O'Reilly sinks to a new low...

SuzannePjam

What a scumbag. How could anybody watch him???

Bill O'Reilly refuses to apologize about his statements from this January 2006 interview on the Ben Ownby/Shawn Hornbeck Disappearance."

---

Bill O'Reilly: You know the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it, I never bought it, I don't think It happened in the Patty Hearst Case. I don't think it happened here...

Greta van Susteren: Woah, Can I just say something?

Bill O'Reilly: Yeah go ahead and jump in.

GVS: First of all we don't know all the facts, Don't forget that Elizabeth Smart likewise had an opportunity to leave and she did not. She was on the public street for some reason when young people are picked up and taken under the influence of adults they are very receptive of what adults do. So I would not dismiss the Stockholm syndrome --

BOR: The difference in the Smart case, and correct me if I am wrong, was this guy was always around the little girl and she wasn't gone for the long period of time as this guy was. Now what we have learned -- and this is why I don't believe in Stockholm -- this guy Shawn Hornbeck gone four years from 11-15. Authorities actually say that he taunted his own parents on his website. He's got these piercing this is a troubled kid in my opinion --

GVS: The piercings, a lot of kids do the piercings. As far as the taunting goes on the website I think what can be established is that someone on this particular login taunted the parents. Was it done from this particular computer? If it was done from this particular computer that means that Michael Devlin did it, or Shawn did it or someone with access to the computer... let's not forget he is a kid.... He may be 15 now...

BOR: No, I am not buying this if you're 11 years old or 12 years old or 13 and you have a strong bond with your family. Even if the guy threatens you this and that. You're riding your bike around, you got friends -- the kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff, if you can get away, you get away. If you're 11 --

GVS: Bill it seems bizarre to me, I agree it seems bizarre. Why not run, why not yell, why not scream? But the thing I keep going back to is, what was Patti Hearst's story...

BOR: I didn't buy that Patti Hearst story for a second.

GVS: Why was she so willing to sign up with her kidnappers and like wise Elizabeth Smart, she had opportunity -- nice kid, nice family, why was she unwilling to run...?

BOR: Let me answer your question. This is what I believe in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, child of privilege. All of a sudden she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs and she enjoyed it. The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted.

GVS: Some kids like school --

BOR: 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...

miller8966

what exactly is the problem? The only misjudgement he makes is the peircings...everything is i can agree with.

mammasan

The problem with O'Reilly is that he can never admit when he is wrong. Thera re time when I listen to O'Reilly, and even though I may not agree with him, I'll admit that he has made a good point. The there are times when the guy has a head filled with concrete. All the proof will indicate that he is wrong but he will not budge an inch.

As far as his comments about this kidnapped boy. I think they are a little harsh considering we don't have all the facts, but he does have a point. We should just chalk it up to Stockholm Syndrome without really looking into the facts. Same goes for O'Reilly though. He should give up on the kid and label him a delinquent without looking at the facts.

soulsinging

actually, aside from the piercings, i kinda agree with him... this seems fishy. though ive no idea what this hearst thing is.

MakingWaves

I agree with most of the postings so far. I don't see a problem with what he said and I usually only agree with O'Reilly about 50% of the time. The problem is as much as the liberals say conservatives buy into all conservative thought, the liberals do the same thing. They are told that O'Reilly is a right wing nut and therefore everything he says is horrible and wrong. People eat it up without thinking for themselves on both sides.

hippiemom

I don't have any problem with what he said either. He's just saying what most people are thinking ... something mighty strange went on here. The kid had access to computers, hours of time to himself, and even called police to report his bike stolen and failed to mention, "oh, by the way, I'm stolen too."

mookie blaylock 10

soulsinging wrote:

actually, aside from the piercings, i kinda agree with him... this seems fishy. though ive no idea what this hearst thing is.

patty hearst is the granddaughter of william randloph hearst. she was kidnapped in 1974, while attending berkeley, by a group calling themseleves the simbionese liberation army. they kept her locked in a closet and were said to have eventually "brainwashed" her into coming around to their belief system. they started demanding things from the hearsts, including stuff like mass food donations to the poor...about 400$ million in food, i think. hearst only gave out 5$ million. then patty hearst started making taped announcements for them and sending them out to her parents...eventually helping the group rob banks and changing her name to "tania". she was caught, sentenced to two years in prison, and eventually got her sentence commuted by jimmy carter.

baraka

Intesting article on the psychology behind Stockholm Syndrome.

http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=469

jlew24asu

SuzannePjam wrote:

What a scumbag. How could anybody watch him???

