Hey top of the world -RE: " . . .the liberal left will not
accept defeat. They will do anything that is necessary to regain the power that
is quickly eroding, right before their eyes. Guess what. This power will
continue to erode. Love that thought."You "love that
thought," huh?In other words, you're enjoying another
"Conservative" fantasy. All you have to do is close your eyes and
imagine. It's better than VR.You're right that "the
liberal left will not accept defeat." We Moderates will not accept defeat
either. And neither will any decent and patriotic American on the side of
America. We will stand and fight our nation's enemies.Last
election, a Russian-Republican coalition successfully put Donald Trump and
other Republicans into positions of power.The Russians attacked this
nation. It may have been the most devastating attack against this nation ever .
. . Worse than 911 . . . Worse than Pearl Harbor. Our enemies succeeded in
harming America by putting Republicans in power. And Republicans rejoice.It's interesting how America's enemies are the GOP's
allies, isn't it?Why do you suppose that is?Any
Shame on you Bill!Unless you're a politician, you
shouldn't have abused those Fox news interns.
Ummmm. Let's see, where were these pundits of all that is holy when
President Clinton...?Oh, well. Not much different in the party of the
donkey when the target is not one of their own. Did he, or did he not? I
certainly don't know. But I do know this, without question, the liberal
left will not accept defeat. They will do anything that is necessary to regain
the power that is quickly eroding, right before their eyes. Guess what. This
power will continue to erode. Love that thought.
Appreciate the comments here. They are thought-provoking.One
additional point. Harassment allegations against O'Reilly have been known
publically since 2004. Yet the focus on the allegations against O'Reilly
has only been extremely intense since April 1 of this year. At least one
left-wing group is claiming a "successful campaign" to get
O'Reilly.Not saying that O'Reilly did or did not harass.
But, it makes one wonder why the media and others decided to wait 13
years to stir a firestorm of publicity against O'Reilly.
Hey PHJN25–RE: “I'll give O'Reilly credit,
however, for the level of intelligence he possessed on most of the topics he
lectured us on.” Ha! "Level of intelligence??!" The
man merely recited popular lies that are bandied about in "Conservative"
circles. He only had to be smart enough to do that. From the
standpoint of FOX "NEWS," we should blame "Leftists" for the
fact that their top personalities tend to be sexual predators.O’Reilly’s lawyer said it was a "brutal campaign of character
assassination." Bill O’Reilly's victim mentality is
what endears him to “Conservatives.” It’s a shared world view,
isn’t it? . . . A shared sense of victimhood . . . Poor, poor victims.It's funny the way FOX "NEWS" caved in to that "brutal
campaign of character assassination" put forth by "the Left." FOX
“NEWS” did NOT defend their star at all from those brutal
Leftists.FOX folded like a house of cards without putting up ANY
kind of fight at all.If O'Reilly's story is true, "the
Left" knocked FOX "NEWS" down and kicked sand in their faces right
in front of all the girls.It must be embarrassing to be a FOX
"NEWS" fan.. . . Victimized yet again.
Almost anyone who has worked for big pockets has been sued. I am a lowly
educator and the district settled a dispute over grades because it was
financially expedient. Does that mean I was wrong?
@Misty Mountain. @Karen R.I don't condone sexual harassment in any
form.I am just asking if perhaps some of us might be willing to
reserve judgment in cases like these. In 1998, a lot of Americans,
and the Democratic Party didn't ask, but demanded that we not pass judgment
on the President of United States who had similar, and in fact, more serious
allegations against him. On top of that, Bill Clinton was impeached, not for
the allegations, but for the fact that he lied under oath. Even though we had
Al Gore waiting in the wings, America was lectured by Democratic senators that
we had no right to pass even a partial judgment on Mr. Clinton and overturn an
election. Given all of that, would it behoove us to be a little
less judgmental toward Mr. O'Reilly, who is now simply an ordinary
citizen?Sidenote. O'Reilly was not a 100% shill for Trump.
Trump's cheerleaders at Fox will likely gain more power, not less because
of O'Reilly's fall from grace.Sidenote 2: if
O'Reilly wants to do it, do not be surprised to see him on talk radio
shortly as the Number 3 or Number 2 most popular radio talk show host.
1) I don't condone O'Reilly's treatment of women at all. 2) This tactic by progressive democrats of going after advertisers,
companies or states (i.e. HB2 bill in NC) is complete garbage. So the ends
justify the means if conservatives don't agree with your agenda? Destroy,
excoriate, vilify, demonized any and all opposing thoughts, views or opinions of
those who aren't on board with progressive democrats? History has proven
what transpires with this line of thinking.3) Both sides need to
dial down the rhetoric and stop calling each other insulting, emotional
provoking names. Calling someone a racist, bigot, looney, alt right, alt left
doesn't do any good for either side. 4) Conservatives need to
rise up and start boycotting businesses with their wallet to demonstrate the
power they have and to get companies to understand we are an influential
important group as well. Or throw overwhelming support to companies who do
support a conservative agenda (i.e. Chick-Fil-A)Since ultimately the
left and companies have made it about money by utilizing this tactic and it is
what companies are about ($$$), time to show our strength via the wallet as
@ Vermonter asks, "Why wait for facts when we can convict
O'Reilly in the court of public opinion?"It sounds like you
think that Fox (and the advertisers) should have done nothing until some
criminal convictions were obtained. Financial settlements involving
sex always include nondisclosure agreements. In these cases, about the only
"facts" you can get are court filings made prior to settlement (assuming
that there wasn't an agreement to get these sealed) and statements from the
victims' friends as to what she told them happened. What you
do know is that over ten million dollars was paid out to multiple women who said
they were assaulted by O'Reilly. It's stretching credulity to think
that this kind of money would be paid if nothing had actually happened.
