1. I think he made a good point given the facts given at his disposal.

2. Why? There is no evidence that O'Reilly supports child abuse. In fact, he goes out of his way to expose left wing judges who give child abusers and other predators slap-on-the-wrist sentences rather than the harsh treatment they deserve.

3. Keith who? If a commentator who nobody watches says something on a network that has almost no ratings, did he really make a sound?

Heh, maybe. I do think it's strange that no one has actually commented on what appears to be, at least in my eyes, a pretty damning article. I'm not saying I necessarily agree that "Stockholm Syndrome is nonsense" but the point is that we shouldn't just be calling O'Reilly a monster given the fact that he could be right. Oh, and kudos on coming up with the coolest abreviation for ConservPat I've seen so far. "C-Pat", I like it.

CP

because that is the clear implication of what o'reilley said. it doesn't really matter why he said it; i'm sure it wasn't intended to be sexual, just the natural born bully's gut reaction to immediatly attack someone when they're down. the fact is he said it, and if anyone else had said it the right wingers looking for any excuse to minimize the awfulness of what was said and done would be screeching for blood.
again, would one of those people desperately attempting to compare the two point out any time olberman has said anything remotely as disgusting as this.

The problem with Olbermann is that so few people watch him that we'd be hard pressed to find anything disgusting (or otherwise) that he's said.

Did O'Reilly say the kid liked being raped? Have a quote for that one? Or is that YOUR conclusion? If so, it says more about you than O'Reilly.

We really don't know anything about this story. It seems to be off-the-wall based on what's known so far. The kid wasn't tied up in the basement or something. There *was* more to it than a simple kidnapping.

O'Reilly stated something obvious based on what is known right now. And Olbermann hates O'Reilly and has been trying to create a Rosie-Trump-like-feud for some time. The problem for him is, nobody knows it since most people switch the channel when his sanctimonious mug fills their TV screen.

I can't imagine how you've turned this into a "Right/Left" argument but let us compare reactions to Right statements and Left Statements:

Right
Trent Lott
Result? Forced from position as Senate Republican Leader

***

Left
Hillary Clinton
Result? Issued an apology all was forgiven

Lesson? When the Right says something that might, maybe, possibly, is sort of if you look at it sideways, kinda racist - THE RIGHT sanctions the speaker. When the Left clearly says something racist nothing happens.

Now please explain your point to me again.

Hello.

I find it rather interesting that you would all rather debate whether O'Reilly's were insensitve, slanderous etc. etc. and whether he should be sacked etc.etc. rather than address the more important issues such as;

Why we the people, allow (by watching) these pyschopaths free rein via our media sources.

Surely the more important aspect here is, that we are being completely brainwashed via television programming/networks (including so called news programs).

Almost all news channels are politically partisan, even the BBC these days god forbid. The news we do receive regarding information that really matters is usually distorted or inaccurate or both, usually to suit political alligiences.

The news has been dumbed down to such an extent that the superficial, the inane, the sheer obsession with celebrity and all things shallow has superceded the really important things in life.

I really am beginning to wonder if it is a ploy, to prevent us from really thinking about our societies today and seeing them as they really are, seeing ourselves as we really are perhaps.

Only we can change this miserable scraping of the television programming barrel, by switching off.