because of the rantings of one man but because of the millions outside the media spotlight who are speaking with one extrenely loud unified voice. When Devlin is convicted it will be due to the efforts of Jessica Lunsford's mother. She is the one who led the tireless effort to make this law a reality. Credit where credit is due please.
Bill is merely an advocate of Jessica's Law as are millions of other people including me. A great comparison. O'Reilly mentions Jessica's law repeatedly in his TV and radio show and denounces the politicians who are fighting against it in order to put extreme pressure on them. I'm sure that can be compared to what you have done to help get it passed.
Jessica's Law is being adopted by more and more states not because of the rantings of one man but because of the millions outside the media spotlight who are speaking with one extrenely loud unified voice. Millions who might not even know about the law had it not been for the attention he's brought to it. The mainstream media has hardly ever mentioned it.
When Devlin is convicted it will be due to the efforts of Jessica Lunsford's mother. She is the one who led the tireless effort to make this law a reality. Credit where credit is due please.And Jessica Lunsford's mother has repeatedly thanked O'Reilly for his efforts to bring attention to it and those that oppose it. John Walsh even stated much of it's success is do to O'Reilly's show. I know this may kill the average MMFA poster but (as you said) "credit where credit is due please."
How do you know what I have or have not done to support the passage of Jessica's Law. The idea that what I have done should be compared in weight and scope to Bill O'Reilly is ridiculous. A person does what he can. Most of us don't have the means to do much but once again we do what we can. So please lay off the personal attacks. I didn't insult you in my original post. Furthermore you assertion that millions of people MIGHT not have heard of Jessica's Law had it not been for the efforts of Bill O'Reilly is also absurd. I know this might come as a shock to some people but Bill O'Reilly's audience, huge though it might be represents only about .006% of the entire population of this country. In order to learn from the man you have to be interested in what he has to say and apparently there are more people the aren't than ones who are.
Sorry rendesign.
Furthermore you assertion that millions of people MIGHT not have heard of Jessica's Law had it not been for the efforts of Bill O'Reilly is also absurd. Tell that to Jessica Lundsford and John Walsh who apparently (by their own words) believe otherwise and would be people who would know. Then please tell me the other news media outlets and commentators that have given the same exstensive coverage to Jessica's Law as Fox News & O'Reilly have.
Excuse me but I heard about Jessica's law from my local, then national news- what from Mainstream media? You bet. I get no news that is fit to spit from BO. His level of misinformation is beyond hope and salvation. I get more news from Entertainment tonight then BO.
Should we conduct a survey?
I, for one, did not hear about Jessica's Law from listening to Bill O'Reilly.
If Bill has made efforts to promote Jessica's Law, great! I'll put that in the "Why I Shouldn't Despise Bill O'Reilly" column. However, he is not the end all and be all of getting the word out. Millions of people have learned about Jessica's law from activism, media coverage, and even John Walsh himself. Doesn't he frequently mention it on his show?
Your frequent posts suggesting Bill O'Reilly is the last bastion of protecting children reeks of hero worship, which is unreasonable.
Susie and robotchubby,
I never at any time stated that NO ONE ever heard about Jessica's law from other sources. But it has been Fox News and O'Reilly's program that have spearheaded it. There have been no other news outlets that have covered it as much. That's simply a fact and even Angie Bryant (Jessica's mother) has acknowledged this. I also never made the claim that BO is "the last bastion of protecting children."
It's just my view that on Jessica's law....this ONE issue. You might want to give just a little credit. If that's possible (or allowed on this site.)
Sorry I still can't agree they (Fox or BO spearheaded the news getting out there) While BO may advocate things I can agree are good I still think he is more inaccurate the not in his commentary and reporting. If you think he is and did then fine.
But his commentary on Hornbeck was shameful. I know social workers and people who were abused and they will tell a different story about how easy it is to run away. If BO is a journalist as he claims to be then he should have left speculation on the side until more news came out. His speculation was not reporting it was opinion. And while everyone a right to one- some people will and should be held accountable, especially when it comes to those who cannot reasonable defend themselves. Sean could not.
I must also apologize, JIMLEHER. i DID indirectly insult you by insinuating (incorrectly) that you gave Bill O'Reilly total and complete credit for Jessica's Law and it's impact. I realize that you believe also that other hands are hard at work to bring this important law to life nationwide. I also did not mean to imply that his stance on protecting children is just hot air. I have also applauded O'Reilly on his high profile advocy of this. In spite of the fact that on balance I disagree with most of what he believes I think he is right on target here. But please remeber that while John Walsh and Mrs. Lunsford have thanked him for his efforts in the behalf of children, they have also thanked a host of others with no one person receiving more kudos than the next.
The first time I hears of Jessica's Law or some law like it was when Morgan Nick in Arkansas was abducted. This was back in the day when Billo was winning Peabody's doing incredible work at Hard Copy. As mind serves correctly he never made any mention of protecting any child on Hard Copy . . . so count me as one of those who became aware of protecting children from someone other than Bill.
This works for me. Now Bill O has the time to go and address a conference on preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.
My favorite Olbermann link http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm
You might want to show a little more humility since rendesign handed your ass to you above.
Actually he didn't. I apologized only because I was unfairly rude to him. Not because I believe his points were valid.
Sorry about posting the Olbermann link. I didn't mean to antagonize an openminded, nonbiased person such as yourself.
Apology accepted. Holier-than-thou people tend to raise my hackles.
You're a lot better here than on TV. Thanks for the great posts.
Yes because you have shown on this threat that you are a completely "openminded, nonbiased person".
Naturally you forget to mention (just like someone on Fox Noise actually) that Keith has apologized for giving the Nazi salute. Until I see Bill O'Reilly apologize to anyone (the kid in Missouri, our troops (well their familes) that were slaughtered at Malmedy, the former editor at a Connecticut paper (who had died 6 months before O'Reilly asked his viewers to email the editor) . . . well as you know I could keep going) he has offended your link holds no water.
I am myself one of many people who wrote and requested O'Reilly be fired from this gig. He not only made unforgivable and ignorant statements regarding Shawn Hornbeck, but is an alleged sexual predator.
He should have some responsibility brought to bear for his idiotic remarks. This is just one small step.
When you people get O'Reilly canned, you can then pressure Murdoch to sell. Good luck, but it might be more productive to go after Murdoch first as he can probably find another guy with an Irish name to front for him.
I dont want O'Reilly canned necessarily. I just want him to stop lying and being a cretin. What he said about the kid was just unacceptable in decent discourse