Active Users:354 Time:03/07/2025 06:47:37 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 961 Views
Not a bad thing for Fox News fans..... - 19/04/2017 09:30:35 PM 769 Views
Is unacceptable unless your a liberal - 20/04/2017 01:02:04 AM 792 Views
We figured this out on Nov 9th, 2016 - 20/04/2017 04:23:43 AM 733 Views
I am beginning to suspect pharmaceuticals are involved - 20/04/2017 04:34:56 AM 662 Views
My guess is 2 - 20/04/2017 05:29:06 AM 642 Views
Pharmaceuticals are involved - 20/04/2017 06:02:44 AM 698 Views
That is all a load of crap used to avoid accepting that this is about censorship - 20/04/2017 12:09:51 PM 718 Views
Democrats don't own "morality" and run on it the way Republicans do. - 20/04/2017 03:22:06 PM 649 Views
Horse shit - 20/04/2017 04:42:00 PM 815 Views
Gurrrl, stop the spin! - 20/04/2017 05:03:02 PM 638 Views
Also, why are you bringing in 16th century Germans into this conversation? - 20/04/2017 05:23:43 PM 649 Views
The whole things is noth but spin form one end to the other - 21/04/2017 03:57:19 PM 794 Views
Please. You are the only spinner here. Censorship? What a joke of a claim. *NM* - 21/04/2017 05:21:39 PM 460 Views
The Ann Coulter / Berkley thing may be about censorship - 21/04/2017 08:08:35 PM 655 Views
Firing O'Reilly is about censorship? Really? - 20/04/2017 05:53:09 PM 697 Views
I'm not sure it was the smartest thing to do - 20/04/2017 09:43:10 PM 620 Views
Regarding corporate policy - 20/04/2017 11:16:11 PM 729 Views
Find me someone like that - I'll sue the fuck out of their corporation - 21/04/2017 05:10:30 PM 609 Views
The company isn't stupid - 21/04/2017 05:17:19 PM 673 Views
Zero tolerance doesn't leave much room for nuance. - 21/04/2017 05:31:39 PM 774 Views
Your points are pointless - 21/04/2017 04:07:37 PM 846 Views
We are debating different things - 21/04/2017 04:55:18 PM 634 Views
Why did 50 sponsors drop him? - 21/04/2017 05:47:25 PM 746 Views
Okay you are using motivated reasoning, to change the subject - 21/04/2017 02:42:49 AM 574 Views
I agree with you - 21/04/2017 03:10:29 AM 652 Views
So??/ - 21/04/2017 04:13:13 PM 746 Views
Welcome to capitalism, baby. *NM* - 20/04/2017 01:57:25 AM 282 Views
He should write a book "Killing Bill O'Reilly" - 20/04/2017 05:26:32 AM 590 Views
I suspect you are correct as to the target audience for his books - 20/04/2017 01:11:15 PM 680 Views
ISn't that about he the reading level of cable news in general? - 20/04/2017 04:49:11 PM 702 Views
Was he even relevant to the cultural zeitgeist? - 20/04/2017 03:19:40 PM 627 Views
Agreed - 20/04/2017 03:25:42 PM 653 Views
It did have that vibe - 21/04/2017 05:01:51 PM 741 Views
It wasn't the lawsuits that did him in, it was how he treated people. - 28/04/2017 01:53:06 PM 626 Views

Reply to Message