A A A A Search :

Toledo Talk  

login • sign up home • about • search

» Weather Web Links » Wrong-way drunk driver kills five on I-280 » Some New Traffic Laws for Ohio » O'Reilly on Michael Jackson....on point or waaaayyy off base?!?!!?!?!?.....u decide.....

From got2bfit's workspace   

O'Reilly on Michael Jackson....on point or waaaayyy off base?!?!!?!?!?.....u decide.....

---

created by got2bfit on Jul 09, 2009 at 09:53:04 am     Comments: 43

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Enough already, to me he continues to be a nuisance out of all proportion to his significance.

posted by Offshore on Jul 09, 2009 at 10:34:11 am     #

IMO, any time Bill O'Reilly speaks, he's "waaaayyy" off base.

posted by micah on Jul 09, 2009 at 10:47:48 am     #

I've got mixed feelings about all of this. I was surfing youtube and was listening to a lot of Michael Jackson's songs that were really inspirational to me during my teenage years and into my early 20s.

"Heal the World" and "We Are the World" were really life-changing songs for me.

But as a mom and a counselor, I feel very uncomfortable about Jackson's admitted behavior of sleeping with children. I know he was acquitted of the child molestation charges, but what he admits to raises huge red flags for me.

posted by corky on Jul 09, 2009 at 11:19:27 am     #

yeah do yourself a favor and stop watching o'reilly
also.. aol? i had no idea anyone went there anymore!

posted by upso on Jul 09, 2009 at 11:19:41 am     #

It is amazing to me that we, as a country, stopped our lives and paid homage to a man that admitted sleeping in the same bed with children and was reportedly an unrepentent drug addict. At what point do we draw the line and deem certain behaviors absolutely unacceptable? Michael Jackson was an entertainer. Nothing more, nothing less. Writing great music and performing great shows does not make the man a role model for anyone. There are millions of Americans that are far more deserving of the accolades he received

posted by HeyHey on Jul 09, 2009 at 11:48:50 am     #

Sleeping in the same bed as a child does not make one a child molester. At least I hope not, otherwise a whole bunch of us have some splainin’ to do Lucy.

Nobody wants to be a drug addict, period.

I am in no way a huge MJ fan (was far more into Janet before she got stuck in the 90’s), but like it or not he was one of the most famous entertainers ever. And this is what the world does when they lose one.

posted by Ryan on Jul 09, 2009 at 11:53:17 am     #

Sleeping with children who are not your own is very questionable adult behavior. It does not make or mean a person is a child molester, but it is odd behavior for an adult.

posted by corky on Jul 09, 2009 at 12:01:46 pm     #

The press coverage for his death is THE BEST THING that could ever have happened to Sanford.

<tbody></tbody>

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Shut Up, Mark Sanford</td>
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

posted by toledolen on Jul 09, 2009 at 12:12:09 pm     #

Hey Ryan,

If MJ Was found to be a child molester would you think he deserves this admiration?

posted by Molsonator on Jul 09, 2009 at 12:58:56 pm     #

O'reilly is an idiot and I do not like him.
Jackson's music is awesome, he was a great entertainer.

Jackson had a bizarre personal life. I didn't care about that.
O'reilly has been accused of doing "less than respectable" things to women.

As I've posted elsewhere on here. Both deserve a memorial service when they die/died.

But as with every person that dies, people think it's appropriate to claim that the deceased were "the greatest in the world" when in fact, they probably hated the person when he/she was alive. It's like people either are afraid the dead will come back to haunt them, or they want their 15 minutes of fame (again) to jump on the bandwagon.

posted by hockeyfan on Jul 09, 2009 at 01:13:19 pm     #

O'Reilly is just calling a spade a spade. It's the kooks around Jackson that come out of the woodpile and try to turn Jackson's life around and into a final media event. O'Reilly stirs the pot but he doesn't lie and people who are simple minded don't like him. That's that.

posted by michiganbluecollar on Jul 09, 2009 at 02:21:13 pm     #

Agree with HeyHey and Offshore.

posted by Darkseid on Jul 09, 2009 at 02:22:19 pm     #

So anybody that doesn't agree with you is simple minded?

