Cops: Columbia Prof Punched Woman In "White Privilege" Brawl
Citibank To Charge All Accounts That Drop Below $1,500
Despite Gay Brothers, State Sen. Diaz Still Anti-Gay Marriage
GoCaGa, BoHo, iTri, And Other New Neighborhood Names
Bronx Teacher Suspended For Assigning Story On Masturbation
Last night, Bill O'Reilly had two very vocal figures discuss Michael Jackson on his show last night—Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island), who blasted the media attention devoted to a "pedophile" "lowlife", and Rev. Al Sharpton, who told Jackson's children that there was "nothing strange" about their father. First, O'Reilly had King on; O'Reilly pointed out that Jackson was acquitted of molestation charges and that settling the other case "doesn't mean you're admitting anything" (which the talk show host knows about first hand). King responded:
Bill, I would say an adult male who sleeps with young boys is a child molester. If nothing else, he's molesting and abusing their psyche. How are those children going to possibly grow up normal after spending nights in bed with Michael Jackson? So — and I would say also there's not a daycare center in the United States that would be allowed to hire him...[Video of King's segment, as well as video of Sharpton's after the jump.]Listen, if Michael Jackson had died, it got one or two days of coverage, that would have been fine. But the way it went on and on with this wall to wall, round the clock coverage, and at the same time we have Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have the president in Russia trying to negotiate arms control, nuclear arms control. To me it was a real reflection on the culture of our country.
Then Sharpton was brought on—and it's a shame that he was on separately from King. Sharpton had fierce criticism of King, "The issue is that it is totally irresponsible for a lawmaker to disregard the law. Charges were made against Michael Jackson, a mostly non black jury, you talked about 9 out of 10, let's try 12 out of 12 in a jury said he was not guilty of child molestation. That's all. And it's reckless and irresponsible to say he's a child molester, as it would be for me to come on here and say Dick Cheney shoots his friends hunting." Ha!
Then O'Reilly asked Sharpton about Jackson as an African-American icon and his children:
O'REILLY: Answer me this. I heard a lot of people yesterday — and I think you were one of them, but correct me if I'm wrong — saying that Michael Jackson was some kind of African-American icon.Here's the full transcript.SHARPTON: Yeah, he was.
O'REILLY: Well, then why did he have white children?
SHARPTON: What does that have to do?
O'REILLY: What does that have to do? He chose to have in vitro by a white woman and a white man. What does that have to do?...
SHARPTON: Well, we didn't say he was an African-American — father of African-American children. We said he was an African-American icon.
O'REILLY: An icon? But why would he have white kids then?
SHARPTON: What he did in his personal life and his personal — has nothing to do with his iconic status.
O'REILLY: It doesn't?
SHARPTON: If I said that Bill O'Reilly has a hot television show, does that mean I have the right to go to your house and say but how come his kids chew bubblegum?
King on the O'Reilly Factor:
Sharpton on the O'Reilly Factor:
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
King is a revoltingly racist scumbag.
/fixed
Beat me to it, chips :)
Peter King is a man who is only speaking the truth.
Yeah.... Nothing strange about a black man who makes himself white, and who pays off a victim's family $25 million so they won't file charges of molestation against him. Why does media keep ignoring the payoff to the 1st accuser in the 1990's? I think his last name was Chandler?
Jackson was a great singer and dancer, but he was also a criminal that should have been locked up with other deviants that molest little boys.
Funny joke:
When Farrah Fawcett died, she was asked what she wanted. She told G-d that she wanted to save the children. So G-d killed Michael Jackson.
You're an idiot! I'm glad I live in this country where mob mentality doesn't rule. You apparently live in a deluded wonderland where you are the judge, jury, and executioner.
And for your information, the media does keep mentioning the payoff, but most people (yourself not included) understand that a payoff is not an admission of guilt. If you would just educate yourself, you'd find out that MJ never wanted to pay off that family. He was forced to.
Forced to how? By the other side's willingness to go to court, make the allegations public, and win a civil judgement against him?
