ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Bill O'Reilly , sexual harassment charges , sexual harassment issues

Reply
Old 25th April 2017, 09:12 AM   #281
PhilosophicalCaveman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 263
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
If one assumes no investigation.

Where I have worked an investigations the logical extension of a claim.

That investigation need not find evidence sufficient to convict, just sufficient to terminate employment. They are different measures. Avoiding abuse is the entire point of the system.
In O'Reilly's case at least one of the reports was investigated by Paul Weiss law firm.

I also think that sexual harassment claims or reported sexual harassment is suppose to be detailed which makes it sufficient for employment dismissal. Where I work a report has to be made to HR (or I assume the manager in some places). In O'Reilly's case there was more grounds for dismissal.

I'm sure the reports can be difficult to prove 'guilty or not guilty' but from my understanding it is the claims that are looked into and whether there is solid evidence or not it is dealt with straight through as 'a sexual harassment claim' it doesn't have to be devoid of investigation or logical details. Esp. when there is a series of sexual harassment reports. And a person can be dismissed whether or not there is hard evidence or even any 'evidence' based on what is reported.
__________________
As sensitive as Stalin

Last edited by PhilosophicalCaveman; 25th April 2017 at 09:44 AM. Reason: *Added some more thoughts.
PhilosophicalCaveman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:48 AM   #282
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 21,048
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Of course, but notice how PhilosophicalCaveman worded his post. He said the claim is grounds for dismissal.
It looks to me like he's saying sexual harassment is grounds for dismissal.

Use a little common sense. If the claim itself were grounds, why would HR bother investigating?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:49 AM   #283
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,186
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And as usual you don't bother to find out anything about what you are talking about and demanding everyone else do the work for you.
Wow, that's a new kind of strawman for you. Now you're not misrepresenting an argument, but the whole of someone's behaviour.

Where have I demanded anything of the sort?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:50 AM   #284
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,186
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It looks to me like he's saying sexual harassment is grounds for dismissal.

Use a little common sense. If the claim itself were grounds, why would HR bother investigating?
Hence the question mark.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 02:33 PM   #285
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,027
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Which brings me right back to my earlier question: what principle? O'Reilly is ACCUSED of sexual misconduct. Should people accused of a crime be assumed to be guilty?

This doesn't mean that I don't find the accusation credible. But to expect employers to fire their staff because they're accused of something is a step in the wrong direction.

Good thing that isn't what happened this time, eh?

Employers routinely fire their employees for far less egregious behavior and offenses, even ones which have not been proven in a court of law. Even when there is little more than suspicion.

How many teachers have found themselves on the way out the door on the basis of much less actual evidence than O'Reilly has accumulated.

In most states in the U.S. employers don't even need a reason to fire someone. There is a short list of reasons that they aren't allowed to use. Conveniently for them, though, they don't need to use any of those reasons anyway.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 02:36 PM   #286
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,027
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Why the sarcasm?

There are MANY threads on this forum where mere accusations lead to the assumption of guilt. I don't think it's trivial to point it out and aspire to a higher standard.

Not keeping known, serial sex abusers on the payroll just because they make you more money than it costs to keep the crowd of victims quiet would also be aspiring to a higher standard.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 02:32 PM   #287
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,825
Originally Posted by PhilosophicalCaveman View Post
Jury?
Quick question, how is workplace sexual harassment claims handled in your workplace? Because here it is taken up with HR (even if there's an outside investigation happening), and it is grounds for dismissal.

It's principle to dismiss on grounds of sexual harassment to protect employees. Seems simple enough to me. Much better than monetary gains/loses or pay off to silence the victims.
For clarity...

Is an accusation of sexual harassment grounds for dismissal? Or is a judgment of sexual harassment based on an investigation grounds for dismissal?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 03:14 PM   #288
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
So apparently the federal government is investigating Fox News - both the Justice Department and USPIS (so maybe some kind of mail fraud).

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/medi...investigation/
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 03:28 PM   #289
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,819
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
So apparently the federal government is investigating Fox News - both the Justice Department and USPIS (so maybe some kind of mail fraud).