O'Reilly doesn't lie?

posted by Ryan on Jul 09, 2009 at 02:36:41 pm     #

LULZ

posted by toledolen on Jul 09, 2009 at 02:49:19 pm     #

you're right... i'm just simple minded...

posted by upso on Jul 09, 2009 at 03:04:21 pm     #

http://www.google.com/search?q=O'Reilly+liar

posted by toledolen on Jul 09, 2009 at 03:26:22 pm     #

Also with HeyHey and offshore. Idolizing someone for talent, no matter how great, rather than character is wrong. An adult male sleeping with small boys and abusing drugs far outweighs any musical legacy.

posted by holland on Jul 09, 2009 at 04:03:09 pm     #

I wonder if any artists from the past few hundred years have exhibited "questionable" behavior during their lives, yet they still have works displayed in museums or words bounded in books in libraries or music played by symphonies.

I don't see any problem with the Michael Jackson coverage because I've got my own filtering process. If the coverage is over-the-top, didn't you expect it to be that way? No media surprises here.

I don't understand the people who expend the energy complaining about the media coverage and complaining about Jackson's fans. To me, his fans can mourn or enjoy themselves all they want. Maybe they're celebrating his life and work up to the late 1980s. Celebrating the life of Michael Jackson is not endorsing pedophile. His music isn't going to create child molesters.

We're still allowed time for entertainment, and if that means going nuts for a while over a sports team or a celebrity, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's a personal choice. I believe, maybe naively, that most of these people know right from wrong, and they know what's important, and they'll dial back their entertainment enthusiasm when necessary.

Who is being harmed by Jackson fans? I know I'm not. It may have cost LA some tax dollars, but the sales of Michael Jackson merchandise the past two weeks has probably contributed some tax money to the government.

It's funny to hear someone on the radio say, "I'm not going to talk about Jackson" and then that same person rants for the next 20 minutes or more about other people talking about Jackson.

O'Reilly made the observation that the media is covering Jackson for ratings. Duh! Why is that a bad thing? They're governed by ratings. Infotainment. And from the video link in this thread, it sounded like O'Reilly has devoted time in at least two of his shows to discuss Jackson. Of course, if O'Reilly does it, I suppose it wasn't for ratings.

People can always try the OFF button for a while.

posted by jr on Jul 09, 2009 at 05:23:25 pm     #

Left Right the middle. And then there is Toledo. Waaaaaaay left..

posted by michiganbluecollar on Jul 09, 2009 at 06:39:08 pm     #

And simple minded, don't forget simple minded.

posted by Ryan on Jul 09, 2009 at 06:56:50 pm     #

I don't like O'Reilly - he's nasty & shoots his mouth off about things he does not always know that much about, and Michael Jackson I think, is one of those topics. I doubt that O'Reilly ever listened his music or followed his career - beyond the tabloid crap, so who is he to stand in judgement of MJ? His comments about bleaching his skin to be white - that's still unanswered, he had a skin disease that caused whitish splotches & maybe MJ just was hoping to 'even it out'. No idea, but it's not for me to judge. I always thought his plastic surgery went to the extreme - but again, he was clearly uncomfortable with his face - why else does somebody do that? We're all guessing as to the reason why, and it's speculation to say he did it to be more white.
The argument about why he chose a white woman to have his children is also not about his wanting his kids to be white I don't think - he was close friends with Debbie Rowe, he trusted her, and I bet that played more into it than the color of her skin.

He was aquitted of being a child molester. Of course there will always be the question of whether the kids or their parents were paid off - and maybe they were, but he was still aquitted. I always got the sense that MJ was just more comfortable with kids than adults (he had his reasons), he never had much of a childhood - he was signed at 10 yrs old & been in the spotlight ever since. I understand his father was abusive & his mother very controlling - so maybe he did just suffer from a Peter Pan complex, wanting to live within the confines of innocence & kids who are. I honestly doubted that MJ molested any kids. Sharing a bed in a sleep-over does not make you a child molester. Of course, common sense dictates that an adult not put himself into that position to begin with because people will always think the worst & dirtiest of thoughts about it. But MJ didn't always use common sense perhaps - he was childlike himself, and represented love & kindness & gentleness. I always thought that MJ was extremely lonely & sad & he just chose to create his own safe world off stage. I can't even imagine what it must be like to be in the spotlight for so many decades - every move ridiculed & mocked & questioned. I think the 'real world' terrified him on some level.