Insurance companies can be VERY forceful when a lot of money is on the line. Read up on it!
oh snap
Peter King is a man of integrity.
Al Sharpton is still a douche trying to repent for his sins involving Tawana Brawley, the Crown Heights riots, and his comments about Jewish "diamond merchants".
New Yorkers are SO sick of his rhetoric and simply seeing him pop up whenever a black person is in the news spotlight.
Oh, I understand now. You're related to this King guy. All further rhetoric from you will be regarded as fallible.
King, Sharpton & O'Reilly are bigots and do our country no service other than to fan the flames of racism. All 3 are media whores and are making appearances to keep themselves culturally "relevant" and afloat. Anyone who thinks they have anything relevant to add to public discourse is in need of serious scrutiny.
What makes Peter King racist? I seem to have missed that....
Reverend Sharpton is right.
In case you've forgotten what Jackson's "alleged" crimes were:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/021505mjgrandjury.html
How many grown men sleep with children they aren't related to?
Latoya, his own sister admitted that her brother was a pedophile. She was later forced to recant the statement by her controlling family.
God help the day OJ Simpson dies. He was a great football player. He was also found not guilty by a jury.
Expensive lawyers are really good!
So MJ couldn't be a black icon solely because he had white children?
Fuck you O'Reilly you're a giant scumbag and a cancer in the soul of this country.
And King and Sharpton aren't too far behind either.
Here we go again. I love it when people accuse Jackson of not wanting to be black after his dermatologist has already disclosed (with pics) that Jackson had vitiligo and piled on brown makeup during the 80s because he was horrified when his skin began turning white. Please look the disease up. His skin was completely devoid of any pigmentation, and he put on flesh colored makeup to not look like an alien.
Yes, he had body dysmorphic disorder and destroyed his facial features in a quest to escape teasing (at the hands of his father), but he was NOT ashamed to be black. Think about the psychological toll this took on him -- if my skin started to turn white and then on top T were accused of not wanting to be black, I don't know how I'd handle it.
Agreed.
I thought people were innocent until proven guilty. Peter King is a lawyer, isn't he? I would expect him to know that. Or maybe he's a used-car salesman. But in any case, at least we now know he won't be running for governor.
Do you think this happens because of the economy?
O'Shitey should leave those kids alone. shame on him. why is he so focus on the kids' white appearance.
For once, I agree with Sharpton.
O'Reilly having a politician on turns this into a political issue, which it isn't, unless you're talking about the bankrupt government of Cali being expected to fit the bill for the wake that Michael's family decided to hold for the public.
A political figure making speculations about someone's lifestyle based on a privately settled court case for the purpose of bolstering his numbers is dispicable.
And O'Reilly then attacking African Americans for looking to Jackson as an icon is tantamount to saying 'black people are dumb and it's up to us to explain to them why'.
I don't personally enjoy MJ's music as much as many seem to, but I can still understand the idea of idolizing an artist for his art and not his personal life choices.
Do I really have to make a list of other examples?
O'Reilly once again misses the mark by so far that even Al Sharpton can run circles of logic around him. The most ridiculous aspect of this is that O'Reilly thinks that he's in the right because he's got an idiot to back him up in King but all he's doing is adding to the cacophony of bigoted idiocy that somehow Sharpton manages to stay out of for once.
Yes!
It's fair to assume that MJ had sexual contact with children. Prosecutors didn't prove it to 12 particular jurors beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court, but the preponderance of the evidence points in that direction -- which is probably why he settled a civil suit, where the standard for liability is preponderance of evidence.
The point King makes about culture is true. A few days of MJ coverage is understandable. But there are wars going on, the president in negotiating nuclear arms treaties, the economy is a mess, etc. Too bad he didn't just stick to that point, because by getting into MJ character assassination he attracts flies like Sharpton.
Right, he wasn't innocent, he just wasn't found guilty.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to paint the word "CANDY" on my van and pick up where he left off.