Bill O'Reilly refuses to apologize about his statements from this January 2006 interview on the Ben Ownby/Shawn Hornbeck Disappearance."

why is he a scumbag? what should he apologize for?

Uncle Leo

I think it would be nice for this kid to be out of the news.

Other than that, this is not the thing I'd go after O'Rielly for.

Rushlimbo

O'Reilly got it right. I'm sure the kid wanted to be yanked from his parents and molested for several years. Isnt that the secret dream of all children? There are some strange people on this board. How about we blame the criminal instead of the victim, isnt that what you so called conservatives are always babbling on about?

dharma69

SuzannePjam wrote:

What a scumbag. How could anybody watch him???

Bill O'Reilly refuses to apologize about his statements from this January 2006 interview on the Ben Ownby/Shawn Hornbeck Disappearance."

---

Bill O'Reilly: You know the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it, I never bought it, I don't think It happened in the Patty Hearst Case. I don't think it happened here...

Greta van Susteren: Woah, Can I just say something?

Bill O'Reilly: Yeah go ahead and jump in.

GVS: First of all we don't know all the facts, Don't forget that Elizabeth Smart likewise had an opportunity to leave and she did not. She was on the public street for some reason when young people are picked up and taken under the influence of adults they are very receptive of what adults do. So I would not dismiss the Stockholm syndrome --

BOR: The difference in the Smart case, and correct me if I am wrong, was this guy was always around the little girl and she wasn't gone for the long period of time as this guy was. Now what we have learned -- and this is why I don't believe in Stockholm -- this guy Shawn Hornbeck gone four years from 11-15. Authorities actually say that he taunted his own parents on his website. He's got these piercing this is a troubled kid in my opinion --

GVS: The piercings, a lot of kids do the piercings. As far as the taunting goes on the website I think what can be established is that someone on this particular login taunted the parents. Was it done from this particular computer? If it was done from this particular computer that means that Michael Devlin did it, or Shawn did it or someone with access to the computer... let's not forget he is a kid.... He may be 15 now...

BOR: No, I am not buying this if you're 11 years old or 12 years old or 13 and you have a strong bond with your family. Even if the guy threatens you this and that. You're riding your bike around, you got friends -- the kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff, if you can get away, you get away. If you're 11 --

GVS: Bill it seems bizarre to me, I agree it seems bizarre. Why not run, why not yell, why not scream? But the thing I keep going back to is, what was Patti Hearst's story...

BOR: I didn't buy that Patti Hearst story for a second.

GVS: Why was she so willing to sign up with her kidnappers and like wise Elizabeth Smart, she had opportunity -- nice kid, nice family, why was she unwilling to run...?

BOR: Let me answer your question. This is what I believe in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, child of privilege. All of a sudden she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs and she enjoyed it. The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted.

GVS: Some kids like school --

BOR: 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...

A new low? Hardly.

Anyone with half a brain has asked themselves these very same questions. If you say you haven't then you're probably lying. LYING! O'Reilly just posed the questions that others are afraid to.

Sillyness about piercings aside, let's be realistic about this: according to what we know about this case there were opportunities aplenty to get away from that man. Computers are great things as are bicycles, the mailman, and random strangers.The kid even spoke to police about an unrelated criminal matter for God's sake. And most of know that if kids want or want to do something, they're are more than intelligient enough to make it happen.

So deal with it; this situation raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers.

Rushlimbo

This kid behaved towards the abductor the way you republican sheep listen blindly to your leader of the flock Georgie Boy. Same thing only you are supposedly older and wiser than a child. Supposedly so.

miller8966

Rushlimbo wrote:

This kid behaved towards the abductor the way you republican sheep listen blindly to your leader of the flock Georgie Boy. Same thing only you are supposedly older and wiser than a child. Supposedly so.

wow another great insightful post...

imo he behaved more like a liberal and took it up the rear.

