Miller to O’Reilly: You’re not actually showing the photos of Warren Jeffs kissing little girls, are you?
posted at 10:18 pm on May 28, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Obviously we’re not the only ones who’ve noticed the Factor’s habit of decrying exploitation while displaying the evidence, but nothing I could say can match Miller’s look of incredulity near the beginning here. In O’Reilly’s defense, I don’t know how one would go about turning DM’s advice into some bright-line rule against shock video of any kind. It’s always going to be a judgment call between the value of the image as a catalyst for some sort of policy response to injustice versus its titillation quotient. An easy example of the former is the Rodney King video; an easy example of the latter is the Girls Gone Wild video of Spitzer’s hooker shaking her thang, which Bill couldn’t resist airing (follow the link up above). I posted the video myself of the girl in Florida getting beat up, not because it was exciting but because you genuinely couldn’t appreciate how vicious it was without seeing it. Which is to say, if the image is the only way to truly understand why a particular piece of news is newsworthy, then hey. (That goes double for, say, the Mohammed cartoons, but that’s a separate issue.) Factor in the viewer’s own philosophical perspective on injustice — doves want to see the coffins coming home from Iraq but not necessarily replays of the 9/11 jumpers, hawks vice versa — and how do you draw any universal line? Miller’s right that this does feel gratuitous and unnecessary, but considering that the photos will make you want to vomit, they’re awfully strong medicine in raising awareness about “quirky” little polygamous sects like Jeffs’s. Cue Potter Stewart.
Link: sevenload.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Nah, Bill O’Reilly likes to keep the hottest pics for himself to do the ‘Chris Matthews shiver’ in the privacy of his home.
Indy Conservative on May 28, 2008 at 10:22 PM
I fully and sincerely believe Bill O’Reilly is a sexual pervert and has a hard time controlling himself. His obsession with porn and things is amazing.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Ha. Terrific.
Allahpundit on May 28, 2008 at 10:26 PM
It’s fitting to lump the gay marriage story together with the polygamists. If you can’t limit to between a man & a woman, then you can’t limit it to two people.
jgapinoy on May 28, 2008 at 10:27 PM
This topic should get interesting. The odd part is that I know people who thought Jeffs was being unfairly prosecuted and that being on the FBI top 10 list was overkill. Me, not so much.
Sexual predator, that dude. Jail is far too good for him.
Krydor on May 28, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I hope there was sarcasm there. Was there?
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Miller is a common sense guy and is right on the money here.
TroubledMonkey on May 28, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Isn’t BO the guy who talked dirty to his producer and got sued or something?
lorien1973 on May 28, 2008 at 10:30 PM
no
jgapinoy on May 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM
O’Reilly is scum. There is no guilt by association in this country. What Jeffs did is what Jeffs did. The court found no evidence of abuse and heaven knows CPS was pulling out all stops to find SOMETHING….. ANYTHING.
They found nothing. Yet O’Reilly stirs the pot against those people. He’s a sick person and a ratings whore. I just lost all respect for him.
Maxx on May 28, 2008 at 10:33 PM
jgapinoy
Ah, so homosexual marriage is similar to raping kids? That’s what Jeffs facilitated, you know, child rape. You knew that, right?
Krydor on May 28, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Just?
I did years ago, when he’d say one thing on a show; and totally reverse opinion on the next show. Too confusing. He’s troubled.
lorien1973 on May 28, 2008 at 10:34 PM
The National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded “the repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons enetering into a marriage unit…”
Again, if you can’t limit marriage to male plus female, you can’t limit it.
jgapinoy on May 28, 2008 at 10:37 PM
That’s pathetic. I did not say that.
jgapinoy on May 28, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Miller 1 O’Reilly 0.
(And the comparison of the girl fight to oil prices? Lame, Bill.)
Spirit of 1776 on May 28, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Bill Oreilly is a piece of work. he still is out to lynch “big oil” but has yet to prove anyhing concrete that they are doing illegal things.
