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)

[Danmark]

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

Yes, like Trump; however it is a close call. Both have had serious allegations against them about being serial abusers, sexually. And Trump continues to support O'Reilly.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Veteran newsman Ted Koppel told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he is "bad for America"

Yes, Hannity is not only bad for America, he's bad for teaching people to think illogically and to do poor factual analysis. He's one of those involved in the unorganized conspiracy against truth.

I was raised in a devout evangelical home and attended a college church aligned with a small evangelical college which I graduated from. I've always credited my ability to analyze the written word and my rhetorical skills [such as they are] with that Christian upbringing and Bible study. However, today it seems much of the Christian community has become suspicious of science and even objective truth since they've come to habitually challenge anything they think contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. It grieves me to see Christianity be thus infected.

[bluethread]

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?

Ok, let's not use silly definitions. Extort "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power" Merrium-Webster

Extortion need not be illegal and as I said before, all a government entity would need to do to get around that, if it were the case, is just make it legal.

No, I am not going to go with that hypothesis. My point rests on the fact that funds are obtained by force and intimidation, i.e. fine and imprisonment. Therefore, when extortion is used, the reason for such extortion must justify the use of extortion. Sorry, but the funding of research into the sexual habits of shrimp does not justify the use of extortion, in my opinion. Investigating the imminent risk of a terrorist act? Now, there is something that justifies the extortion of funds by the federal government, if funds can not be acquired any other way. As I have shown in other posts, there are other less onerous means to fund scientific research.

[bluethread]

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.

So, Donald Trump is worse, because he says bad things and has lived among the wealthy, while Clinton just does bad things and is "trailer-trash", like the common man? Interesting analysis.

[Danmark]

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.

So, Donald Trump is worse, because he says bad things and has lived among the wealthy, while Clinton just does bad things and is "trailer-trash", like the common man? Interesting analysis.

Among other problems with your projections and faulty conclusion is that Clinton's extramarital affairs consensual, not criminal. Another difference is that Trump lies on a daily basis, apparently cannot read with facility and is likely mentally ill.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 94316.html

[bluethread]

Among other problems with your projections and faulty conclusion is that Clinton's extramarital affairs consensual, not criminal. Another difference is that Trump lies on a daily basis, apparently cannot read with facility and is likely mentally ill.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 94316.html

I don't recall making a conclusion. I was just summarizing TotN's analysis. That said, I don't think Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Eileen Wellstone, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Becky Brown, Helen Dowdy and Cristy Zercher gave their consent. Believe me, I do agree that Trump is not very judicious regarding the thing he says. However, his accusers seem to have a rather broad definition of what constitutes "lies" when referring to Trump, and a somewhat narrower definition with regard to the Clintons. Regarding the accusation that he could be "mentally ill", that is nothing new for the left. When all else fails, go find some psychologist somewhere to call your opponent crazy. They did the same thing with Reagan and both Bushes.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 49 by bluethread]

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

Yes IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. would not exist without a government funded science initiative. All of those companies you listed took advantage of scientific research that was funded in part or whole by government science initiatives.

The industrial revolution could not have occurred without government initiatives. The Royal institution among others had a profound impact on the industrial revolution and many governments especially in Europe heavily invested in science.

What did you think that steam engines, electricity, principles of physics, and the Internet sprang magically out of air like mana?

[WinePusher]

Yes IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. would not exist without a government funded science initiative. All of those companies you listed took advantage of scientific research that was funded in part or whole by government science initiatives.

Stop making misinformed claims. I would ask you to provide evidence, but we both know that you have nothing to back up your claim other than your opinions, which have zero merit.

The industrial revolution could not have occurred without government initiatives. The Royal institution among others had a profound impact on the industrial revolution and many governments especially in Europe heavily invested in science.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Are you just making this up? What have you read about the industrial revolution?

You also seem to be confusing the industrial revolution with the scientific revolution. The industrial revolution was simply a period of time in which the production process became heavily mechanized, so instead of workers assembling parts hand by hand, machinery was introduced into the production process to assist workers. You are DEAD WRONG to suggest that the industrial revolution could not have occurred without "government intiatives." What is that even supposed to mean? It's just an empty, misinformed statement. Everyone who is even slightly informed on economic history understands that you are DEAD WRONG.

What did you think that steam engines, electricity, principles of physics, and the Internet sprang magically out of air like mana?

If anybody is confused about the history behind these concepts then perhaps some basic research would be helpful. Daniel, did you know that modern physics came out of Newton's Principia? Electricity came from these two guys named Ben Franklin and Mike Faraday. One of the ONLY great achievements of humankind that came out the government was the internet, which is great!

Your false ideas that everything having to do with science and technology couldn't have happened with the "government" is just wrong and misinformed.

The same is true for your ideas regarding taxation. NO ONE is saying that taxes shouldn't exist. NO ONE. Is taxation inherently extortion? Maybe, who cares. But if you want to raise taxes then put your money where your mouth is.

In fact, start giving away 50% of your paycheck to the treasury. Give up your 401k/IRA to the government. If you don't think there's anything wrong with taxes, instead of trying to impose your beliefs on others, just start paying more tax YOURSELF. If you're unwilling to, then stop complaining when Christians try to impose their beliefs on others.

Or, maybe you should admit that taxes should be as low as possible and everybody should only pay the minimum amount of taxes needed to fund essential government functions.

I worked with countless clients who, when entering retirement, have about 10-15% of their entire life savings taken from them and, as a result, they are forced to struggle to make ends meat. That is THEIR money that they have worked for their ENTIRE LIVES and the government has NO RIGHT to claim any of it. The debate regarding taxes concerns the extent to which the government can impose taxes on us, not whether or not taxes should exist.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 57 by WinePusher]

If anybody is confused about the history behind these concepts then perhaps some basic research would be helpful. Daniel, did you know that modern physics came out of Newton's Principia? Electricity came from these two guys named Ben Franklin and Mike Faraday. One of the ONLY great achievements of humankind that came out the government was the internet, which is great!

Who financed Sir Issac Newton. Oh yeah that's right the Royal Society a science initiative by the British government. Who funded Faraday oh yeah the Royal Institute a science initiative of the British government. Not confused at all perhaps you could what was it oh yeah do some basic research.......

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 57 by WinePusher]

The same is true for your ideas regarding taxation. NO ONE is saying that taxes shouldn't exist. NO ONE. Is taxation inherently extortion? Maybe, who cares. But if you want to raise taxes then put your mon

Someone is arguing that taxation is inherently extortion though or maybe you haven't actually been reading anything written. Where did I say taxes should be raised? My two points made were

1. Science initiatives are of public interest because they have given us the most powerful military the world has ever seen and the largest economy the world has ever seen.

2. Taxes are not extortion


Did I suggest raising taxes? No I didn't. So take your filthy straw man and shove it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 57 by WinePusher]

You also seem to be confusing the industrial revolution with the scientific revolution. The industrial revolution was simply a period of time in which the production process became heavily mechanized, so instead of workers assembling parts hand by hand, machinery was introduced into the production process to assist workers. You are DEAD WRONG to suggest that the industrial revolution could not have occurred without "government intiatives." What is that even supposed to mean? It's just an empty, misinformed statement. Everyone who is even slightly informed on economic history understands that you are DEAD WRONG.

Yes and where did the research to heavily mechanics production come from...

The British government and others had been heavily investing in scientific research this research was applied to new processes and technology which led to the industrial revolution..... Yes there was plenty of private industry involved but without the investments in science that were made by various governments you would not have had the same results.