Rushlimbo

miller8966 wrote:

wow another great insightful post...

imo he behaved more like a liberal and took it up the rear.

Now THAT is classy !! Way to go Miller !

SuzannePjam

jlew24asu wrote:

why is he a scumbag? what should he apologize for?

THis child was mentally and physically tortured. He was woken up every 1/2 hour the first nights of his captivity and had major sleep deprivation. He was told his parents didn't want him anymore. Did you ever stop to think that the child would be mortified about what was happening to him and felt his parents wouldn't want him because he was being raped and humiliated and that somehow he was dirty or unlovable now? Or that he might have to tell people what happened to him while he was in captivity and didn't want to share that information? In an msnbc article I read it said one of the neighbors looked in a window of the bathroom and saw all kinds of bizarre sexual toys in there. He was probably enduring things beyond belief. He didn't run away from his parents. He didn't ASK to be taken, he was STOLEN.*I feel terribly sorry for this poor child who was kidnapped at the young age of 11, was mentally and physically tortured; felt unloved and was probably living in fear for the first weeks of captivity, then later felt perhaps hopeless or humiliated or was so brainwashed he felt paralyzed to do anything. Who the fuck is Bill O'Reilly to judge him. Maybe I would listen to O'Reilly's opinion if he was taken against his will and assraped and tortured and brain washed for four years. Maybe he should walk for four years in this child's shoes, then he might have some credibility when he passes judgement.

SuzannePjam

MakingWaves wrote:

I agree with most of the postings so far. I don't see a problem with what he said and I usually only agree with O'Reilly about 50% of the time. The problem is as much as the liberals say conservatives buy into all conservative thought, the liberals do the same thing. They are told that O'Reilly is a right wing nut and therefore everything he says is horrible and wrong. People eat it up without thinking for themselves on both sides.

I don't think this is a "right" or "left" wing thing. This is someone who is passing judgement against a child who has never had this sort of horrible thing happen to him.

jlew24asu

SuzannePjam wrote:

THis child was mentally and physically tortured. He was woken up every 1/2 hour the first nights of his captivity and had major sleep deprivation. He was told his parents didn't want him anymore. Did you ever stop to think that the child would be mortified about what was happening to him and felt his parents wouldn't want him because he was being raped and humiliated and that somehow he was dirty or unlovable now? Or that he might have to tell people what happened to him while he was in captivity and didn't want to share that information? In an msnbc article I read it said one of the neighbors looked in a window of the bathroom and saw all kinds of bizarre sexual toys in there. He was probably enduring things beyond belief. He didn't run away from his parents. He didn't ASK to be taken, he was STOLEN.*I feel terribly sorry for this poor child who was kidnapped at the young age of 11, was mentally and physically tortured; felt unloved and was probably living in fear for the first weeks of captivity, then later felt perhaps hopeless or humiliated or was so brainwashed he felt paralyzed to do anything. Who the fuck is Bill O'Reilly to judge him. Maybe I would listen to O'Reilly's opinion if he was taken against his will and assraped and tortured and brain washed for four years. Maybe he should walk for four years in this child's shoes, then he might have some credibility when he passes judgement.

its O"Reilly's job to ask tough questions and seek the truth

miller8966

we need to teach our children how to defend themselves...violence is needed.

dharma69

SuzannePjam wrote:

I don't think this is a "right" or "left" wing thing. This is someone who is passing judgement against a child who has never had this sort of horrible thing happen to him.

You find issue or find it offensive just because it never happened to O'Reilly? That's a little on the naive side, I think. I don't need to be a victim of something in order to empathize or have an opinion on it. And I also have enough of a working brain to not simply accept what I'm told as the blanket truth from anyone. When there's doubt, ask questions.

And that's what it appears O'Reilly is doing. Yes, this is a child and no, no one wants to blame the victim for being a victim. But I'm hard pressed to believe that there was absolutely nothing that he could have done to get away or that every single day out of each of those 4 years he had absolutely no options and no courage to change his circumstances.

Rushlimbo

miller8966 wrote:

we need to teach our children how to defend themselves...violence is needed.

**** Post of the day ****