But Bill is not scum because he does go after (like a rabid dog) moron judges who let sex offenders off with light sentenses, whic hthey end up attacking some poor kid again and that judge refuses to answer any questions about “if he had kept him behind bars would that crime had been prevented?.
El Guapo on May 28, 2008 at 10:41 PM
That’s pathetic. I did not say that.
jgapinoy
Jeffs isn’t a polygamist, he’s a sexual predator. So, unless I missed something, you are either lumping gays getting married, polygamists and dudes who facilitate sex with minors into one big happy pile.
Krydor on May 28, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Miller is funny amusing.
O’Reilly is funny strange.
And he supported Shamesty until the trend of public opinion showed him that it wouldn’t flush.
Tidy.
profitsbeard on May 28, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Allah, are you saying the police were committing an injustice in the King video?
mikeyboss on May 28, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Crappy sentence structure. Preview is my friend.
Krydor on May 28, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Miller is correct. Sometimes the News itself spreads a piece of information, or picture, much further than it ever would have gone, in the name of trying to suppress it.
I never would have seen these pics (or my kids either) if not for Bill O… or the Texas beat down video either.
If there is evidence that Jeffs is a child predator, then there are laws on the books for that… but don’t destroy hundreds of other families for HIS transgressions.
They brought the Jeff’s photos into child custody cases of families who are part of his CHURCH… and are using those photos, which they released to the press, to destroy any chance of these families to defend themselves…
Romeo13 on May 28, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Nice littleunderhanded link between California’s gay marriage ruling and pedophilia to kick it off too. Classy.
crr6 on May 28, 2008 at 10:45 PM
He’s both. He had several wives. I may not agree with homosexuality and their often suicidal promiscuous behavior (a debate for another day), but they are NOT to be lumped in with pedophiles (unless they are one of course).
El Guapo on May 28, 2008 at 10:46 PM
You are missing something. Again, look at what I said. I didn’t say anything about child abuse.
jgapinoy on May 28, 2008 at 10:46 PM
It’s fitting to lump the gay marriage story together with the polygamists. If you can’t limit to between a man & a woman, then you can’t limit it to two people.
jgapinoy
Ok, so here’s what you said. The thing is, Jeffs is somewhat more than a polygamist. I may have read more into it than I should, but damn dude, there’s a kid in there with that jerk sticking his tongue down her throat.
Krydor on May 28, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Jeffs is in prison, correct? Poor kids…But TX screwed the pooch big time doing the blanket kid roundup. If you’re gonna snatch an entire subset of that population and put them in state custody, grab all the adult men.
funky chicken on May 28, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I agree with O’Reilly showing the photos. The horror of such acts should be displayed so we know what evil is. Far too many times we fall into this moral relativism. I respect Miller for mentioning it, but O’Reilly clearly is not promoting pedophilia in any way. He usually has a viewer warning before such segments. I don’t remember if he issued one prior to this piece.
StatenItaly08 on May 28, 2008 at 10:52 PM
All the adult men offered to voluntarily leave the ranch and stay away during the investigation so the kids could stay with their mothers and CPS wouldn’t allow it.
Maxx on May 28, 2008 at 10:52 PM
I agree, that’s a disgusting aspect of the story, but I was merely pointing out that polygamists (not pedophiles, polygamists) & gay marriage advocates have something in common–the removal of limitations on marriage.
jgapinoy on May 28, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Trouble with your excuse is that you might actually believe it. For someone to deny how viciously cruel a beating was UNLESS VIDEO IS POSTED AND VIEWED speaks of blood lust.
Jeffs is amongst the most twisted American white men alive today. No one needs a video to go figure. It’s a cheap shot to be posting the girl if you feel at all that she’s a victim.
maverick muse on May 28, 2008 at 10:54 PM
jgapinoy on May 28, 2008
My apologies for the misread.
Krydor on May 28, 2008 at 10:54 PM
My bad. good point.
