It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill O'Rielly's Crusade against Child Rapists

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I have been watching his show the last few weeks just to see this. I will be the first to admit it is probably just a ratings game but even if it is a lot of good can come from it. He is doing it state by state and tonight my home state (Arkansas) is on, and we are past due. We are not only soft on Child Rapists but pretty much everything else. I have seen Child Rapists, Rapists, Murderers, etc get probation. I know a guy I know that just got out on MURDER, it was his SEVENTH trip to prison and he served a total of SEVEN years.

The one thing I took issue with was the claim form one of his Guests that Libertarians were AGAINST child sex laws which is ridiculous. She claimed that we were for allowing anyone to have sex with anyone which is absurd. I know MOST (not all) are for gay rights but I haven't talked to ONE Libertarian in the 25+years I have been in the party that was FOR child sex.

I would like to here form yall what you think about him and his Crusade and would like to hear from my fellow Libertarians about what they thought about the slanderous libel from his guest.




posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Well, I consider myself more of a liberal than a libertarian, but I support such groups as the ACLU which are frequently derided for being soft on child sex crimes and the like. But I think these people should be locked away and the key thrown away, *as long as* the proof against them is sound. As for the child sex laws, I think the statutory rape laws are in need of revision, but we shouldn't get rid of such laws altogether. For example, if a 19 year old has sex with a 17 year old (and its consensual, of course), I don't think there should be the same kind of penalty that, say, a 40 year old would get for having sex with the same 17 year old. But sex with *children*as the term is commonly used is a different story altogether, no leniency should be shown to such people (which doesn't mean they don't deserve their day in court, I don't support vigilante justice of any form.)

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K For example, if a 19 year old has sex with a 17 year old (and its consensual, of course), I don't think there should be the same kind of penalty that, say, a 40 year old would get for having sex with the same 17 year old.


In Arkansas neither the 19 or the 40 year-old would be in trouble, the age of consent is 16.

To me the problem people are those over 18 having sex with those under 14. These have no excuse in my book and I wouldnt care if they were shot, or locked up forever.

That is what they are pushing is a minimum of 25 years (Jessica law)



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
To me the problem people are those over 18 having sex with those under 14. These have no excuse in my book and I wouldnt care if they were shot, or locked up forever.

That is what they are pushing is a minimum of 25 years (Jessica law)


I completely agree. IMO, there is a fine line between a highschool Sr sleeping with a freshman and a 40 year old sleeping with an 8th grader.

These sickos who prey on 12 year olds need to be taken out of society.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Doesn’t the ACLU support the American Man-Boy Love Association? I have children and the thought of child rapist makes me sick.

“That said, the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans. The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's ACLU.”

www.nationalreview.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The ACLU supports anyone they feel is not getting legal due process or being accorded their constitutional rights, however unpopular they might be.

They've also "supported" neo-Nazis and the KKK in specific legal cases IIRC, that doesn't mean they advocate Naziism.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The ACLU supports anyone they feel is not getting legal due process or being accorded their constitutional rights, however unpopular they might be.

They've also "supported" neo-Nazis and the KKK in specific legal cases IIRC, that doesn't mean they advocate Naziism.



If it quacks like a duck,well you know how the rest goes.
The ACLU although they may have started out with the right idea,is a huge snake eating it's on tail.They have grown too big and powerful,and are causing more problems than good.
Anyway thats my opinion.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Anyone got an opinion on O'Reilly's Crusade?

Or the slur on Libertarians?



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
*edited out a worthless remark*

[edit on 25-8-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Sorry Amuk.Didn't mean to get off topic.Yes I think it is a great thing he is doing.I'm sure it is a ratings grabber,but I see no problem with that.Lots of people have done bad things for ratings,why not something good for a change?



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I am not an O'Reilly fan. I watch him everyday, but only with a morbid curiosity of wanting to know what he'll say next. In my opinion, based upon his history of punditry, fast editing, and being loose with the facts, it's very hard for me to take any he says seriously. So whatever issue he be may currently covering, I can't help but look for an ulterior motive, as opposed to a genuine regard for the issue at hand.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
So whatever issue he be may currently covering, I can't help but look for an ulterior motive, as opposed to a genuine regard for the issue at hand.


I am not really a fan of his either although I watch him pretty often. The ulterior motive is obvious.......ratings.

What ever his motives I have to applaud the results if it helps focus attention on the problem.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Yeah I used to watch that show every day. Now Ill just turn it on until I hear the words "Aruba" "Jessica" or "Geraldo", then switch it over to Discovery. I dont care for news stations picking their stories arbitrarily,
and I listen to Bill for comentary and discussion on hot issues, not activism on whatever he doesnt like. I agree they need to throw away the key on child rapists, but Im about sick of hearing about it. Kinda like Lou Dobbs show and his crusade against "exporting America". The Oreilly Factor used to provide excellent commentary on important issues, but its really gone downhill if you ask me. Maybe its his ego getting the best of him.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
I would like to here form yall what you think about him and his Crusade and would like to hear from my fellow Libertarians about what they thought about the slanderous libel from his guest.


I'd take O'Reilly more serious, if he weren't so well versed in Thailand sex shows

www.thesmokinggun.com...

