Bill O points- kids

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:53 pm

Kids Are Americans, Too

Thursday , March 23, 2006

By Bill O'Reilly

I have one simple question, because as you know, I am a simple guy. If a man confessed to raping two American women adults, do you believe that man would be sentenced to probation anywhere in this country? The answer, of course, is no. That wouldn't happen, because if it did, every women's group and every media outlet would demand the removal of the judge.

Yet in Ohio, a man who confessed to orally raping a 5-year-old boy and an 11-year-old boy over and over was sentenced to probation by Judge John Connor.

Was there about outcry by the women's groups? No. What about the press? Well, most of the Ohio press defends the judge. And The Dayton Daily News even attacked me for my coverage. The politicians? Well, most of them don't want any action against Connor.

In Vermont, we saw the same thing with Judge Edward Cashman, who initially sentenced a man who raped a 6-year-old girl to 60 days in jail. Media outrage in Vermont? None. Political outrage? None.

In fact, after the story broke, the Vermont legislature voted down Jessica's Law. Democrats leading the way.

Today in Texas, The Houston Chronicle is calling for "enlightened justice" for Andrea Yates, who brutally murdered her five little children. The Chronicle feels sorry for Yates, wants her in a mental institution instead of prison.

If you are sensing a pattern here, you are correct. Children in America have been devalued, no question. You can rape them and escape prison. You can kill them and receive compassion.

How did this happen? I really don't know. Some say Roe v. Wade began a slippery slope, placing unborn babies in a disposable situation.

Certainly, there's no national outrage over Kansas's Dr. George Tiller, who for $5,000 will destroy an unborn child up to the moment of birth for just about any so-called "health reason." Tiller has become a wealthy man, performing partial birth abortions. Media outrage? None.

"Talking Points" does not know whether there are more child predators in the USA today than there were 50 years ago, but I do know one thing: American kids these days are targets. They have few defenders in the press, no political clout and a society that is not engaged in protecting them.

"Factor" viewers and listeners are the only national group that I know of looking out for the kids. You guys put the pressure on in Vermont that got the child rapist three years instead of two months. You guys are putting the pressure on in Ohio, where hopefully Judge Connor will be removed and The Dayton Daily News will lose even more circulation and advertising.

But outside of you, there are few demanding justice for children. And that is America's great shame.

And that's "The Memo."

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

This morning, USA Today ran a nice box in the Life Section showing “The Factor's" ratings success. We really appreciate that. But as usual, our total audience was underestimated, because cable is different from broadcast TV.

Those of you on the West Coast, for example, can watch network news at the same time those of us on the East Coast see it, early in the evening. That's because the networks delay the West Coast and Mountain Time Zone broadcast.

But cable does not delay. We feed out at 8 p.m. Eastern, and it's seen at 5 p.m. Pacific. That's why we rerun “The Factor” twice, so that everybody can have a shot to see it in prime time.

“The Factor's" total cumulative rating, over 24 hours, is about 4 million viewers a night — not counting the Direct TV people and the college people. That makes us very competitive with the late night network shows and the network morning programs. We also are creeping up on "The CBS Evening News."

Finally, I don't think I thank you guys enough for your loyalty and that might be ridiculous.

—You can catch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the FOX News Channel. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:28 pm

As a completely uninformed viewer/reader who knows nothing about these cases outside of the 10 words of limited facts that Bill provided me and as I intend to get my entirety of world news from Bill and co., I wholeheartedly agree, without reservation, that these judges are evil and that these women's groups are a disgrace for condoning these sentences.

I just hope I don't get any more expansive, detailed, and nuanced information on these cases or anything else that Bill talks about or else it might destroy the illusion that this is a very simple good vs. evil sort of thing.

