Active Users:1440 Time:19/10/2025 01:53:16 AM
We are debating different things damookster Send a noteboard - 21/04/2017 04:55:18 PM

You are referencing the motivation behind the New York Times article of 3 weeks ago that revealed Fox has paid out 13M dollars to make these charges go away and the subsequent sponsor boycott that led to 50 sponsors cancelling their advertising. Is it politically driven and hypocritical? Of course. Did then President Clinton commit textbook quid pro quo sexual harassment and get away with it while liberals cheered? Obviously. His lawyers were way better than Ken Starr. But not my point.

My point is and always will be shame on Fox for having to start bleeding money before finally abiding by their alleged policy of zero tolerance. When at least a half dozen female coworkers and guests make similar claims over multiple years one concludes where there is smoke there is probably fire. The high ground in this story would have been to quietly let him go long ago and not wait for the liberal witch hunt. But just like the NFL under that prick Goodell, zero tolerance is for the scrub, not the All-Pro.

Mook

*MySmiley*



"Bustin' makes me feel good!"

Ghostbusters, by Ray Parker Jr.
Reply to message
Fox News gives Bill O'Reilly the sack - 19/04/2017 09:09:02 PM 1049 Views
Not a bad thing for Fox News fans..... - 19/04/2017 09:30:35 PM 832 Views
Is unacceptable unless your a liberal - 20/04/2017 01:02:04 AM 859 Views
We figured this out on Nov 9th, 2016 - 20/04/2017 04:23:43 AM 790 Views
I am beginning to suspect pharmaceuticals are involved - 20/04/2017 04:34:56 AM 727 Views
My guess is 2 - 20/04/2017 05:29:06 AM 705 Views
Pharmaceuticals are involved - 20/04/2017 06:02:44 AM 761 Views
That is all a load of crap used to avoid accepting that this is about censorship - 20/04/2017 12:09:51 PM 783 Views
Democrats don't own "morality" and run on it the way Republicans do. - 20/04/2017 03:22:06 PM 722 Views
Horse shit - 20/04/2017 04:42:00 PM 872 Views
Gurrrl, stop the spin! - 20/04/2017 05:03:02 PM 708 Views
Also, why are you bringing in 16th century Germans into this conversation? - 20/04/2017 05:23:43 PM 716 Views
The whole things is noth but spin form one end to the other - 21/04/2017 03:57:19 PM 862 Views
Please. You are the only spinner here. Censorship? What a joke of a claim. *NM* - 21/04/2017 05:21:39 PM 490 Views
The Ann Coulter / Berkley thing may be about censorship - 21/04/2017 08:08:35 PM 730 Views
Firing O'Reilly is about censorship? Really? - 20/04/2017 05:53:09 PM 748 Views
I'm not sure it was the smartest thing to do - 20/04/2017 09:43:10 PM 691 Views
Regarding corporate policy - 20/04/2017 11:16:11 PM 782 Views
Find me someone like that - I'll sue the fuck out of their corporation - 21/04/2017 05:10:30 PM 663 Views
The company isn't stupid - 21/04/2017 05:17:19 PM 727 Views
Zero tolerance doesn't leave much room for nuance. - 21/04/2017 05:31:39 PM 827 Views
Your points are pointless - 21/04/2017 04:07:37 PM 917 Views
We are debating different things - 21/04/2017 04:55:18 PM 687 Views
Why did 50 sponsors drop him? - 21/04/2017 05:47:25 PM 797 Views
Okay you are using motivated reasoning, to change the subject - 21/04/2017 02:42:49 AM 634 Views
I agree with you - 21/04/2017 03:10:29 AM 716 Views
So??/ - 21/04/2017 04:13:13 PM 811 Views
Welcome to capitalism, baby. *NM* - 20/04/2017 01:57:25 AM 307 Views
He should write a book "Killing Bill O'Reilly" - 20/04/2017 05:26:32 AM 659 Views
I suspect you are correct as to the target audience for his books - 20/04/2017 01:11:15 PM 757 Views
ISn't that about he the reading level of cable news in general? - 20/04/2017 04:49:11 PM 759 Views
Was he even relevant to the cultural zeitgeist? - 20/04/2017 03:19:40 PM 695 Views
Agreed - 20/04/2017 03:25:42 PM 700 Views
It did have that vibe - 21/04/2017 05:01:51 PM 809 Views
It wasn't the lawsuits that did him in, it was how he treated people. - 28/04/2017 01:53:06 PM 697 Views

Reply to Message