Those who were close to him insist he was into being healthy, and did not do illegal drugs. My understanding from what I've been hearing & reading is that he had severe insomnia & just wanted to sleep 8 hours straight. His nurse refused to give the drug that probably killed him - but somebody gave it to him more than a few times. So the rumors of any drug habits are also garbage.

Whether you were a fan of MJ or not, the fact remains that he was a musical genius, and has been for decades. Very few musical artists will live on 50 years from now (or 100) - but MJ is one who surely will. Like John Lennon - he'll live on. (how many musical 'artists' in the last 20 years will be able to say the same?)

I expected a media circus with his death. He was loved world wide. He was known & loved by some of the biggest names in the industry, he touched lives thoughout decades. Of course his memorial would be huge - you don't like MJ? Then you didn't have to watch it. So why would you even care? The tickets to be admitted were free - the space limited (although huge) - so of course there would be those who tried to cash in on his death. Given how many in the industry who cared for & loved him, of course it would be big & long. I fail to see what the gripe here is about the memorial. You can make jokes about his surgeries & neurotic behaviors - but he was too young to die, especially somebody so full of love & life. It always amazes me how much hate comes out of people over things like this - they latch on to the ugliest of rumors & color his entire life by them. Many of these people consider themselves Christians - very UN Christianlike behavior - not for us to judge. I think it's shameful the garbage that O'Reilly has spewed about a man he clearly didn't even listen to or follow or care about. Especially to spew it at the man's death. Off the top of my head, I could probably come up with dozens of people who are far more deserving of the venom, than MJ.

Those who knew him, loved him. Those who didn't or didn't listen to his music, seem to be the ones who throw stones & mock a man they didn't really even understand.
Having said all this - I doubt very many people really did fully understand MJ. I think he had fears & demons of his own that even he struggled with & they were not molesting children.

posted by starling02 on Jul 09, 2009 at 08:46:42 pm     #

Good for you starling , good for you! :)

posted by Ryan on Jul 09, 2009 at 08:51:58 pm     #

Ryan- are you going to answer the question?

posted by Molsonator on Jul 09, 2009 at 10:51:48 pm     #

Simple minded, and bone headed. Let's see what else?

posted by michiganbluecollar on Jul 09, 2009 at 11:09:30 pm     #

Molsonator - moot question, because he was aquitted. But if I had to guess, I'd say MJ would probably not have gotten as big a fanfare IF he'd been convicted of child molesting - mainly because, IF he'd been convicted, he'd most likely have ended up in prison (which, ironically would mean, he may still have been alive today).

What is WRONG with some people?? The hate, the dirty insinuations - and after their death no less. Maybe some people just find it more entertaining to assume the worst about somebody who's done better than they have. Or maybe, it's just more interesting to assume the worst. Or maybe, they think they know more about the inner details of MJ's legal issues than the courts did. Then again, maybe the people who find it easier to believe the worst about somebody, are only showing a hint of the sleezier underbellies of their own minds - I mean, if it comes that easy to them to believe the worst about somebody they don't even know, then what does that say about who THEY are? Their soul? I bet people like this tend to be quick to leap to dirty conclusions & assume the worst about most everybody else in their lives. Seriously - If you can leap to these conclusions so easily about a stranger, what does that say about how you react to people who aren't strangers? Then again, maybe people like this are just very gullible & believe everything they read in the Enquirer.

posted by starling02 on Jul 09, 2009 at 11:24:13 pm     #

I can only answer questions in reality molson, sorry - who knows?

Maybe if you were not so simple and bone headed yourself MBC you would not have to be blue collar OR hang on a Toledo board when you are so obviously above it. Just sayin'.

posted by Ryan on Jul 09, 2009 at 11:25:50 pm     #

We have young men serving their country and dying, and no one notices. Some admittedly talented freak, pedophile dies and he's worshipped like a fallen hero.

Strange culture.

posted by JeepMaker on Jul 09, 2009 at 11:37:45 pm     #

Who sent them there? That's what is strange.

posted by Ryan on Jul 09, 2009 at 11:41:01 pm     #

JeepMaker - Wish I'd said that.

posted by holland on Jul 09, 2009 at 11:44:14 pm     #

"It is amazing to me that we, as a country, stopped our lives and paid homage to a man ..."