@ Vermonter"Why wait for facts when we can convict O'Reilly
in the court of public opinion?"Convenient argument when one
knows there will likely never be a formal finding of guilty/not guilty.We do agree that money was likely a primary factor in this move. But I do get
the impression that this next generation of Murdochs believes more genuinely in
equality and isn't really keen on the older generation's view of
(white) males as primary and females as one of the perqs of success.
@Vermonter wrote, "O'Reilly would likely have more success
running for political office on the Democratic side". Nothing is
going to make O'Reilly appeal to Democratic voters. The man has spent his
entire career picking at the poor, at women, and at the rights of the common
man. Jorge Ramos criticized O'Reilly for his refusal to acknowledge
Trump's bigotry. Instead of responding, O'Reilly tore into Ramos,
claiming that Univision was unfit to report on Trump because they were biased.
Of course, he, O'Reilly, wasn't biased. His proof? He says he told
Trump that Mexico wouldn't pay for the wall. And he says that telling
Trump this somehow proves that he (O'Reilly) isn't blindly
pro-Trump.Right.Backpedaling and claims of conversion do
not go over well with Democrat voters. He'd have far more success with
Utah Blue Devil writes, "Again, any many who would put his family
relationship at risk over such matters, is a man who I would question their
judgement and commitment to truth and honesty, at any level."I
would respectfully question the commitment to truth and honesty by anyone who
applies for a job at Fox News. A certain number of people run for
public office because they truly want to make a difference. A larger number
seem to be attracted to power, and for many, this morphs into a desire for
money, power--and sex. I'm not sure that it's any different at Fox
@Pam Flinders.Your statement is incorrect. Most people are not fired for
sexual harassment. All well-managed companies only terminate an employee if the
harassment is pervasive or severe. @Karen R.Why wait for
facts when we can convict O'Reilly in the court of public opinion?
@Ginger Marshall wrote, "He should run for president. The highly moral,
family values, decency demanding Christian branch of the GOP would vote for him
in droves."Sarcasm aside, you are correct. People who feel
insecure flock to men who project an image of toughness and competence. They
may be uncomfortable about the abuse allegations that these "leaders"
carry, but these guys assure their followers that they have "their"
interests at heart. And their followers want so desperately to
believe that this is true. Anybody remember "I am your voice"? So
they brush aside the moral "lapses" as irrelevant ("We're
electing a president, not a pastor"). Or they simply deny the allegations
("locker room talk"). Or demonize the accusers ( "The women are
just out for the money"). Even when it becomes obvious that
the guy doesn't care a whit about them, some of the followers will hang in
there. Seventy two years after the end of the war, there are still
Germans who view Hitler with fondness.It will be the same with
Trump. And with O'Reilly.
@Harrison Bergeron.Even if the allegations are untrue, firing
O'Reilly was probably the right thing to do. This was purely a business
decision by the Murdochs.@Ginger Marshall.O'Reilly would
likely have more success running for political office on the Democratic side.
But, he would need to do a public mea culpa to the harassment allegations on The
View after at least a few weeks of soul-searching, have a dramatic conversion to
liberalism, and produce some kind of evidence to take down either Donald Trump
or Rush Limbaugh--preferably Limbaugh.Fox has actually shown that
even though their decision was based purely on the bottom line, their standards
are actually higher than the Democratic Party (at least the Democratic Party of
1998). The only differences between O'Reilly and Bill Clinton are the
seriousness of the allegation, and the ideology of the person involved. Other
than these things, their cases are remarkably similar.
I find it interesting that the main accuser, on whom most of the charges are
based, kept coming back to O'Reilly's show again and again after the
supposed harassment. Kind of like what's her face kept coming back to
Clarence Thomas after he supposedly harassed her.
"'It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely
unfounded claims,' [O'Reilly] said. 'But that is the unfortunate
reality that many of us in the public eye must live with today."I can think of plenty in the public eye who aren't dealing with such
allegations. I wonder why that is? Poor Bill. Another one of those
extraordinarily good men...
Most people would be fired for sexual harassment at work. Being famous
shouldn't shield you from that.
Things are seldom what they appear.
If the accusations are true, it was the right thing to do.
I am not going to delve into the obvious contradictions in optics and politics
here. Politics aside, I hope this represents a true turning point in the old
world order of the good ol boys club that thought fame could by them a free pass
- that this kind of behavior will no longer be accepted.As someone
who is so intelligent - I don't agree with his opinions often - but he is
far from being stupid, for a man like him to not understand the dangers of
putting himself into a position where these allegation could be made shows that
intelligence doesn't equate to good judgement. Again, any many
who would put his family relationship at risk over such matters, is a man who I
would question their judgement and commitment to truth and honesty, at any
He should run for president. The highly moral, family values, decency demanding
Christian branch of the GOP would vote for him in droves.
What delicious irony that a couple of reporters from the New York Times finally
brought O'Reilly down. He must be apoplectic about that!
Why? It was only 5 women, that we know of, and only $13M.Seems like our
president could do that in less than a week.
Rogers Ailes & Bill O'Reilly OUT at Fox News -- For
doing the exact same thing that got Donald Trump elected!
As a political conservative and frequent viewer of Fox News, I often found
O'Reilly to be an arrogant, egotistical jerk. I'll give O'Reilly
credit, however, for the level of intelligence he possessed on most of the
topics he lectured us on. This is more than I can say for Glenn Beck.I expect conservatives to have high moral values. The allegations against
O'Reilly, if true, do not reflect the conservative values that most
political conservatives admire and respect.Let's give Tucker
Carlson a chance. Both my wife and I have been quite impressed by Tucker
Carlson.Andy McKane, Springville, Utah