Stories by Fox News Channel's O'Reilly draw attention after Til...

The shooting death of abortion provider George Tiller has put Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly in the media spotlight because of stories he did about the Kansas doctor over the past few years.

[Miguel]

"Salon's Gabriel Winant wrote that "O'Reilly didn't tell anyone to do anything violent, but he did put Tiller in the public eye, and help make him the focus of a movement with a history of violence against exactly these kinds of targets.""
Does Salon's Gabriel Winant feel the same way about gay activists who post the names and addresses of Proposition 8 supporters in California on so-called "black lists" and "bigot lists"? Such activists have also equated Proposition 8 supporters with Nazis, and there were several instances of violence by gay activists against Prop 8 supporters leading up to and after the election.
Just wondering if it is a two-way street. Or does the right to gay marriage so greatly outweight a late-term fetus's right not to be killed that it is okay to demonize Prop 8 supporters but not to demonize abortionists?
There are many other examples where the left demonizes its perceived opponents (such as Bush, the U.S. military, etc.) Should anti-wary commentators who compared Bush to a Nazi be blamed for terrorist acts against U.S. soldiers?

[Larry Linn]

It is typical right wing religious fanaticism. Sperm and unfertilized embryos are sacred. Sacred, they are sacred until they are born, and become human beings. After that, they are no longer any concern for either society or the government. The so called right to lifers do not believe that anyone should assume any concern for children. They do not give any significant support for education, pre-natal programs, medical care or any other support for impoverished children. Programs of support may cause them to pay more taxes. Unfounded moral superiority is righteous, so long as the right-wing can expand their inferior genetic pool, without having to pay for it.

[earlpittsamurica n]

Larry Linn wrote:

It is typical right wing religious fanaticism. Sperm and unfertilized embryos are sacred. Sacred, they are sacred until they are born, and become human beings. After that, they are no longer any concern for either society or the government. The so called right to lifers do not believe that anyone should assume any concern for children. They do not give any significant support for education, pre-natal programs, medical care or any other support for impoverished children. Programs of support may cause them to pay more taxes. Unfounded moral superiority is righteous, so long as the right-wing can expand their inferior genetic pool, without having to pay for it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The pro-life movement is filled with people who give to children's homes, hungry children's programs, battered women's homes, etc. They give more to those programs than the tax rolls ever cough up and without the strings attached the government requires. Almost 1/3 of my income goes to charities that support children. Don't feed me your BS about not wanting to pay taxes for welfare programs. I and others like me do more for children than your government programs can ever hope to do. If more did what those in the movement do, there would be ZERO need for government programs.

[Marie]

earlpittsamurican wrote:

<quoted text>
I and others like me do more for children than your government programs can ever hope to do. If more did what those in the movement do, there would be ZERO need for government programs.

And less need for abortions. Thank you for your efforts.

[Marcus]

I won't blame O'Reilly for the shooting, but he's still a real jerk. This insightful article explains why:

http://www.inebriateddiscourse.com/2009/06/bi...

[Former Ulysess Resident]

earlpittsamurican wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The pro-life movement is filled with people who give to children's homes, hungry children's programs, battered women's homes, etc. They give more to those programs than the tax rolls ever cough up and without the strings attached the government requires. Almost 1/3 of my income goes to charities that support children. Don't feed me your BS about not wanting to pay taxes for welfare programs. I and others like me do more for children than your government programs can ever hope to do. If more did what those in the movement do, there would be ZERO need for government programs.

There are a whole lot of people who donate money to causes they choose to donate it to. What many people don't realize is that the government has been redistributing wealth since 1909, and it hasn't worked for a number of reasons. Rationing of Social Security for example, the maximum one can get from it is $36,000 a year which is far less than if those same people never paid into and put the exact same amount into a 5% interest bearing account in a stock or stocks that paid just a 2 or 3% annual yield which is far below the average during the 19th century.

[Keith Overbite]

Why doesn't anyone watch my show?

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

Former Ulysess Resident wrote:

<quoted text>There are a whole lot of people who donate money to causes they choose to donate it to. What many people don't realize is that the government has been redistributing wealth since 1909, and it hasn't worked for a number of reasons. Rationing of Social Security for example, the maximum one can get from it is $36,000 a year which is far less than if those same people never paid into and put the exact same amount into a 5% interest bearing account in a stock or stocks that paid just a 2 or 3% annual yield which is far below the average during the 19th century.

Tell that to the retired or near retirement folks who lost their 401K's or just saw their nest egg vanish in the current economic downturn. Then there are the folks who could not invest because of income levels, nor have the expertise to intelligently invest in the market anyhow. By the time you pay taxes on the interest or dividends and inflation enters the picture along with an economic downturn, those investments are not the panacea that some have projected.

I have seen poverty in my lifetime. Then there ware 'old folks homes' for folks who either didn't plan well, or through no fault of their own, were not able to save for their old age. Until you have gotten close to poverty and understand its implications, you have no business trying to tell us that SS is not a good program.

It is not called redistributing the wealth, it is simply 'distributing, the wealth. This great land of ours must provide for an equitable distribution of wealth. Why should a few be allowed to reap wealth at the expense of the many? Give a man a fair living for a lifetime of good work. That is all that is necessary. If the government must see to it that this happens, then more power to them. It is certain that the capitalists of today are not going to do that.

[Ernie Koy]

How about when the AIG Executives names were released to the public and the ACORN types showed up on their front doors to protest the fact that AIG executives have succeded in life, and they didn't. Nobody complained about that.