Because it's not as though sex traffickers check identification in the nation with the highest child prostitution rates in the world.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735

I'd take O'Reilly more serious, if he weren't so well versed in Thailand sex shows

www.thesmokinggun.com...

Because it's not as though sex traffickers check identification in the nation with the highest child prostitution rates in the world.


That definitely throws a "spin" on the subject.


It doesnt say the age of the girl, which doesnt mean a lot, I call most women under 40 "girl"

But its food for thought. He wouldnt be the first fire and brimestone preacher caught with his hand in the cookie jar



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I do agree with some of the things he does including this, regardless of his reasons, the outcome is a good thing inho. I dont watch his show daily i usualy just catch it while fliping through the channels and nothing else is on..

But one thing thats amused me about him is, he always persuades everyone to agree with him even though they dont..

They start talking about something then he goes, well you dont realy mean that, you mean this and basicaly confuses them into agreeing with him..

its entertaining to say the least.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by C0le]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
So whatever issue he be may currently covering, I can't help but look for an ulterior motive, as opposed to a genuine regard for the issue at hand.


I hadn't heard of O'Reilly's current crusade, but this thought of curme's was the first that entered my mind, too. And then my mind expanded on it. My suspicions for possible ulterior motives include but are not limited to:

- He wants to solidify the Right = Good and moral while Left = Bad and immoral mindset
- He wants to group any non-Republicans as heathens (this includes Libertarians, rapists, Democrats and other gay folks)
- O'Reilly's been messin' around with a minor and wants to set up 'evidence' and indication that he's against such behavior before the lawsuit hits the public.
- Ratings didn't occur to me, but that may have something to do with it as well.

Of course what his guest said about Libertarians is ridiculous. That's why I thought of the 'anti-Republican grouping' suspicion. Libertarians haven't been slandered nearly as much as the 'left-wing liberals' and they need a little dirt thrown their way so they don't get a big following. If they're not careful, some disenchanted Democrats might just switch to Libertarian.

Pardon my sarcasm, but I find it really hard to take this man seriously.

Other than that, I think it's wonderful that this subject is being discussed the light and I hope some real good comes from it. The matter of childhood sexual abuse in whatever form needs to come out of the dark corners and be dealt with. Hopefully, even if O'Reilly does have an ulterior motive, there may be some real good come from his report, as C0le suggests.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I must agree with Benevolent and curme.......as nice as it would be for someone in his position to call attention to this issue, I suspect that it will change direction before long.



Of course what his guest said about Libertarians is ridiculous. That's why I thought of the 'anti-Republican grouping' suspicion. Libertarians haven't been slandered nearly as much as the 'left-wing liberals' and they need a little dirt thrown their way so they don't get a big following. If they're not careful, some disenchanted Democrats might just switch to Libertarian.


This may become the true aim of his 'crusade'......but one can always hope.

I have voted for Libertarian candidates in the past.....and I listened carefully to their stand on issues.....they make more sense than most others.....unfortunately we have allowed the word 'liberal' be used as a bad word and 'libertarian' sounds so similar, some people will automatically use it the same way without even thinking about what it means......sad.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The issue is not O'Reily it is the children. There is an epidemic of child molestation, rape and murder in this country. Some previous poster said he was getting tired of hearing about it! I hope that he really didn't mean that the way it sounded. Until the laws are changed, we need to hold our Judges and law makers accountable. I am sick of hearing about it too, but not in the sense that I am bored with the topic. I am sick to death with the crime itself. I am sick on the bastards getting out of jail only to kidnap and murder another child. I am sick to death of Judges passing down light sentences for what I consider the most inhuman of crimes. I am sick to death of Law makers not willing to pass tougher laws. I am sick to death of a culture that has gone so totally public correct that our TV anchors want even annouce the race of an individual who has just commited a crime. Maybe O'Reily is seeking ratings but at least he is out there in the forefront, naming names. I am a father and a grandfather so the thought of hurting any child just totally disgust me. We live in a society where my grandson cannot go outside in his own yard and play without constant supervision for fear of such predators. Is it asking to much to protect our children? Perhaps if we put forth the same eneregy and effort I see on ATS for protesting Bush or the Iragi war and fighting between Liberal and Conservative, Christian, Muslem and Jew that we could stop this cancer.
Our children are our greatest resource and our future, may God help us if we don't help them.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
The one thing I took issue with was the claim form one of his Guests that Libertarians were AGAINST child sex laws which is ridiculous. She claimed that we were for allowing anyone to have sex with anyone which is absurd. I know MOST (not all) are for gay rights but I haven't talked to ONE Libertarian in the 25+years I have been in the party that was FOR child sex.

I would like to here form yall what you think about him and his Crusade and would like to hear from my fellow Libertarians about what they thought about the slanderous libel from his guest.


Although I don't consider myself a member of any party, I probably have more in common with the Libertarians than the Dems or Reps. I've voted Libertarian and I've NEVER heard any Libertarian espouse those views and believe it's contrary to everything the Libertarians stand for. Maybe the guest meant Libertines. Or Librarians [KIDDING!]. (Slanderous libel? That's a good one).

I don't care whether O'Reilly is sincere or not, if it calls attention to this issue and generates more severe penalties for convicted abusers. Seems like one of those inflamatory "safe" topics for ratings. ("Child Rape! I don't know about YOU, but I'm AGAINST IT!!"). Tell 'em, Bill.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join