More like the world, right? It's interesting to me that Michael Jackson has fans throughout the world, in many cultures, and cutting across numerous demographics. So don't forget to rail against fans living in Europe, South America, Asia, the Middle East, etc.

posted by jr on Jul 10, 2009 at 12:13:40 am     #

Jeep- I think people 'notice' those who serve & die for our country. But honestly, how much does the media actually SAY about each person who served and/or died while serving? We all know that they're serving and/or dying - but we don't know who they are, by name - and why IS that? I know that on the Nancy Grace show everynight (yeah, I know - love or hate her, she means well) she always runs the names & photos & give a brief bio on each one. I think our local news stations could do better with that - bringing it closer to our homes.
Personally - I don't think our troops should ever have been sent to the middle east to begin with - it's a wrong war like Nam & never was intended to be 'won', it's all about power & making money I think. And everybody who is serving (and/or died), chose to enlist. Not that it makes their serving and/or dying less horrible & sad. But it'd help to grieve more if we could put faces on those names - or even HEAR the names.

I also think it's not fair to compare a celebrities death with the serving and/or deaths or our enlisted soldiers. Apples & Oranges. Kind of like suggesting that somebody's kid's death wasn't as 'worthy' as your fathers because that kid hung with the wrong crowd or something - how can you compare the values of people's lives like that?

and jeep - there ya go again, with the pedophile label - you have MJ branded as evil over something you can't prove, and that was not proven, something he was never convicted of. I think that's pretty dispicable to brand somebody over rumors or the Enquirer rags after they've died - with no way to prove your accustations. If I recall, MJ was trying to do some sort of out reach to help low income kids - a big brother type of thing. And while I agree he should have not put himself in a questionable position like that, it did not make him a pedophile just because he let the kids spend the night & share a bed (big ass room, probably a big ass bed - quite possibly hanging out watching videos or something. So easy to assume the ugliest, when it was probably something far more innocent.

posted by starling02 on Jul 10, 2009 at 12:31:27 am     #

jr, Caravagio was a bit of a freak himself.

posted by toledolen on Jul 10, 2009 at 06:19:40 am     #

I like MJ's music. Listened to some of it today. I did not watch any of his tribute, his memorial, his history or any of that crap.

Society can be a crazy place. Very often we don't prioritize jobs or those who are really important to human life. While music can make you "feel" a certain way, a musician doesn't save lives like a doctor. A musician doesn't teach kids like a teacher. And a musician doesn't protect the public like police and fire. Yet, a musician like MJ made more money than probably all of those occupations put together.
Priorities? I would like to see teachers, police, fire, and doctors paid more for what they do, if they are good at what they do. But that would be only in a perfect society. Instead, in real life, athletes, musicians, and entertainers are the priorities it seems and are paid way too much.
I guess that's human nature.

posted by hockeyfan on Jul 10, 2009 at 12:06:11 pm     #

I agreewith hockeyfan except that I hated MJ's music.

posted by deere1 on Jul 10, 2009 at 12:26:14 pm     #

I liked some of MJ's music and he was for sure the best looking male musical entertainer there ever was. BUT....he was a PEDOPHILE. AND HE WILL FOREVER BE BRANDED.

posted by michiganbluecollar on Jul 10, 2009 at 02:33:51 pm     #

Come on Starling, innocent men (there's a label that doesn't fit) don't pay off their victims to the tune of $20 million dollars.

Tell me something, do you believe O.J. was innocent too?

posted by JeepMaker on Jul 10, 2009 at 02:45:57 pm     #

Jeep, using that same logic one could say that parents of molestation victims don’t accept hush money either. They would want to see someone do time, hard time.

posted by Ryan on Jul 10, 2009 at 02:49:19 pm     #

I've been listening to this same debate since June 26th, and there's one thing I've repeated over and over again.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. He wasn't.
I've watched every one of MJ's interviews, the majority of the news reports and so on, and there's a few things that have caught my attention.
If you watch/listen to the 2003 interview, MJ tells the reporter, yes, they slept in my bed, but that doesn't mean that I was sleeping there too.
Right, wrong or indifferent, he was never proven guilty.
And as for being accused...greed does strange things to people. Because if he has molested my child...you bet your sweet behind 20 million wouldn't of been worth it. I would've wanted him to suffer. But hey...some lady sued McDonalds cuz the coffee was hot. Why wouldn't a poor mom, with no good prospects in life, come up with this, knowing that she's about to get $ ?