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/medi...investigation/
Not disclosing stuff to their shareholders.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 04:22 PM   #290
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,418
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
For clarity...

Is an accusation of sexual harassment grounds for dismissal? Or is a judgment of sexual harassment based on an investigation grounds for dismissal?
I think they mean a "claim". A very detailed and carefully documented accusation.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 04:47 PM   #291
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,324
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I only go by what is in the post in front of me. There are more than a few people in the USA politics forums who claim they are not pro-Trump (not you) all the while spewing a constant stream of anti-Clinton trash.[...]".
Hahahaha! False dichotomy much?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 04:52 PM   #292
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,324
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It looks to me like he's saying sexual harassment is grounds for dismissal.

Use a little common sense. If the claim itself were grounds, why would HR bother investigating?

Show Trial? /devil's advocate

ETA: The next time I see an appeal to "common sense", I'm going to make a reflexive appeal to logic. It won't be pretty.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 28th April 2017 at 04:55 PM.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2017, 04:54 PM   #293
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,396
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
For clarity...

Is an accusation of sexual harassment grounds for dismissal? Or is a judgment of sexual harassment based on an investigation grounds for dismissal?
Here both an accusation, and a judgement after an investigation, are grounds for dismissal but both can be appealed to the labour relations board or to the courts for wrongful dismissal.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by qayak; 28th April 2017 at 05:06 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 12:24 AM   #294
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,358
I'm officially done with Fox. They've sold out to the Cathedral. I'll only go back if they have a show where they waterboard liberals.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 09:05 PM   #295
stargazer0519
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
They assume they can get away with it, because they've always gotten away with it and there is no risk at all. It's not like Bill started this last week, it seems to be a lifelong pursuit.
I agree that they think they can get away with it because they always have.

We act like having women have professional, full-time careers in traditionally male-dominated fields has been going on for a long time.

Not really.

My mother grew up in Northern Virginia in an era where there were almost no women doctors, lawyers, judges, or politicians.

She socialized me to want to go to school and earn big degrees and hold important jobs.

Not because she'd ever done any of those things, but because she saw the future coming. My mom's a smart lady. We owned a personal desktop computer in 1989. We could barely afford it. (Wish we'd kept it! It would be worth a fortune now!)

The guys who are in the workforce today probably had fathers who socialized them into thinking that women are less-than-equal.

It's sad but true.
stargazer0519 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 09:07 PM   #296
stargazer0519
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Don't be flippant with me. I asked you a serious question. Do you think that settling out of court indicates guilt?
I don't think settling out of court necessarily indicates guilt, but how much you pay is something of a barometer regarding:

1) how much your reputation is worth to you
and
2) how much evidence was stacked against you
stargazer0519 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 09:13 PM   #297
stargazer0519
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
When you get multiple woman claiming the same thing the odds of a fake claim drop.
Yes, and it's for this reason that I believe colleges ought to keep a file of women who report rape claims against the same guy.

One woman might lie.

Maybe two women might lie and/or not remember the event correctly because of drugs or alcohol.

I think once you have three separate women claiming three separate attacks, and the women don't know each other and aren't colluding, you need to have some disciplinary action.
stargazer0519 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 10:01 PM   #298
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,819
Originally Posted by stargazer0519 View Post
Yes, and it's for this reason that I believe colleges ought to keep a file of women who report rape claims against the same guy.

One woman might lie.

Maybe two women might lie and/or not remember the event correctly because of drugs or alcohol.

I think once you have three separate women claiming three separate attacks, and the women don't know each other and aren't colluding, you need to have some disciplinary action.
Not to mention the whole Roger Ailes thing and the fact it was rather well known that sexual harassment at Fox was the norm.

Oh yeah, and then there is the shower scene recording from O'Reilly's book that matches the O'Reilly recorded harassment of a certain producer.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 29th April 2017 at 10:02 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 05:47 AM   #299
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,517
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
For clarity...

