Bill O'Reilly Fired!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Bill O'Reilly out at Fox News after sexual harassment allegations

Longtime Fox News host Bill O’Reilly will not return to the network in the wake of renewed scrutiny over allegations of sexual harassment, 21st Century Fox said Wednesday.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,� the Fox News parent company said in a statement.

The announcement comes after weeks of renewed scrutiny over O’Reilly’s behavior toward women at Fox News. O’Reilly and Fox reportedly settled several multi-million-dollar lawsuits with women who accused the host of sexual harassment.

O’Reilly last appeared on air on April 11 before taking what he said was a pre-planned vacation. New York magazine reported earlier Wednesday that the Murdoch family, which controls 21st Century Fox, had decided to cut ties with the host.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-oreill ... legations/


Keith Olbermann continuously portrayed O'Reilly as the "Worse person in the world." Personally I think there are many much worse than O'Reilly.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Veteran newsman Ted Koppel told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he is "bad for America" in an interview that aired on CBS' Sunday Morning that quickly became a trending topic on social media Sunday. (3/27/17)

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 38 by bluethread]

Third, many localities have private roads, hospitals, fire departments and even police. There are also ones that are funded through levies, i.e. funds collected for a specific purpose. Federal funding for things such as science and the arts are not funded in this way, so the citizenry has little say in how those funds are spent. This is a perfect opportunity for grant padding and log rolling.

Pork barrel projects are not exclusive to the federal government and levies as well as usage fees are ripe for abuse by private contractors. Citizenry often have very little say in how these funds are spent when they are charged and how they are allocated case in point school systems allocating resources to affluent areas and abandoning less affluent ones.

If your fear is grant padding and log rolling pay closer attention to your elected officials and where they get their campaign funds from.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 38 by bluethread]

Fifth, living in these United States does not obligate one to just accept the system as it is. In fact, the first amendment grants one the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Therefore, no, living here does not obligate one to accept the status quo

Sure you don't have to accept the status quo you just have to follow the law while you try and change the law.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 38 by bluethread]

The first amendment permits you to voice that opinion. However, even if that is true, it does not mean that policy must be federally funded

I did not say it must be federally funded, I stayed it is in the public interest to have it federally funded. It is not opinion though it's an observable fact. Nuclear weapons and technology federally funded. The Internet and modern telecommunications which launched a massive economic boom were federally funded projects. Stealth fighter technology federally funded. On and on and on, do you think we would have a strong military if we still fought with muskets and wooden boats?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 38 by bluethread]

irst, the means of collection has nothing to do with the use of the funds. When something is taken from someone under treat of fine and/or imprisonment, that is extortion. One may argue that extortion is necessary in some cases, but it is still extortion.

If your going with a generalized definition that applies to any financial law or ruling state, federal, or civil. Interest rates banks charge extortion! Late fees extortion! Civil penalties regarding negligence extortion! Such an obtuse definition is impractical and dilutes its meaning. Renters use of eviction for those who don't pay rent extortion!

One may argue that the criminal threat of force or coercion is a better definition...

To keep us straight, I will number these responses (Issue 1 extortion)

Well, those other things are not the same, because they involve arms length transactions between two independent parties. If there is coercion involved in the transaction, then yes, it is extortion and the agreement can be nullified and/or the coercive party sued or prosecuted. The problem with limiting the concept of extortion to "criminal threat" is that the government establishes law. This means that an action that is extortion, when done by a private citizen, is not extortion, when it is done by a government, because the government says so. So, what is it when a citizen is coerced by a government to do something against his will by a government?

[bluethread]

Who is talking about authority over everything? Merely that a federal science policy is in the best interests of our country economically and militarily. What authority you deam the federal government to possess is immaterial to what actual powers are given to the federal government.

Certainly I would like to see a smaller government there are areas that need to be cut back. Cutting back on science initiatives is a threat to our economy and our national security.

(Issue 2 Extent of federal powers.)

Since you are making a national security argument, are you limiting federal government spending on science to national security. That is how many programs were justified in the middle of the last century. However, since then, the federal government has dropped that pretense. Regarding the economy, presuming the federal government can control the economy, which I doubt, what makes that a federal issue?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 38 by bluethread]

irst, the means of collection has nothing to do with the use of the funds. When something is taken from someone under treat of fine and/or imprisonment, that is extortion. One may argue that extortion is necessary in some cases, but it is still extortion.

If your going with a generalized definition that applies to any financial law or ruling state, federal, or civil. Interest rates banks charge extortion! Late fees extortion! Civil penalties regarding negligence extortion! Such an obtuse definition is impractical and dilutes its meaning. Renters use of eviction for those who don't pay rent extortion!

One may argue that the criminal threat of force or coercion is a better definition...

To keep us straight, I will number these responses (Issue 1 extortion)

Well, those other things are not the same, because they involve arms length transactions between two independent parties. If there is coercion involved in the transaction, then yes, it is extortion and the agreement can be nullified and/or the coercive party sued or prosecuted. The problem with limiting the concept of extortion to "criminal threat" is that the government establishes law. This means that an action that is extortion, when done by a private citizen, is not extortion, when it is done by a government, because the government says so. So, what is it when a citizen is coerced by a government to do something against his will by a government?