El Guapo on May 28, 2008 at 10:55 PM
I’m glad you voiced your concerns so that I could make myself clearer.
jgapinoy on May 28, 2008 at 10:57 PM
I’m with Miller. I understand the argument you can’t “appreciate how vicious something is without seeing it.” I think there is something to be said for that viewpoint, but like Dennis said folks understand what evil is they don’t need to see it 50 + times per year to get the idea. Day after day after day… sick twisted images… All this does is desensitize people as opposed to outrage them. Besides, the last 40-50 years the media keeps pushing the boundaries of good taste on society and it hasn’t helped one bit. Crimes have gotten worse, not better.
apacalyps on May 28, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Red Pill on May 28, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Agreed, but are they that inept that no one thought of this?
javamartini on May 28, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Anyone still doubting that Bill is an authoritarian?
Mark Jaquith on May 28, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Thanks Maxx, had no idea.
javamartini on May 28, 2008 at 11:08 PM
All I know is O’Reilly sure isn’t the one to proclaim moral superiority since he had to settle with Andrea Mackris in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
Maxx on May 28, 2008 at 11:08 PM
This picture is inflammatory and meant to use its repulsive nature to obscure a certain fact:
The State is required to show that a child is in imminent danger to justify an emergency removal without a custody trial.
Warren Jeffs is in prison. Thus whether he is a sexual predator or not is not the issue (although I suspect he is based on what I have seen). He is not in an position to threaten the FLDS children because he is in prison.
That means that CPS is required by law to leave the FLDS children in their parents possession during their investigation. Once the investigation is complete then CPS can move to severe parental rights, but it can not seize children before evidence is presented in a court based on nothing more then accusations driven by our distaste and distrust of the FLDS religion, or based on evidence against the head of the FLDS religion.
Sackett on May 28, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? for real? TX CPS is gonna be in big trouble, or at least I hope they will be.
funky chicken on May 28, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Off topic — any comment as to why Amanda Carpenter was introduced as the “internet cop” in the Policing The Net segment tonight? O’Reilly didn’t even introduce her as a guest or visiting internet cop…
Outlander on May 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM
I was more taken aback by O’Reilly suggesting oil companies be required to write a letter to Congress every time they raise prices. WTF?
SouthernGent on May 28, 2008 at 11:30 PM
This post was a joke, right?
Jeffs was not just another guy…he was there spiritual leader, their living prophet. These “associations” worshiped him as a spokesperson for God on earth. He taught them, they followed him, they did not question him. They had to make the assumption that he influenced his followers behavior. This is what you get when you dedicate your life to follow a “living prophet”, every “prophet” in the modern age has turned out to be a phony or worse…
What mother would allow such behavior? But a loyal follower of a demented prophet. That does not totally excuse a mother of giving up her daughter to be raped.
This isn’t the first time a “prophet” has taken advantage of their power and taken a child bride, history is rife with such actions. And apologists like you, and others, turn your back (some churches have created a whole theology around protecting rapists) and claim “but they are the only ones who did it”, well being a mother does not mean sacrifice your daughter…unless you believe that your “prophet” is worthy?
right2bright on May 28, 2008 at 11:35 PM
funky chicken on May 28, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Yep, I hope CPS gets nailed and lots of heads roll in that organization, but of course it’s going to cost the taxpayers big. Nevertheless I hope FLDS nails Texas for huge damages because it seems that’s the only way to get their attention and make a change happen for the good. And hopefully keep this kind of thing from ever happening again.
The Waco atrocity is still fresh in my mind, I would have thought Texas would have learned something from that but apparently not. I don’t know what’s wrong with that government down there but they have a tenancy to do blizzard and dangerous things. And of course in the case of Waco it got a lot of innocent people needlessly killed. At least nobody died this time, but the trauma and heartbreak and loss they have inflicted is sad to think about. They really need to take a long hard look at themselves from top to bottom.
If you want to see lots of details of the case this is a pretty good site.