Is an accusation of sexual harassment grounds for dismissal? Or is a judgment of sexual harassment based on an investigation grounds for dismissal?
Right to work indicates both are perfectly valid reasons to fire someone.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 05:49 AM   #300
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,517
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Not to mention the whole Roger Ailes thing and the fact it was rather well known that sexual harassment at Fox was the norm.

Oh yeah, and then there is the shower scene recording from O'Reilly's book that matches the O'Reilly recorded harassment of a certain producer.
Typical liberal using someones own words against them to show that they sexually harass and assault people.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 06:34 AM   #301
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,186
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Good thing that isn't what happened this time, eh?

Employers routinely fire their employees for far less egregious behavior and offenses, even ones which have not been proven in a court of law. Even when there is little more than suspicion.
I'm not sure I'd call that a good thing, however.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:07 PM   #302
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,027
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Right to work indicates both are perfectly valid reasons to fire someone.

I think what you were looking for there is "at-will employment". "Right to work" relates to not being forced to join a union.

But you are right in your answer.

'No reason at all.' would also be a valid reason.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:11 PM   #303
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,027
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm not sure I'd call that a good thing, however.

What? That O'Reilly wasn't merely accused? That there was corroboration for those accusations?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:15 PM   #304
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,186
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
What? That O'Reilly wasn't merely accused? That there was corroboration for those accusations?
You know, I'm starting to ask myself some serious questions about responses like this. You said this:

Quote:
Employers routinely fire their employees for far less egregious behavior and offenses, even ones which have not been proven in a court of law. Even when there is little more than suspicion.
And I respond that I don't think that this is a good thing, and then you reply as if I responded to a totally different post. This is one of several such answers I've gotten in the last couple of days. I'm quite baffled that you think that my answer isn't directly related to what I quoted.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:38 PM   #305
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,825
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Here both an accusation, and a judgement after an investigation, are grounds for dismissal but both can be appealed to the labour relations board or to the courts for wrongful dismissal.
Does that mean that if a person dislikes someone enough, all they have to do is accuse them of sexual harassment, and they can get them fired?

Sure, they can appeal that... but they're still out of a job for a while with their reputation damaged. Seems like a pretty risky way to do things.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:42 PM   #306
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,825
Originally Posted by stargazer0519 View Post
I don't think settling out of court necessarily indicates guilt, but how much you pay is something of a barometer regarding:

1) how much your reputation is worth to you
and
2) how much evidence was stacked against you
I would guess that item 2 barely comes into consideration. It's almost certainly a combination of the financial risk of a damaged reputation (loss of advertising dollars) if the case goes to trial plus the cost of trial balanced against the amount of money required to get the other person to sign a non-disclosure agreement and drop the threat of lawsuit.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 01:06 PM   #307
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Fox News co-president Bill Shine is fired.

Quote:
Fox News announced on Monday the exit of one of its co-presidents, Bill Shine, removing a holdover from the Roger Ailes era and signaling that the network is prepared to shake up its executive ranks as it tries to move past a season of turmoil that has engulfed it since last summer.

Mr. Shine is a veteran newsman and a longtime lieutenant to Mr. Ailes, the former chairman who was forced out amid a sexual harassment scandal in July. Although Mr. Shine was seen as a source of stability in the news division at a turbulent time, his presence was viewed by some employees as a sign that Fox News’s parent, 21st Century Fox, was not serious about its stated commitment to overhaul the culture of the network.

Mr. Shine had been cited in several lawsuits as someone who enabled and concealed Mr. Ailes’s behavior and dismissed concerns from women who complained about it. He has denied all wrongdoing.

His departure is sure to roil some of Fox News’s most recognizable stars, with whom Mr. Shine had close relationships. Sean Hannity, the channel’s 10 p.m. mainstay, is particularly close with Mr. Shine, and he publicly defended his friend last week on Twitter, saying that removing Mr. Shine would be “the total end of the FNC as we know it. Done.
ETA:

Sean Hannity Eyes Fox News Exit, Insiders Say

Quote:
Sean Hannity is looking to leave Fox News, according to sources, following the resignation of Fox News co-president Bill Shine officially on Monday.

