Jump to content

Bill O'Reilly out at Fox


AUDub

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I hear you but disagree somewhat, The POTUS should set the moral standard for the country, O'Reilly is a nit compared to the POTUS The POTUS does a lot oc criticism of opponents too.

His next book may be called "Killing O'Reilly^-^

I'm not talking about how things should be.  I'm just telling you how it is.  It's the same reason O'Reilly has gotten away with this for so many years and Fox has paid out millions of dollars in settlements while if me or you did a tenth of what he did we'd have been out on our ear that day - because there were powerful people he made a boatload of money for protecting him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply
42 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not talking about how things should be.  I'm just telling you how it is.  It's the same reason O'Reilly has gotten away with this for so many years and Fox has paid out millions of dollars in settlements while if me or you did a tenth of what he did we'd have been out on our ear that day - because there were powerful people he made a boatload of money for protecting him.

But that doesn't even compare to the accolades give to JFK, Camelot was tainted and he an eternal flame at Arlington. And He had multiple affairs in the White House of all places. I  am not aware of any woman claiming to have actual sex with O'Reilly. Anyhow it is what it is. just the signs of the times, and the media covering what it wants to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

But that doesn't even compare to the accolades give to JFK, Camelot was tainted and he an eternal flame at Arlington. And He had multiple affairs in the White House of all places. I  am not aware of any woman claiming to have actual sex with O'Reilly. Anyhow it is what it is. just the signs of the times, and the media covering what it wants to.

I think you're forcing it to fit into a "liberal media" narrative when it really fits more into a "powerful people have ways of avoiding consequences" one.  The President is more powerful than Bill O'Reilly.  Bill O'Reilly (or anyone with such a media platform who makes gobs of money for powerful people) is more powerful than me and you.  Roger Ailes was more powerful than him. Thus, people assist them in avoiding the consequences of their actions because they have a vested interest of some sort in keeping the powerful person in place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I think you're forcing it to fit into a "liberal media" narrative when it really fits more into a "powerful people have ways of avoiding consequences" one.  The President is more powerful than Bill O'Reilly.  Bill O'Reilly (or anyone with such a media platform who makes gobs of money for powerful people) is more powerful than me and you.  Roger Ailes was more powerful than him. Thus, people assist them in avoiding the consequences of their actions because they have a vested interest of some sort in keeping the powerful person in place.  

A like wasn't enough, spot on with this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mims44 said:

A like wasn't enough, spot on with this post.

Yep and the enablers are everywhere....excusing or justifying the actions and often supplying whatever salves the weaknesses.   We see it in the sports world almost every day....not to mention the entertainment icons....their handlers, their doctors and their fans. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not talking about how things should be.  I'm just telling you how it is.  It's the same reason O'Reilly has gotten away with this for so many years and Fox has paid out millions of dollars in settlements while if me or you did a tenth of what he did we'd have been out on our ear that day - because there were powerful people he made a boatload of money for protecting him.

True

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

But that doesn't even compare to the accolades give to JFK, Camelot was tainted and he an eternal flame at Arlington. And He had multiple affairs in the White House of all places. I  am not aware of any woman claiming to have actual sex with O'Reilly. Anyhow it is what it is. just the signs of the times, and the media covering what it wants to.

There's a difference between "womanizing" and sexual harrassment.  Think of it as the difference between making love and rape. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 11:44 AM, Proud Tiger said:

Well he is a smart guy in many ways and I just find it crazy he would be so stupid to do this openly with someone who worded for him and with a witness to boot.  He has enough money he could just go to a hotel and have a first class call girl come in. I know it happens though. My wife can tell you similar stories and I wouldn't dare to even tell a slightly off color joke in the work place these days,

IMO, based on the linked story about his producer's lawsuit, it isn't just about the sex for him.  I think it's largely more of a power trip for him to see what he can get away with.  Where's the risk in paying a call girl to get him off?  The game he was playing with Makris is much more titillating.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, triangletiger said:

IMO, based on the linked story about his producer's lawsuit, it isn't just about the sex for him.  I think it's largely more of a power trip for him to see what he can get away with.  Where's the risk in paying a call girl to get him off?  The game he was playing with Makris is much more titillating.   

If the trial transcript is accurate he is more like a pervert which just makes me wonder about it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

If the trial transcript is accurate he is more like a pervert which just makes me wonder about it all.

I just don't understand where this faith in his character comes from.  You don't know him personally, do you?  What you know of him is through a show on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I just don't understand where this faith in his character comes from.  You don't know him personally, do you?  What you know of him is through a show on TV.