Maxx on May 28, 2008 at 11:37 PM
I’m rootin for Miller to take over the Factor someday? I completely agree with him, you can’t make an argument stating that “well they did it first”. Come on Bill, we expect better man.
brotherbell on May 28, 2008 at 11:43 PM
right2bright on May 28, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Then where is the rape right2bright? Why couldn’t the CPS or the court find any such evidence?
I’m not arguing their religion isn’t weird or even perverse but when there is no evidence then you can’t prosecute. And their is no guilt by association. What Jeffs did he is in jail for. If they find anyone else that did that, then throw them in jail too.
But you are no better than a lynch mob if you want to carry through with prosecution or even persecution of these people without solid evidence of wrongdoing.
Maxx on May 28, 2008 at 11:44 PM
These guys should really change chairs. It boggles me why Miller isn’t on TV anymore. Granted the guy has no place in a football broadcast, but his highbrow humor and wit have been the reason my mancrush on him has lasted for years and years.
Brad on May 28, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Time for the weekly OReilly hate fest I see.
Seriously- what would have sufficed…maybe if O’Reilly had sliced Geraldo’s throat on live TV?
TheBlueSite on May 28, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Calm down zealot, and read my post. I get irritated when people like you make allegations against posts, and you don’t understand them.
Did I say there were rapes by others…I said the mothers are negligent to allow their kids to be taken by a “prophet”.
Where did I say lynch? Where did I say they didn’t need solid evidence.
But to investigate you don’t need “solid evidence”, they had plenty to go on. Including the accusations by the LDS that this church was out of control.
Now show me where I wanted to prosecute anyone but Jeffs?I stated that, given the past history, it is understandable to investigate and be highly suspicious.
Look you even linked a pro FLDS site that wants to protect polygamists (look at the contributors, BYU,BYU,BYU). They even attempt to discredit a brave woman who was raped by these animals, typical of someone covering up a heinous crime (didn’t we have a pres do the same thing?)
Try this site for a more balance look at what went on.
Read my post, understand it, then comment. You make yourself look stupid.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I saw him hosting a game show recently. Pretty weak show, but he was entertaining as always. It was some strange memory show, but the cash prizes were pretty big. Anyways, I concur, Miller must be put back on T.V. HBO, you reading my posts?
VolMagic on May 29, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Add one more, yes there is guilt by association. When you live with someone, you worship that person, proclaim him as your God, when you have dedicated your life to him, when you have given your life to him, allow him to father you children, when you are fed by him, spiritually led by him, your every waking moment is dedicated to him, when you are taught and believe that whatever he asks of you, you do without hesitation…okay, to you that may be just a normal relationship…to me, you are part of the society that condones this behavior, maybe not prosecutable in a court of law, but hardly an “innocent association”.
You disagree, you think they were not swayed by him…tsk, tsk.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 12:07 AM
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I’ll be happy to read the site you linked and I will. But not tonight, I got to go nite-nite soon because of work tomorrow.
Most of what I know about this case came from regular MSM sources. I’ve read a few of the stories on the site I linked for you and I agree they are certainly pro-FLDS.
Yet, I don’t think I am biased about this. I think it was clear from the beginning that Texas was going forward with little or nothing. The phone call that started the raid was a fake, by a woman in Denver that has a record of making false alarm calls.
I hope you understand I am not defending Jeffs.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Then you don’t know the law of the land or you don’t respect it.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 12:20 AM
I was rootin for Michelle, but, the spitter won out.
chewydog on May 29, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Scrolling through the comments it seems that many agreed with DM that showing the pictures is demeaning and (to the viewer) desensitizing, and does not justify the catalyst value.
How ironic then that the “freeze frame” in the Sevenload window above is one of the wretched pictures of Jeffs. Out of three and a half minutes of video, that has to be the picture we look at as we read AP’s analysis? C’mon Allah, if you want to make the point then show “Miller’s look of incredulity”.
pavruch on May 29, 2008 at 12:24 AM
I don’t think right2bright means legal law when he/she says guilt. I find Obamasiah guilty of thought transgressions with his association with Ayers and the Rev, but, don’t think it’s a jailable offense. The only penalty is lose of an election.
chewydog on May 29, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Hey Maxx, I’ve been trying to promote that site for days. He is not pro polyg he is an attorney who happens to have defended cases against the cps (not sure in texas). He believes in the Constitution and has feelings for the children.
