Active Users:2535 Time:18/06/2026 02:37:53 PM
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 1183 Views
Not a bad thing for Fox News fans..... - 19/04/2017 09:30:35 PM 963 Views
Is unacceptable unless your a liberal - 20/04/2017 01:02:04 AM 993 Views
We figured this out on Nov 9th, 2016 - 20/04/2017 04:23:43 AM 927 Views
I am beginning to suspect pharmaceuticals are involved - 20/04/2017 04:34:56 AM 855 Views
My guess is 2 - 20/04/2017 05:29:06 AM 828 Views
Pharmaceuticals are involved - 20/04/2017 06:02:44 AM 885 Views
That is all a load of crap used to avoid accepting that this is about censorship - 20/04/2017 12:09:51 PM 892 Views
Democrats don't own "morality" and run on it the way Republicans do. - 20/04/2017 03:22:06 PM 860 Views
Horse shit - 20/04/2017 04:42:00 PM 1015 Views
Gurrrl, stop the spin! - 20/04/2017 05:03:02 PM 856 Views
Also, why are you bringing in 16th century Germans into this conversation? - 20/04/2017 05:23:43 PM 868 Views
The whole things is noth but spin form one end to the other - 21/04/2017 03:57:19 PM 1002 Views
Please. You are the only spinner here. Censorship? What a joke of a claim. *NM* - 21/04/2017 05:21:39 PM 539 Views
The Ann Coulter / Berkley thing may be about censorship - 21/04/2017 08:08:35 PM 887 Views
Firing O'Reilly is about censorship? Really? - 20/04/2017 05:53:09 PM 899 Views
I'm not sure it was the smartest thing to do - 20/04/2017 09:43:10 PM 842 Views
Regarding corporate policy - 20/04/2017 11:16:11 PM 916 Views
Find me someone like that - I'll sue the fuck out of their corporation - 21/04/2017 05:10:30 PM 793 Views
The company isn't stupid - 21/04/2017 05:17:19 PM 857 Views
Zero tolerance doesn't leave much room for nuance. - 21/04/2017 05:31:39 PM 971 Views
Your points are pointless - 21/04/2017 04:07:37 PM 1054 Views
We are debating different things - 21/04/2017 04:55:18 PM 806 Views
Why did 50 sponsors drop him? - 21/04/2017 05:47:25 PM 934 Views
Okay you are using motivated reasoning, to change the subject - 21/04/2017 02:42:49 AM 753 Views
I agree with you - 21/04/2017 03:10:29 AM 859 Views
So??/ - 21/04/2017 04:13:13 PM 952 Views
Welcome to capitalism, baby. *NM* - 20/04/2017 01:57:25 AM 351 Views
He should write a book "Killing Bill O'Reilly" - 20/04/2017 05:26:32 AM 787 Views
I suspect you are correct as to the target audience for his books - 20/04/2017 01:11:15 PM 925 Views
ISn't that about he the reading level of cable news in general? - 20/04/2017 04:49:11 PM 891 Views
Was he even relevant to the cultural zeitgeist? - 20/04/2017 03:19:40 PM 816 Views
Agreed - 20/04/2017 03:25:42 PM 824 Views
It did have that vibe - 21/04/2017 05:01:51 PM 951 Views
It wasn't the lawsuits that did him in, it was how he treated people. - 28/04/2017 01:53:06 PM 842 Views

Reply to Message