True. I didn't say I had faith in his character. But I have also seen a lot of cases where women have made accusations against men that were very exaggerated. Here is maybe a good example.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/sean_hannity_latest_fox_news_h.html#incart_river_home_pop

But as you say celebrities like O'Reilly have to be more careful and march to a different standard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

True. I didn't say I had faith in his character. But I have also seen a lot of cases where women have made accusations against men that were very exaggerated. Here is maybe a good example.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/sean_hannity_latest_fox_news_h.html#incart_river_home_pop

But as you say celebrities like O'Reilly have to be more careful and march to a different standard

I don't disagree that there are women who make false accusations.  But the vast majority of these cases are not false accusations.  I just find it curious that you have a hard time believing he's a pervert in private.  If various televangelists such as Jimmy Swaggart can secretly be perverts while publicly proclaiming something else, I don't find it the least bit hard to believe some political/social pundit on a cable news channel would be as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

If the trial transcript is accurate he is more like a pervert which just makes me wonder about it all.

There is no mutual-exclusivity here.  He can be a pervert and be further titillated by the power trip/adrenaline rush associated with putting this woman who was his subordinate in an awkward and embarrassing situation.  Sure - he could afford to pay a prostitute to fulfill his request, but there's no risk in that.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't disagree that there are women who make false accusations.  But the vast majority of these cases are not false accusations.  I just find it curious that you have a hard time believing he's a pervert in private.  If various televangelists such as Jimmy Swaggart can secretly be perverts while publicly proclaiming something else, I don't find it the least bit hard to believe some political/social pundit on a cable news channel would be as well.

I guess I just usually find  the good in people and then am saddened when their bad side surfaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I guess I just usually find  the good in people and then am saddened when their bad side surfaces.

I'm certainly saddened.  But I'm not necessarily surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I guess I just usually find  the good in people and then am saddened when their bad side surfaces.

The way I felt about bill Cosby. About #3-4 I had to grasp reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OReilly has issued a statement saying that "it is disheartening that he and Fox part ways due to completely unfounded claims. But that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye live with today." To each his own but I'm going to go with O'Reilly until some woman brings charges and a trial is held. The one woman who has come forward in public is very strange. She describes stuff that happened during lunch, etc. If all she says is true why did she keep going back to lunches over a period of time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could end up being wrong, but I'm with alexeva.  At some point the number of accusations just adds to too much to believe they're all just making it up to take him down.  He makes enough money to easily pay lawyers and Fox would have picked up some of the tab too -- if he was innocent.  There's no damn way I'd settle with someone who was bold-faced lying about me sexually harassing them.  Doubly so if I had his resources to fight it.  Which to me, comes off as there being at least some truth to the stories or that at least not all of them are golddigging bitches who are part of some orchestrated attempt to take him down by evil libruls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I could end up being wrong, but I'm with alexeva.  At some point the number of accusations just adds to too much to believe they're all just making it up to take him down.  He makes enough money to easily pay lawyers and Fox would have picked up some of the tab too -- if he was innocent.  There's no damn way I'd settle with someone who was bold-faced lying about me sexually harassing them.  Doubly so if I had his resources to fight it.  Which to me, comes off as there being at least some truth to the stories or that at least not all of them are golddigging bitches who are part of some orchestrated attempt to take him down by evil libruls.

As I said to each his own. I agree with most of what you say. But if it were all settled and the females Paid off, why wouldn't O'Reilly just let it go now  and not bother defending himself at this point in time. I just have no more reason to believe his accuser(s) at this point in time than I do him. So I will go with innocent until proven guilty and paying someone off is not the same as admission of guilt or conviction in a court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I could end up being wrong, but I'm with alexeva.  At some point the number of accusations just adds to too much to believe they're all just making it up to take him down.  He makes enough money to easily pay lawyers and Fox would have picked up some of the tab too -- if he was innocent.  There's no damn way I'd settle with someone who was bold-faced lying about me sexually harassing them.  Doubly so if I had his resources to fight it.  Which to me, comes off as there being at least some truth to the stories or that at least not all of them are golddigging bitches who are part of some orchestrated attempt to take him down by evil libruls.

 

Based solely on his on-air persona, I would conclude that O'Reilly is absolutely the type that would fight such accusations, likely motivated by a desire to gloat about winning.  As you say, he certainly had the financial means.  If it was going to cost me millions either way, I would rather spend those millions establishing my innocence and keeping my name untarnished, than I would spend those millions trying to make it go away quietly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

Based solely on his on-air persona, I would conclude that O'Reilly is absolutely the type that would fight such accusations, likely motivated by a desire to gloat about winning.  As you say, he certainly had the financial means.  If it was going to cost me millions either way, I would rather spend those millions establishing my innocence and keeping my name untarnished, than I would spend those millions trying to make it go away quietly.

I agree. Well stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

As I said to each his own. I agree with most of what you say. But if it were all settled and the females Paid off, why wouldn't O'Reilly just let it go now  and not bother defending himself at this point in time. I just have no more reason to believe his accuser(s) at this point in time than I do him. So I will go with innocent until proven guilty and paying someone off is not the same as admission of guilt or conviction in a court.

You are seeing this through several possible prisms, none of which are flattering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...