[El Rushbo]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell that to the retired or near retirement folks who lost their 401K's or just saw their nest egg vanish in the current economic downturn. Then there are the folks who could not invest because of income levels, nor have the expertise to intelligently invest in the market anyhow. By the time you pay taxes on the interest or dividends and inflation enters the picture along with an economic downturn, those investments are not the panacea that some have projected.
I have seen poverty in my lifetime. Then there ware 'old folks homes' for folks who either didn't plan well, or through no fault of their own, were not able to save for their old age. Until you have gotten close to poverty and understand its implications, you have no business trying to tell us that SS is not a good program.
It is not called redistributing the wealth, it is simply 'distributing, the wealth. This great land of ours must provide for an equitable distribution of wealth. Why should a few be allowed to reap wealth at the expense of the many? Give a man a fair living for a lifetime of good work. That is all that is necessary. If the government must see to it that this happens, then more power to them. It is certain that the capitalists of today are not going to do that.

It is not the job of government or the individual citizens to provide for the have nots.

[NYStateOfMind]

El Rushbo wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not the job of government or the individual citizens to provide for the have nots.

Since when?...

All levels of government in this country have provided for those citizens that have come into difficult times since the great depression...

[Bush Deficit Recession]

El Rushbo wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not the job of government or the individual citizens to provide for the have nots.

Nor to subsidize the rich in their tax havens.

[War Criminal Bush]

Too bad Bush and Cheney weren't aborted in the third trimester.

[Pit Bull owner]

Ernie Koy wrote:

How about when the AIG Executives names were released to the public and the ACORN types showed up on their front doors to protest the fact that AIG executives have succeded in life, and they didn't. Nobody complained about that.

I saw something about that this morning on the news, they were referring to animals rights activists (PETA) who have gone to peoples homes and vandalized their property, and they mentioned the AIG ACORN/GOVERNMENT endorsed and provided for (by bussing them to the AIG executives homes) stunt
The guy being harrassed by the animal rights activist had people on his lawn yelling we will not comprimise, they lit his car on fire...
I would have told my wife to start unchaining dogs in the yard and letting them out one by one as I went out the front door with a gun and told them, neither will I, You are trespassing on my property and endangering my family
and you will die here today if you do not leave now, and start shooting
which would by my wife's que to release the dogs.
F/u/c/k these people and their Nazi tactics

the left wing zealots are so full of s/h/i/t/ it's incredible.

[Rick op]

Miguel wrote:

"Salon's Gabriel Winant wrote that "O'Reilly didn't tell anyone to do anything violent, but he did put Tiller in the public eye, and help make him the focus of a movement with a history of violence against exactly these kinds of targets.""
Does Salon's Gabriel Winant feel the same way about gay activists who post the names and addresses of Proposition 8 supporters in California on so-called "black lists" and "bigot lists"? Such activists have also equated Proposition 8 supporters with Nazis, and there were several instances of violence by gay activists against Prop 8 supporters leading up to and after the election.
Just wondering if it is a two-way street. Or does the right to gay marriage so greatly outweight a late-term fetus's right not to be killed that it is okay to demonize Prop 8 supporters but not to demonize abortionists?
There are many other examples where the left demonizes its perceived opponents (such as Bush, the U.S. military, etc.) Should anti-wary commentators who compared Bush to a Nazi be blamed for terrorist acts against U.S. soldiers?

You're right. It has become a one way street. The bias on the left has gotten so bad, when the far left hijacked the Democrat party, I quit and became an independent. O'Reilly is an Independent.

[Tory II]

Most govt paternalism is bad, and causes many other problems. Govt destroys our liberty.

Social security (retirement income) is a good idea. Force the govt to never use social security money for other purposes.

Enough Americans oppose abortion. I respect their values (I think). What did the founding fathers do for birth control ? What did they do with autistic babies ? Those two questions connect abortion to the US Constitution.

Tell O'Reilly his values for war and empire get thousands of children, babies, and unborn fetuses killed. The two atomic bombs may have caused illness in Japanese kids for a long time (and killed plenty of Japanese too).

Gun control laws get kids killed too.

Both sides (the Left and the Right) are destroying America.

[NT Time]

War Criminal Bush wrote:

Too bad Bush and Cheney weren't aborted in the third trimester.

maybe we could abort you now?

[Rick op]

Larry Linn wrote:

It is typical right wing religious fanaticism. Sperm and unfertilized embryos are sacred. Sacred, they are sacred until they are born, and become human beings. After that, they are no longer any concern for either society or the government. The so called right to lifers do not believe that anyone should assume any concern for children. They do not give any significant support for education, pre-natal programs, medical care or any other support for impoverished children. Programs of support may cause them to pay more taxes. Unfounded moral superiority is righteous, so long as the right-wing can expand their inferior genetic pool, without having to pay for it.

That is not true. I've read the same things you are parroting on far left web sites. Why do you not begin to think for yourself?

[Tory II]

War Criminal Bush wrote:

Too bad Bush and Cheney weren't aborted in the third trimester.

:-)

[Hmmm]

The murder of that doctor was very wrong, and his killer deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, to blame his death on O'Reilly is ridiculous. The doctor performed late term abortions, which meant killing viable fetuses who were alive, and could survive outside the mother's womb. There were also reports that he didn't just do this in cases where the mother's life was in danger (which are very rare, according to most maternity experts) but for other reasons, such as the mother deciding at the last minute that she didn't want to have a baby, just before she was due to give birth. His actions upset and angered many people who considered that murdering babies. Again, I don't condone murder, but I'm merely pointing out that this doctor was already controversial, and angered many people, even without O'Reilly discussing him on his show.