I can’t stand jeffs either and I hope he rots in hell for the things he has done to these people. I hope they wake up some day and realize what a devil he is.
But in the meantime these children need their mothers. Can you imagine giving birth and having cps wait outside to rip the baby away as soon as it leaves the womb? Shades of hitler or stalin!
Bambi on May 29, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Thanks for that input, I have read several of the stories on that site and they seem quite rational to me. But I wasn’t sure what the affiliation was.
Indeed, very scary stuff. And so little outrage from the public. And the clear feminist doctrine presented by CPS to the court. It all adds up to big trouble for everybody with kids in the future if CPS is allowed such an abuse of power without being severely punished.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 1:00 AM
You can’t win that argument Dennis. Bill is obsessed with showing the things he is supposedly outraged about. He makes me ill.
Benaiah on May 29, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Wow – talk about a contentious link (at best!) Next you will be connecting bestiality to homosexuals I’m sure.
A Axe on May 29, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Gay marriage….
What about incest?
Brother and sister marrying?(Have some neat kids)
Brother marrying Brother, Sister on Sister.. etc. ???
Chakra Hammer on May 29, 2008 at 2:53 AM
What the hell is wrong with you people? O’reilly is on the mark 95% of the time. I’ll take his opinion any day over any self-absorbed, piss ant blogger.
GRUMPSPOT on May 29, 2008 at 6:40 AM
Dennis is right. Chalk one up for the “cranky old guy.”
Captain Scarlet on May 29, 2008 at 6:55 AM
Good for Miller! He’s a smart and decent man. His disgust over showing the Jeffs photos and the grotesque fight videos O’Reilly features, speaks to his character.
Is showing that horrid photo of Warren Jeffs holding that child close to his body, and kissing her on the mouth tantamount to distributing child pornography?
Bill O’Reilly is out of touch with reality. His question to Miller, “Are there any boundaries left in the USA?” apparently doesn’t apply to him, in his view.
O’Reilly has been pandering to the left for so long now, it appears he’s lost all reason. “If you lie down with dogs, you will rise with fleas”, Bill.
sinsing on May 29, 2008 at 7:26 AM
What’s with the bashing of O’Reilly?
I think Miller and O’Reilly both make valid points.
O’Reilly’s show airs what the audience is looking to see. Otherwise, his ratings would show otherwise.
distributing child pornography? Oh my. Do we just totally throw out all context here? That just isn’t right. And if O’Reilly is ‘distributing child pornography’, then isn’t Allahpundit doing the same?
Uhhh. No.
bridgetown on May 29, 2008 at 8:51 AM
After thinking about it extensively, I want to revise my remarks from yesterday. To wit:
It is fitting that Bill O’Reilly lumped together stories about polygamy, homosexual marriage, & pedophilia. There are many professional advocates in the USA for dropping legal restrictions on
–the sex of your spouse,
–the number of spouses you may have, &
–the age of your spouse.
Regarding the first, that’s already falling by the wayside.
Mormons & Muslims account for many thousands of polygamous “marriages” in the US today.
The North American Man-Boy Love Association has 1100 members, & influential supporters such as Alan Ginsburg. Look them up on Wikipedia.
If you take away the man-plus-woman-only limitation on marriage, you eventually take away any limit.
jgapinoy on May 29, 2008 at 9:22 AM
The kissing pictures showed nothing. I couldn’t tell they were young.
The later ones, with them standing next to him were enough to produce outrage. The man looks like a giant next to them.
Esthier on May 29, 2008 at 9:49 AM
As were those fought against prohibition of interracial marriage. Yes, there’re limitation on marriage that are unacceptable, and there’re other limitations that are reasonable.
freevillage on May 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM
And I will say once again…read my posts and then comment on them. What part of this do you not understand?