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:21 am

I too am looking for more reason to hang a guy than him just performing a dirty deed on two unsuspecting boys...the nerve

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:06 am

catamaran wrote:I too am looking for more reason to hang a guy than him just performing a dirty deed on two unsuspecting boys...the nerve

Yeah, exactly. We don't need to dig any deeper into the story to find out if there was additional factors involved with the sentencing. He said children. End of story. I applaud Bill for having the courage to report these stories while stripping out any unnecessary context so that we can decide. Too many facts just dilute the impact of the message, and might point to a conflict that we don't want to know about.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:08 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
catamaran wrote:I too am looking for more reason to hang a guy than him just performing a dirty deed on two unsuspecting boys...the nerve
Yeah, exactly. We don't need to dig any deeper into the story to find out if there was additional factors involved with the sentencing. He said children. End of story. I applaud Bill for having the courage to report these stories while stripping out any unnecessary context so that we can decide. Too many facts just dilute the impact of the message, and might point to a conflict that we don't want to know about.

no comment...i love your sense of humor brad

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:21 pm

Just a quick thought, do you need a stool to get off such a high horse or do you just jump. What mitigating evidence would you need to be convinced this guy truly was guilty enough to get a harsh sentence for abusing a kid than probation

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:28 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
catamaran wrote:I too am looking for more reason to hang a guy than him just performing a dirty deed on two unsuspecting boys...the nerve
Yeah, exactly. We don't need to dig any deeper into the story to find out if there was additional factors involved with the sentencing. He said children. End of story. I applaud Bill for having the courage to report these stories while stripping out any unnecessary context so that we can decide. Too many facts just dilute the impact of the message, and might point to a conflict that we don't want to know about.

I think your hatred for Bill is clouding your judgement here.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:36 pm

Ponycat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
catamaran wrote:I too am looking for more reason to hang a guy than him just performing a dirty deed on two unsuspecting boys...the nerve
Yeah, exactly. We don't need to dig any deeper into the story to find out if there was additional factors involved with the sentencing. He said children. End of story. I applaud Bill for having the courage to report these stories while stripping out any unnecessary context so that we can decide. Too many facts just dilute the impact of the message, and might point to a conflict that we don't want to know about.
I think your hatred for Bill is clouding your judgement here.

No. My hatred for loaded opinion pieces that give no background information is just being expressed. I honestly don't know anything about any of these cases, but we learned nothing of substance from what Bill wrote either. He gave us only enough information to suggest we should be outraged at women's groups and Democrats (the thrust of every single one of his sermons), but no real substance.

If there's a real issue here, I'm all for knowing more about it, but he does nothing to enlighten his viewers. His presentation is based 100% on inflaming the emotions of the viewers, but not educating them. Anyone can take any issue, peel away all of the facts, and present it as outrageous. That's all he does, and it's just contributing to this culture of people who are outraged, but have no idea what the facts are about the issues they are outraged about.

If Bill was sincere in wanting to expose this issue, he would spend more than two sentences detailing what happened and why the sentence was unfair, and why the Ohio press is defending the guy (there apparently is something to it). He chooses to do none of those things. It's just "take my word for it," and then nothing. He's not reporting -- he's preaching.

I would have the exact same gripes about any other columnist of commentator who used a similar method, regardless of their position. My consistent problem with Bill is that this is his approach to all issues.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:38 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Ponycat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
catamaran wrote:I too am looking for more reason to hang a guy than him just performing a dirty deed on two unsuspecting boys...the nerve
Yeah, exactly. We don't need to dig any deeper into the story to find out if there was additional factors involved with the sentencing. He said children. End of story. I applaud Bill for having the courage to report these stories while stripping out any unnecessary context so that we can decide. Too many facts just dilute the impact of the message, and might point to a conflict that we don't want to know about.
I think your hatred for Bill is clouding your judgement here.
No. My hatred for loaded opinion pieces that give no background information is just being expressed. I honestly don't know anything about any of these cases, but we learned nothing of substance from what Bill wrote either. He gave us only enough information to suggest we should be outraged at women's groups and Democrats (the thrust of every single one of his sermons), but no real substance.

If there's a real issue here, I'm all for knowing more about it, but he does nothing to enlighten his viewers. His presentation is based 100% on inflaming the emotions of the viewers, but not educating them. Anyone can take any issue, peel away all of the facts, and present it as outrageous. That's all he does, and it's just contributing to this culture of people who are outraged, but have no idea what the facts are about the issues they are outraged about.