I am a pacifist and against the death penalty. The government uses my money to fight wars and execute prisoners. All governments from homeowners association to the federal government do something against the will of the people. The reason being is you can't please all parties involved and something one party might want is against the will of another party and vice versa.

So what is it when a citizen is coerced by a government to do something against their will?

First I would ask what that thing is. Is the government coercing you to perform illegal acts or unconstitutional acts? That might well be a form of extortion.

Extortion is a criminal activity, so if it is not an illegal or unconstitutional activity then it is simply enforcing the law.

What your getting at is whether the government or the laws the government created are just.


Using silly definitions doesnt help us get anywhere. Let's go with this hypothesis:


"Federal taxes are unjust"

My question there is why are they unjust?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 38 by bluethread]

Third, many localities have private roads, hospitals, fire departments and even police. There are also ones that are funded through levies, i.e. funds collected for a specific purpose. Federal funding for things such as science and the arts are not funded in this way, so the citizenry has little say in how those funds are spent. This is a perfect opportunity for grant padding and log rolling.

Pork barrel projects are not exclusive to the federal government and levies as well as usage fees are ripe for abuse by private contractors. Citizenry often have very little say in how these funds are spent when they are charged and how they are allocated case in point school systems allocating resources to affluent areas and abandoning less affluent ones.

If your fear is grant padding and log rolling pay closer attention to your elected officials and where they get their campaign funds from.

(Issue 3 funding)

Possible corruption in one area does not justify ignoring possible corruption in another. One should minded pay attention to who is in the government ant what it is they are doing. However, I am not talking about private parties working as government agents. I am saying that in many locations nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) provide the services you imply are exclusive to the government. Also, local governments fund those things via levies, where the public must reauthorize them on a regular basis. This is a much more democratic approach and gives the citizenry greater control. However, the funding of something via legislative appropriation separates the citizenry from control of the funds to a greater degree. So, there are at least three methods of funding something in the public interest, NGO's, levies and appropriations. There are also three levels of government; local, state, federal. My argument is that the public interest is best met when the funding method and level of government best balances public control with public security. That said, I do not see where the treat to public security that scientific research might address is so great that it requires the most authoritarian funding mechanism and the most centralized level of government.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 38 by bluethread]

Fifth, living in these United States does not obligate one to just accept the system as it is. In fact, the first amendment grants one the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Therefore, no, living here does not obligate one to accept the status quo

Sure you don't have to accept the status quo you just have to follow the law while you try and change the law.

(Issue 4 private property)

It appears that you have accepted my argument on the issue of private property rights. That is, in our system, even though the government has imposed a heavy burden upon private property, it is still private property and the constitutional requirement, that it not be taken from the citizenry without a necessary public use and just compensation, is still in effect.

(Issue 5 civic responsibility)

So, how is the defunding of scientific research not following the law? Isn't that legally repealing a law?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 38 by bluethread]

The first amendment permits you to voice that opinion. However, even if that is true, it does not mean that policy must be federally funded

I did not say it must be federally funded, I stayed it is in the public interest to have it federally funded. It is not opinion though it's an observable fact. Nuclear weapons and technology federally funded. The Internet and modern telecommunications which launched a massive economic boom were federally funded projects. Stealth fighter technology federally funded. On and on and on, do you think we would have a strong military if we still fought with muskets and wooden boats?

(Issue 6 Innovation)

So, IBM, Mircosoft, Apple, Google, etc. would have never existed, if it weren't for government programs? I really doubt that. the industrial revolution did very well without government funding. I have stated that national defense is a legitimate federal function. Are you only arguing for military research? This is not being cut. In fact, Trump's budget is calling for an increase in military spending.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The press and the democrats wanted to sweep Clintons problems under the rug as a "personal matter", even though he was accused of far more than harassment and Hillary went after his accusers with vengeance. Which is interesting because during the presidential campaign she said all rape victims deserve to be believed. When people on the right are called out on this stuff, they are brought to task. However, when those who are "correct on the issues" do such things, it is overlooked. So, rant all you want, but until people stop rioting for peace, shutting people down in the name of free speech, and supporting women's rights misogynists, this is not going to stop. Irony makes it hard to take people seriously.

No one ever claimed that Monica Lewinsky was anything other that a willing participant.

What about Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Eileen Wellstone, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Becky Brown, Helen Dowdy and Cristy Zercher?

I am not much inclined to defend Bill Clinton's actions. He is a brilliant man, and was a very competent chief executive. He is a lousy husband however, and has the capacity to sometimes act in a sleazy if not necessarily criminal manner. A reflection, I am afraid, of the fact that he was literally born Arkansas trailer-trash. A much better background however for being in touch with the needs of common people than that spectacularly disconnected from all common reality man-child, Donald Trump. Although both have the same capacity to act in a sleazy manner.