You are having a difficult time comprehending simple statements.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 10:10 AM
So it (the website) is from a guy with a bone to pick (and money to be made) with the CPS. That makes it better, a site from an ambulance chaser. Look at the other contributors, BTU, BYU, BYU, see any similarities there? And his “caring for children” the same line Edwards used to destroy doctors here in North Carolina, “he was just doing it for the children”, and yeah, and he became a multi-millionaire while caring. No, Mother Teresa cared, these ambulance chasers don’t…you are delusional if you think he is in it for the “children”.
These children need a mother that follows a “prophet” who can tell them whom the child shall marry and when?
But I like your hyperbole of ripping the child as it leaves the womb (where did that happen?), is that partial birth abortion? Something an ambulance chaser would say.
These are not innocent mothers, maybe ignorant or foolish, but not innocent. They knew the life they were placing these children in. Gulags, and concentration camps are illegal in this country.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 10:22 AM
oh stop it. 150 years ago, marrying 14-year-olds was standard practice. Still is in a lot of underdeveloped countries.
And what does “white” have anything to do with it?
John the Libertarian on May 29, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Coming soon, full inter-species polyamory. Get on the bandwagon now with your favorite humans, mice and caterpillars.
For those that believe the classic bible fable incest had to be approved in the beginning unless Adam and Eve gave birth only to distant relatives, so it must have god’s stamp of approval.
Annar on May 29, 2008 at 10:38 AM
I am absolutely torn by this whole FLDS Yearning For Zion story. On the one hand, as a homeschooling family, I am extremely uncomfortable with a government agency taking these children into state custody because their religion is suspect to the state. That is not a road I am comfortable going down. Germany today will put a child in foster care just because the family chooses to homeschool rather than utilize government schools. Combine that with the tragedy that was Waco I can definately understand the point of view of those defending the FLDS.
On the other hand, this is not a normal situation, where the normal safeguards can easily be applied. It is my understanding that the family unit is difficult to identify and investigate in this compound because of the communal nature of the living arrangements and polygamist marriages. Their leader is obviously a pervert who preys on young girls and there is ample evidence that–with his picture plastered all over their walls–that they revere him and his teachings. There is the fear that many of these children have been brought in from out of state and may not have a parent-child relationship with the adults there. There is evidence of systematic sexual abuse of young girls because of the underage pregnancies and births that CPS have witnessed. If the children are sent back there is a danger of a methodical dispersion of the children throughout their various locations.
I honestly do not know the answer to this one. As for showing the pictures, I’m also torn (indecisivenss is rare for me)but I lean toward Dennis Miller’s take. Are we going to show child porn on the nightly news to outrage the public? Probably not a good idea.
Renae on May 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM
There were reports that a supposedly underage girl (age questionable) gave birth after being seized, and her baby was immediatly taken into “protective custody”.
Two key legal questions.
First, how does the states seizing of the children for a religious belief, without proof of wrongdoing by the individual families, jive with the Constitutions Freedom of Religion clause.
If they have no proof of each individuals wrongdoing, why are they punishing them by shuting down the compound, and seizing the children?
Secondly, somehow the state CPS folks have decided that ALL these hundreds of people are part of the same “household” and so if there is ANY danger from anyone, they have the right to seize ALL the children. This sounds like collective punishment to me, which is somthing we generaly don’t do under American law.
This is going to end up in some very high courts, because Texas is acting unconstitutionaly. Texas CPS is out of control.
Romeo13 on May 29, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Why do people continue to say this? Its simply not true. Why do you hate these people so much? Why do you tell such lies? If you are saying it isn’t a lie then where is your link? CPS found no such evidence. The court found no such evidence.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Totally. Bill is so moralistic about the “filth” that’s on the internet, you have to wonder if we’re seeing his self-hatred manifest in these segments. It’s like the repressed gay man who decries the immorality of homosexuals, when in truth he’s just trying to cope with his own inner struggle.