If Bill was sincere in wanting to expose this issue, he would spend more than two sentences detailing what happened and why the sentence was unfair, and why the Ohio press is defending the guy (there apparently is something to it). He chooses to do none of those things. It's just "take my word for it," and then nothing. He's not reporting -- he's preaching.

what background info do you need? the guy raped kids....

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:39 pm

He's a commentator that's his job....commenting

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:41 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:what background info do you need? the guy raped kids....

Please don't make my point so easy, Hell's.

We should ALWAYS strive to understand the issues and figure out the real story so we can make informed decisions on things. Raping children is bad, yes, but there might be some relevant information relating to this case that explains more about how the sentencing is working.

I guess I will have to look up the damn case now and figure out what the full story is all about.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:42 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:If Bill was sincere in wanting to expose this issue, he would spend more than two sentences detailing what happened and why the sentence was unfair, and why the Ohio press is defending the guy (there apparently is something to it). He chooses to do none of those things. It's just "take my word for it," and then nothing. He's not reporting -- he's preaching.

If you watched his program past the first talking points you would see this occur. He always offers both sides to come on and explain themselves.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:43 pm

catamaran wrote:He's a commentator that's his job....commenting

Yes, he is. I just prefer my commentators to include more substance and less partisanship in their opinion pieces. Others have lower expectations.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:44 pm

catamaran wrote:He's a commentator that's his job....commenting

Commenting is one thing, exagerating and flat out lieing is the trade mark of O'Reily. Remember he himself is a person who was accused of sexual assault before he bought off his victim.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:44 pm

Ponycat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:If Bill was sincere in wanting to expose this issue, he would spend more than two sentences detailing what happened and why the sentence was unfair, and why the Ohio press is defending the guy (there apparently is something to it). He chooses to do none of those things. It's just "take my word for it," and then nothing. He's not reporting -- he's preaching.
If you watched his program past the first talking points you would see this occur. He always offers both sides to come on and explain themselves.

I've seen his full shows. He usually brings in someone to yell at and silence for awhile. That part is fine ... it's the print stuff that is so damn fluffy ... such as this piece.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:45 pm

mslacat wrote:
catamaran wrote:He's a commentator that's his job....commenting
Commenting is one thing, exagerating and flat out lieing is the trade mark of O'Reily. Remember he himself is a person who was accused of sexual assault before he bought off his victim.

I think you better look up the definition of sexual assault if you think this is what he was accused of.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:46 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:what background info do you need? the guy raped kids....
Please don't make my point so easy, Hell's.

We should ALWAYS strive to understand the issues and figure out the real story so we can make informed decisions on things. Raping children is bad, yes, but there might be some relevant information relating to this case that explains more about how the sentencing is working.

I guess I will have to look up the damn case now and figure out what the full story is all about.

ooh so we should understand wtf made him want to rape little boys...your kidding me right? Honestly i dont see any other information that is relivant other then why the judge gave him such a light sentance to begin with!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:51 pm

Here's a link that discussed the background of the case. It's from a site that apparantly feels the same way I do about Bill's approach to "commentating," but I assume the quotes and facts they include are accurate:

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/03/18/ohi ... _again.php

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:52 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
catamaran wrote:He's a commentator that's his job....commenting
Yes, he is. I just prefer my commentators to include more substance and less partisanship in their opinion pieces. Others have lower expectations.

You must have a limited list of those

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:54 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:ooh so we should understand wtf made him want to rape little boys...your kidding me right? Honestly i dont see any other information that is relivant other then why the judge gave him such a light sentance to begin with!

Cute ... but no. I'm not talking about the right-wing talking point that suggests that knowing more about an issue means we should take a touchy-feely approach to crime/terrorism/whatever and care more about why they did it than what they did. That's called a straw man argument -- I never said that, so you can't really say "your [sic] kidding me right?"

I am saying that one should actually read a comprehensive background on any story before one makes a judgment about something such as "the judge is evil and didn't sentence this guy harsh enough!!!!!!!!"

Fair enough? Knowledge before harsh opinions?