Incorrect. There was insufficient evidence for the prosecution to criminal charges during the 1993 allegations, which is why the family sued in civil court for millions (but they were planning on doing this anyway). Civil litigation can drag out for years and is extremely costly; Jackson's many legal advisors suggested he settle so that he could put the issue behind him. Reaching a settlement in a legal dispute is in no way an admission of guilt, and is actually encouraged by the civil lit system to keep court costs down.
As for the 2005 trial, the prosecution went on a witch hunt to gather enough evidence to bring criminal charges (the DA even said "We got him this time" on the record). The kid's family said they'd drop the charges in exchange for money, but Jackson went through with the trial to prove his innocence. Which he did. In a court of law. The kid gave inconsistent testimony and there was not enough evidence to presume any lewd conduct with kids. So he had nudie mags, what man doesn't? Also, considering how his staff is now saying Jackson downed 10-30 Xanax/night in the 2000's, how the hell would he be able to lift a muscle to molest a kid?
If he had been convicted or if the evidence had *really* pointed to his guilt (coughOJcough), then we could speak with certainty. But let's stop tarnishing an innocent man's reputation, dead or alive!
Civil litigation may cost money, but not anywhere close to $20 million. You'd think if the case was really bogus he'd gladly pay the legal fees just to protect his reputation.
Criminal charges can't be dropped by anyone except the state. And all that was proved is the state couldn't meet the burden of proof. Did OJ prove his innocence?
He said himself that he slept in the same bed with many children, and more than one kid has accused him of molestation. The preponderance of the evidence is against him. But like I said, Peter King should have just stuck to his original point that we all have more important things to worry about.
Really? I guess that's how the people who killed all of those 'witches' in Salem were able to sleep at night.
"Oh well, that woman had a black cat and didn't go to church and invited all manner of whoremongering into her home and stayed up at all hours of the night and ate things that civilized people just don't eat, so she is TOTALLY a witch."
Yeah, that makes a lot sense. Like I said originally, it's fair to assume he had sexual contact with children. I didn't say put him in jail or that the jury was wrong or that he should be burned at the stake, just that it's a fair assumption. If you disagree that's OK. But in the court of public opinion he's guilty and the people who feel that way are not being unreasonable.
Although they may not be being unreasonable, we don't live in a country where the court of public opinion matters when determining a person's guilt. So, legally, MJ is not, nor was he ever, a pedophile. That also means that anyone who calls him one is committing libel or slander.
The problem with 'it's fair to assume' is that it's a biased assumption. Why not just give him the benefit of the doubt? It's the best way of avoiding bias AND it just happens to be the way our system of justice works.
Has Reverend Al settled his tax issues yet?
Lol I'm pretty sure you've posted that Q on each MJ blog... Doesn't anyone know how to answer this?
I'd really like to know too.
I suspect Mr. King shares the opinion of the vast majority of Americans.
We have our President (using almost the exact Bush-era technique that he criticized so adamantly) surging troops into Afghanistan; SOFA being implemented in Iraq; G8 leaders meeting to discuss their (ridiculous and insincere) intent to try control the globe's temperature through massive taxation/behavior modification; all while N. Korea threatens to shoot ballistic missiles towards the United States! Yet the wall-to-wall news coverage is trying to sell us the idea that we should honor the death of an entertainer that, AT BEST; had extremely odd behavior and questionable relationships with countless pre-pubescent boys!
The guy was a musical talent... Maybe even a genius... But he was far from a hero that we need to honor and suggest as a role model for our children to look up to.
Right, but it's certainly ironic when a government official gets on TV to complain about private media companies giving someone too much attention.
Isn't he contributing to the amount of hype just by coming on a major network and essentially acting as a pundit on the subject?
O'reilly's was raised in a sundown town
and peter king is a racist.
Not guilty in the courts is not the same as a model for others.
So much money was paid by bishops for priests who were not found guilty in the courts.
Not guilty in the courts is not the same as being a model for others.
So much money was paid by bishops for priests who were not found guilty in the courts.
Not guilty in the courts is not the same as being a model for others.
So much money was paid by bishops for priests who were not found guilty in the courts.
So, let's compare apples and oranges...