I’m on board with O’Reilly-is-a-repressed-pervert theory. I can’t wait for the day Page Six posts photos of him trying to sneak into a bondage club wearing a sunglasses and a fake moustache.
Enrique on May 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I used to hate Dennis back in his SNL days, now I love the guy and wish that he could replace O’Reilly–who will exploit whatever images that will increase his dipping ratings.
Bill’s rationalization that there will be no policing of images in the internet, so they have to ‘get this out there’ is just like a 12 year-old saying: ‘Well, THEY do it!’
Bottom line: FNC would be in the toilet like MSNBC if they didn’t show the pictures of people like Jeffs.
However, they won’t show say, the cartoons of Mohammed being shown in a ‘bad’ light or interview people who are being run off their land in Texas because the globalist pigs wanna build the NAFTA superhighway. Some things are just too disturbing for even a muck-raker like O’Reilly to cover.
Christine on May 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Better read a little more history, in the 1500’s it was common, in the 1850’s the average age of marrying was 22 yrs. old for a woman. It was rare for a woman to marry under the age of 17.
It was against the law for a 14 year old to be married in every state and territory in the U.S. It was rape to have sex with a 14 year old girl, just like now.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 12:21 PM
“I’m on board with O’Reilly-is-a-repressed-pervert theory. I can’t wait for the day Page Six posts photos of him trying to sneak into a bondage club wearing a sunglasses and a fake moustache.”
Enrique on May 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Thanks for the info, now my gut feelings are verified. I think he’s also a repressed thug; that clip of him losing it on his tabloid show is testament to how hot his temper runs. Ya gotta have an outlet for that or…kaboom!
Christine on May 29, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Listen Maxx, I don’t hate anyone and I am not a liar. Why are you so emotionally overwrought and melodramatic? You are correct in saying that the state has had to back off some of their claims of underage pregnancy, something that I was not aware of. It has, however, previously been all over the news that there were minors who were pregnant. So I am guilty of not keeping up with the details of the story as closely as you have. If the state is in the wrong and there is no systematic abuse of young girls—no illegal underage marriages—-then I am in complete agreement with you.
However, if little girls are being systematically groomed to marry fifty year old men, then I would consider that to be a system of inherent abuse that would be difficult to seperate from their belief system and also difficult to investigate. Ergo my difficulty in coming down hard on either side.
Renae on May 29, 2008 at 12:32 PM
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 10:22 AM
You gave me a link last night and said it was a more balanced view. I told you I would look the site over when I had a chance. Well I just did. What a bunch of leftist wack-jobs these people are. I would not be inclined to believe a single word they have to say. These people apparently don’t believe in anything, a moral relativist new-age type site as far as I can see. I find the site I pointed you to last night as much more rational and reliable. Here is what your site has to say about itself:
I’ve read everything from this nutball site I need to.
The site I gave for updates on the FLDS case is much more trustworthy in my opinion.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 12:35 PM
What the f*ck does his race have to do with anything? You are an idiot.
The Race Card on May 29, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Is 1100 members a substantial number? Is Wikipedia really the best source to cite?
Oh wait a second. I know what’s going on. You’re a civil servant, right?
The Race Card on May 29, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Renae on May 29, 2008 at 12:32 PM
See, your still repeating the same old allegations, the court dealt with the “grooming” issue too. Basically CPS had nothing and they presented a feminist doctrine to the court as if it was some kind of statutory law. I guess its just natural to get all emotional when charges like these are made but at some point you have got to let the facts seep in.
And yes, you are guilty of not keeping up with the case and I guess not even reading any of the comments on this page before posting yours. You certainly have every right to do that. And I have every right to give a strong rebuttal, so what’s with this charge against me that I’m “overwrought?”
But I find it hard to believe that anyone with even a casual interest in this case could have missed the court’s decision. The court’s decision was in headlines everywhere, how did you manage to miss that?