But, I think that this debate will go on forever. The guy is gone, those of us that loved his music will have it forever. Those that didn't don't have to worry about another album or concert.

C'est Le Vie

posted by bbaker172 on Jul 10, 2009 at 07:06:31 pm     #

Innocent until proven guilty - that's how it's supposed to work. It's possible hush money was paid by MJ - but if so, what does that say about the kid's parents who accepted that money? I never recall hearing anything out of those kids' mouths during that time that suggested they were abused - beyond a bit of wine or something. I don't know the truth about what happened - but neither do you, and the courts did not prove he was guilty. I'm always amazed at how quick people can be to attach ugly labels & judge people with little to back it up except speculation & rumor. I'm not religious at all, but I think that judging somebody else is the task for a God & not another man. And jeep - I don't know if you're religous or not, but if you are, I wonder how your God feels about how you stand in judgement of others like this. "Judge not lest ye be judged" or something like that? Or, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? MJ reached out to be a big brother of sorts to under privaleged kids, he befriended them - and yes, there were over-nighters, of just hanging out, video watching, etc. I wonder IF people would have the same dirty thoughts if this was a female musician who befriended a few young under privaleged girls acting as a Big Sister. I'd been to parties decades ago where a lot of people of various ages & sexes just crashed in the same place, beds - and except for those who were clearly 'couples', it was all pretty platonic, just friends. Just sad how easy it is for some people to assume the worst about somebody - which seems very unfair when that person is dead & not here to defend themeselves.

posted by starling02 on Jul 11, 2009 at 12:27:18 am     #

Befriending children is the modus operendi of a pedophile. Mature mentally stable adult males do not seek out sleeping with children, of either gender. They do not give them intoxicants.

I'm not talking here about the occasional campout with Dad or the allowed taste of a beer or a mixed drink at a family celebration. Those are OK. What Michael Jackson did with children, not his own, is fact. It was a repetitive pattern of behaviour. He admitted to it on national TV in a lengthy interview. His behaviour was highly suspicious. Male children did testify under oath in a public courtroom that they had been molested by Michael Jackson. They were able to describe certain distinct characteristics of Michael Jackson's genitalia. The jury chose not to believe their testimony.

Where there's smoke there's fire.

posted by holland on Jul 11, 2009 at 08:02:17 pm     #

Not having watched or listened to the entire MJ court mess about this, I"ll have to take you at your word on this. I never said it's not possible that MJ molested kids - just that he was not convicted in court. What I understood it to be, is that MJ befriended lower income kids - as a Big Brother would do. I always believed that he felt safer & more comfortable with kids than adults - for many good reasons of his own. I think he was very childlike, and preferred the innocence of children - maybe to make up for his lack of a real childhood in his own life, I have no idea. I am not an MJ worshipper - I think he was a musical genious & I like a lot of his music, but I wasnt' one who followed any musician that closely. I just think it's tacky to attack somebody who's died - who is not here to defend themselves. Some of the comments about him are dispicable to me for that reason. Let him rest. I think it's disqusting when people sit in judgement of somebody else - this was for the oourts & the kid's parents to decide upon, not the masses.
One final thought though - lots of Big Brothers (and Sisters) & scout leaders spend the night with kids, same tents, rooms - are they all molesters at heart?

posted by starling02 on Jul 11, 2009 at 08:16:24 pm     #

Just for the record, about the parents of the MJ victims. IMHO they are as guilty or more as Jackson. They basically prostituted their own children.
They are lower than low.

posted by JeepMaker on Jul 11, 2009 at 09:21:32 pm     #

Agreed JeepMaker.

posted by holland on Jul 11, 2009 at 09:57:32 pm     #

home • about • help • contact

© 2003-2010 Toledo Talk

old version of Toledo Talk
Creative Commons License - Some Rights Reserved 3.0
Hosted at Hurricane Electric
current date: 19-Mar-2010 1:41 P.M.