Shine was Hannity’s his long-time ally whom he personally recommended the network hire two decades ago to produce Hannity & Colmes. In recent days, Hannity warned it would be the “total end” of Fox News should Shine leave, and he rallied conservative activists to back him up.

Initially, insiders said, Hannity’s army of lawyers had hoped to discuss with Fox ways of protecting his 8-year-old primetime show, amid fears that Lachlan and James Murdoch—fresh off the ousting of Bill O’Reilly—were looking to push the network away from hard-right politics.
However, with Shine’s departure on Monday, one source told The Daily Beast, there’s no reason for Hannity to stay.

Last edited by Tony Stark; 1st May 2017 at 01:57 PM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 09:35 PM   #308
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,027
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm not sure I'd call that a good thing, however.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post


What? That O'Reilly wasn't merely accused? That there was corroboration for those accusations?
You know, I'm starting to ask myself some serious questions about responses like this. You said this:

Quote:
Employers routinely fire their employees for far less egregious behavior and offenses, even ones which have not been proven in a court of law. Even when there is little more than suspicion.

Yes, I did.

Immediately prior to that, though, I also said this; (Which you must have accidentally snipped out of your quote without indicating its deletion.)
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Good thing that isn't what happened this time, eh?

<snip>
Which was quite clearly a direct response to when you said this:
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Which brings me right back to my earlier question: what principle? O'Reilly is ACCUSED of sexual misconduct. Should people accused of a crime be assumed to be guilty?

This doesn't mean that I don't find the accusation credible. But to expect employers to fire their staff because they're accused of something is a step in the wrong direction.
Quote:

And I respond that I don't think that this is a good thing, and then you reply as if I responded to a totally different post. This is one of several such answers I've gotten in the last couple of days. I'm quite baffled that you think that my answer isn't directly related to what I quoted.
Clearly, however, you did respond to a "totally different" part of my post, one which was simply a follow-up observation about the fact that even though they didn't fire O'Reilly merely on accusations, they probably could have under the "at-will" concept of employment and dismissal.

You weren't responding to the part of my post which addressed your earlier comment. So yes, I can understand your bafflement, but I am not responsible for it.

I will assume that your failure to follow the exchange cogently was inadvertent on your part. Even though it wasn't a particularly difficult thread of conversation.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 10:14 PM   #309
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Fox News co-president Bill Shine is fired.



ETA:

Sean Hannity Eyes Fox News Exit, Insiders Say



However, with Shine’s departure on Monday, one source told The Daily Beast, there’s no reason for Hannity to stay.
Fascinating. I wonder where he'd go. I still wonder where Bill O'Reilly will go.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 10:38 PM   #310
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,819
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Typical liberal using someones own words against them to show that they sexually harass and assault people.
I'm good at that.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 10:41 PM   #311
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,819
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
But Sean baby has such a clean right wing Christian image.


Hmmm, just remembered O'Reilly's fixation with the war on Christmas.

*********** hypocrite.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2017, 03:42 PM   #312
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,537
At least he takes responsibility.
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/bill...ck-1202425378/
Quote:
Former Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly suggested his ouster from the 21st Century Fox-owned cable-news outlet last month was “a hit job” in an interview with Glenn Beck on the pundit’s radio program Friday . . . He also said: “There’s going to be an exposition soon, but I can’t tell you when, about who exactly this crew is that terrorizes sponsors, threatens people behind the scenes, that pays people to say things. We’re going to name them, and it will be a big story. The left-wing media will downplay the story, but it’s coming. Unfortunately, I was target No. 1. It’s sad for me, for my family and it’s grossly dishonest. From now on when I’m attacked, I’ll take legal action.”
What a jackass.
__________________
A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

Tom McGuane
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2017, 08:45 AM   #313
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,101
So Beck is trying to get O'Reilly to join him at the Blaze. Makes sense if they can make the numbers work.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.