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 1:18 PM
What gulags and concentration camps are you talking about right2bright? Good thing to see that you are not engaging in hyperbole, eh. Where did you get that charge, from you wacked-out new-age site?
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Is the situation with polygamist cults really comparible to gay “marriage”? Without endorsing them (and I don’t), Mormon splinter groups are as old as… well, Mormonism. They also go to great lengths to stay out of the mainstream. And while their unions involve older men and younger women (another phenomenon that is as old as history), they are not what were once called “sins against nature.” Gay marriages would not be spared the latter term, however, and their proponents would force to rest of us to accept it into the mainstream.
I’m not saying either is right, I’m just saying…
manwithblackhat on May 29, 2008 at 1:39 PM
That’s the point, all of these sites are wack jobs, yours from an ambulance chaser is no better.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Were these kids free to leave the compound, were they given the chance at a free society? Or were they locked up and programmed to follow a “living prophet”.
So you think it is alright for a mom to give her child as a bride to a man, even a prophet?
That is where you and I disagree. You think a mom can do whatever they want with their child, and I think that a mom has an obligation to raise that child respectfully. I think allowing a “prophet” to have his way with your 14 year old daughter is wrong, you think the mom is right in allowing that.
Okay, we have a different opinion…hope you don’t have any daughters.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 2:09 PM
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I don’t know what the FLDS policies are in regard to who can go where… when. But I didn’t see any high guard towers on their ranch or any high fence with barbed wire that looked as though its purpose was to keep people in. Looks to me like anyone that wanted to “escape” that “gulag” as you call it, wouldn’t have much trouble doing it.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 2:24 PM
O/T but relevent to O’Reilly…I watched with amazement how O’Reilly compared his selling T-shirts at a discount to the horror that “Big Oil” is imposing on Americans through price gouging…His point being that private companies should discount prices like he does…Note to O’reilly, stay out of business and stick to bloviating for a living. The two are not the same and while you have made a great living in one I’m pretty sure you would lose your A$$ in the other…All companies take profits when they can as a hedge against hard times and to have funds for re-investement. Nobody seems to care that Apple sells a phone for five hundred bucks. What is their profit margin???
Nozzle on May 29, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Actually I got my information on this case from a wide variety of sources, some left, others right and probably some in between. But I find it amusing you referred to your new-age site as more balanced.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Like I said in a previous post. Apologists are easy to come by.
Like I said, you think a women giving her child to a “prophet” is okay, I don’t…that is where we disagree.
I think a mother should be more responsible then just following orders from their prophet…you don’t.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 2:52 PM
That’s right, more balanced then your ambulance chasing site. For the third time, learn to understand what you are reading. You are defending this group like you are an advocate for a Mormon polygamist zealot.
Like I said, the biggest issue is you think it is okay for a woman to allow their kids to be abused, I don’t.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 2:55 PM
This is the history we are dealing with.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 3:06 PM
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Hey right2bright, I’ve never said anything about any “prophet” in this thread, you are the one that continues to babble about that.
And the only thing I am advocating for is the facts as found by the court, which you refuse to acknowledge. While you are apparently getting all your information about the case from a site that perhaps contacts the mothership for the facts. Truly wacked-out you are.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Sorry, I’m done reading your links, I’ve alreay established there quality.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Carolyn Jessop
You don’t plan an escape from an open compound, you escape from a gulag or prison.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 3:13 PM
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Now your getting confused again, YOU ARE the one that called it a “gulag,” not me.
And like I said, you can save your links. I’ve already established that you like sites and reports that tend toward the left and the incredible (read that not-credible).
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 3:19 PM
and your ambulance chaser is better…
and because you can’t get facts straight on my posts, I have determined the quality of your analysis.
reread that, and remember how far off you are in understanding what is written.
Tell me Maxx, are you a polygamist supporter, maybe belonging to a church that believes or did believe in polygamy?
And now you think it is okay for a mother to give up her child to her spiritual leader (since you don’t like the word prophet)?
Like I said, hope you don’t have a daughter, she is in for a time of her life…
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »