User Tag List

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 25678910111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 121

Thread: NBC: Fox about to fire Bill Oreilly

  1. #111
    Eclectic Conservative
    Overall activity: 19.0%

    BobJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    311
    Thanks
    382
    Thanked: 335
    Rep Power
    3554922
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    O'Reilly paid millions. He is not being hung by allegations here, but by his payouts. Has nothing to do with Islam. Money is one thing. Reputation another. O"Reilly could have afforded any and all litigation to save his name were he falsely accused. He paid because his reputation was legitimately at risk. Clinton got away with it because he was not an "employee" of someone else, regardless of all of our silly rhetoric. Were O'Reilly a political appointee of millions of Democrats, he'd still be on the job.

    If I pay someone to shut-up, then I am rightly implicated by what they would otherwise have said. If I am falsely accused, and filthy rich, then I go to Court, as my reputation is worth far more than money that I do not need. It would also set an example for the next "false" accuser.
    As an employee you don't go to court the company goes to court. In this case the company or liability insurance company chose to settle out of court. Happens all the time unfortunately, and scumbags win the lottery when that happens.

    Again this really helps to understand why Islam is on the rise. I know I'm a genius at this stuff and I make it look easy.
    Quark is right.

    Here's why.

    For several years, I worked in the Risk Management department of a large corporation. Our job was to advise the CEO whether or not it was prudent to go to trial. The business was a truck hauling concern, consequently there were a lot of miles on the road, and always the risk of an accident.

    Very often those accidents were scams, because the scammers knew we had deep pockets.

    There was one in particular where we were pretty sure we would prevail in court. (I remember that I was always frustrated because I thought we had airtight cases, and we could "win" in court. But the prudent thing to do was to settle out of court and thus NOT put huge assets at risk. Consequently, settling out of court is not an admission of guilt, but rather common sense.)

    The scam: One carload (of scammers) would abruptly pull in front of another carload of scammers, causing the first carload of scammers to jam on their brakes. Our truck would be in back of the carload that had slammed on their brakes. The driver would naturally slam into the car of scammers in front of him. Of course, THAT carload of scammers would sue for "whiplash" or injuries sustained from ramming into the windshield.

    And the rest of the scam relied on the companies desire to stay out of court, where fickle juries would sympathize with the "little guy" and render a verdict against the "big bad company".

    (Juries are fickle. And DUMB.)

    So often the company would offer an out of court settlement just so that the huge company assets wouldn't be put at risk for punitive damages awarded by that fickle jury.

    The scammers, then, could likely count on a windfall.

    Most of the time we in Risk Management would recommend settling out of court, even when we thought our case in court would be good. Those fickle juries ruling against the "big bad company" were our worry.
    Last edited by BobJam; 04-20-2017 at 06:12 PM.
    BJ

    If Tape can fix it, It ain't broke!



  2. The Following User Says Thank You to BobJam For This Useful Post:

    Matt (04-20-2017)

  3. #112
    TRUMP IS THE WALL
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Iron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,032
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked: 2,637
    Rep Power
    21474841
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    We're talking about O'reilly dude.
    Are you really this stupid? Please tell me this is an act.
    Discipline is the root of all good qualities. Discipline calls for strength, and fortitude, and will. Discipline will not accept weakness or tolerate a breakdown. Discipline may seem like your worst enemy. The reality is, discipline is your best friend, it will take care of you like nothing else can. Discipline will put you on the path to strength, and health, and intelligence, and happiness. Most importantly, discipline will put you on the path....to freedom.

    -Jocko Willink

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Iron For This Useful Post:

    texmaster (04-20-2017)

  5. #113
    Member V.I.P
    Overall activity: 61.0%

    sargentodiaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8,843
    Thanks
    1,352
    Thanked: 5,094
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    19571941
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Scott View Post
    That is your opinion but millions disagree. The 'bad press' for the president is inevitable when the vast majority of those in the media are liberal Democrats who cheered for Hillary Clinton and disparaged Trump during the campaign and since his election. By taking the position that 'Trump is a misfit' and other insults, liberals assume this justifies whatever they want to say or write about him, no matter how ridiculous. The nepotism that seems to bother leftists is simply a president putting his trust in those he knows will not betray him . Most of Trump's cabinet are accomplished men and women from outside the political hothouse. People who know how to get things done, unlike career politicians who only seem to care about getting re-elected.

    With all but one cable news network stridently leftist, denouncing President Trump on a daily basis, the contention that conservative media, including the internet, somehow poisons the political atmosphere is simply absurd because it carefully ignores the faded but still influential power of the decidedly anti-Trump 'mainstream media'.

    Ah, the hatred for President Reagan is finally revealed! The belief of leftists masquerading as 'progressives' that Americans having even one cable news network not perfectly aligned with the Democrat party and the alt.-left is somehow intolerable exposes the kind of authoritarian thinking that now permeates the political left and has done much harm to any chance of finding anything close to common ground between liberals and conservatives.

    That being the case, I see no point in continuing what is destined to be a futile exchange as we have starkly different points of view that no amount of posting back and forth will alter. However, this is a discussion forum and every POV is accepted, if not necessarily agreed upon, and others may wish to respond to some of the contentions posted in this exchange.

    Jim



    Father Serra's Legacy - the untold stories of California
    A Soldier's Stories - rambling and musing about military life.

    I voted for President Trump!

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to sargentodiaz For This Useful Post:

    Stan Fan (04-20-2017)

  7. #114
    Senior Member
    Overall activity: 36.0%

    Stan Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    638
    Thanks
    509
    Thanked: 517
    Rep Power
    11158443
    Quote Originally Posted by BobJam View Post
    Quark is right.

    Here's why.

    For several years, I worked in the Risk Management department of a large corporation. Our job was to advise the CEO whether or not it was prudent to go to trial. The business was a truck hauling concern, consequently there were a lot of miles on the road, and always the risk of an accident.

    Very often those accidents were scams, because the scammers knew we had deep pockets.

    There was one in particular where we were pretty sure we would prevail in court. (I remember that I was always frustrated because I thought we had airtight cases, and we could "win" in court. But the prudent thing to do was to settle out of court and thus NOT put huge assets at risk. Consequently, settling out of court is not an admission of guilt, but rather common sense.)

    The scam: One carload (of scammers) would abruptly pull in front of another carload of scammers, causing the first carload of scammers to jam on their brakes. Our truck would be in back of the carload that had slammed on their brakes. The driver would naturally slam into the car of scammers in front of him. Of course, THAT carload of scammers would sue for "whiplash" or injuries sustained from ramming into the windshield.

    And the rest of the scam relied on the companies desire to stay out of court, where fickle juries would sympathize with the "little guy" and render a verdict against the "big bad company".

    (Juries are fickle. And DUMB.)

    So often the company would offer an out of court settlement just so that the huge company assets wouldn't be put at risk for punitive damages awarded by that fickle jury.

    The scammers, then, could likely count on a windfall.

    Most of the time we in Risk Management would recommend settling out of court, even when we thought our case in court would be good. Those fickle juries ruling against the "big bad company" were our worry.
    Yea, seen a lot of these. One of the companies I work for is national, big time, and their Risk Management has a strict policy, even if they think they will win in court, depending upon the settlement amount demanded, they stay out of court. In the case of the company you are talking about, you have huge single risks, in our case, we can sluff off 1/3 of the risk on all cases to the venues, and other companies employed there. However, if the amount requested is above a certain dollar amount - we go to court and usually win against the scammers - risky, but most of those cases are fake, and if their request is below a certain dollar amount, we just automatically pay them just to get the case off our hands. Settling out-of-court is no admission of guilt, unless it is included in the settlement!

    In Bill O'Reilly's case, Fox apparently paid millions to settle out-of-court on sexual harassment cases. That isn't a politically correct matter, it is an actual civil violation, one you would think men in powerful positions (politicians; announcers; sports personalities; CEO's and top management, teacher's), would learn. Sexual harassment in the workplace is the easiest civil case to win, all they have to do is prove the actions made them afraid or just simply uncomfortable and unsolicited in their work environment - one doesn't have to prove "harms." It isn't usually the dumb scammers who bring sexual harassment cases, it is legitimate complaints, that powerful men, in significant positions, fail to learn all of the time. You will almost always lose in court......... Stan .........
    Last edited by Stan Fan; 04-20-2017 at 06:48 PM.

  8. #115
    RedheadAdmin V.I.P
    TPF Moderator
    Overall activity: 67.0%

    Ginger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    PH mod room
    Posts
    6,659
    Thanks
    935
    Thanked: 6,031
    Rep Power
    21474846
    Quote Originally Posted by JustPassinThru View Post
    A woman who has sex for money, is a whore. No matter the legality of it.
    A porn actress isn't a prostitute.
    Quote Originally Posted by JustPassinThru View Post
    Yes I have seen porn; not her porn. I didn't know the name until today. Mostly the porn I saw was provided by others. Porn follows a format, and to me it's very, very boring. Some people are bored by junk food; I understand. Because I'm bored by junk sex.
    So you were forced? Sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by JustPassinThru View Post
    Yes, Billy the Tool would leer. Frankly, most men would. Me, I wouldn't bother - I'd have sent the whore packing and fired whoever booked her
    She wouldn't give a washed up old man like you the time of day.
    Thank you for helping us provide great customer service.

  9. #116
    Games People Play
    Overall activity: 99.7%

    JustPassinThru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New California
    Posts
    32,077
    Thanks
    5,631
    Thanked: 18,823
    Rep Power
    21474872
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginger View Post
    A porn actress isn't a prostitute.
    Sex. Money. Quid-pro-quo.

    Prostitution. No matter the law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginger View Post
    So you were forced? Sure.
    Did I say that? I said I didn't seek it out.

    I did my Navy time, with all that entails. I'd been in enough strip clubs with guys off the ship...in San Diego, Vancouver, Perth, Singapore and Hong Kong...to know the format.

    The North American "sex-worker" format involves tanning booths, tattoos, Brazilian Wax...except for the tats, today's prostitute/porn "actress"/stripper, looks just like a naked Barbie doll.

    Which is what these overaged little boys look for, I guess. Next step, I suppose, is surgical removal of the navel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginger View Post
    She wouldn't give a washed up old man like you the time of day.
    Nor would I offer it. We couldn't be more in agreement on that...I have no use for something like that. Wasn't even much interested in that look, even in my prime. Much less, now.

  10. #117
    Board Tech Guy
    V.I.P
    Overall activity: 27.0%

    Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,555
    Thanks
    2,122
    Thanked: 5,898
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    21474848
    Can't confirm but I hope it's right. As you can see someone already called it fake news but I've also seen on legit sites that OANN and Newsmax both want o'reilly.

    Last edited by Matt; 04-21-2017 at 02:01 AM.
    Follow me on Facebook. All I do is debate anyway.

  11. #118
    Senior Member
    Overall activity: 36.0%

    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked: 46
    Rep Power
    441989
    Quote Originally Posted by Iron View Post
    Are you really this stupid? Please tell me this is an act.
    What's your problem now? The subject is Bill O'rielly, not anybody and everybody else. The man has been an asshole all his life and he finally got his head chopped for it. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Fox New is getting their comeuppance; they can't just be a conservative network, they have to be asinine and stupid about it, which apparently their audience demands the same way the stupid make demands on professional wrestling. So Fox News is getting run right up their ass, and I support that.

  12. #119
    V.I.P. V.I.P
    Overall activity: 30.0%

    Jim Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Connecticut, U.S.A.
    Posts
    7,084
    Thanks
    14,405
    Thanked: 15,459
    Rep Power
    21474847
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    Can't confirm but I hope it's right. As you can see someone already called it fake news but I've also seen on legit sites that OANN and Newsmax both want o'reilly.
    At 67, O'Reilly may not be eager to essentially start over on a small cable network but then, I can't see him simply slinking away after being fired over allegations that are suspect. Bill O'Reilly has been in the TV news business for over four decades and was at Fox News for over 20 years. He has earned big money for a long time and has a reported net worth of close to 100 million. His books always hit the top of the best seller lists.

    I find it suspicious that now, as a senior citizen, various female Fox News employees claim O'Reilly sexually harassed them with lewd comments, etc. Perhaps he did, we'll never know but the obvious satisfaction the fascist left is showing over O'Reilly's exit from the cable network that hate with a vengeance is telling. Clearly, O'Reilly's departure will hurt Fox News ratings. This is was the goal of the totalitarian left and by taking down the biggest ratings personality on Fox News, they can claim a victory.

    Not just over O'Reilly...he'll do O.K....but over those of us who, sick of nothing but the Democrat Party Line poorly camouflaged as 'news' on the broadcast and cable networks turned to Fox News for at least a modicum of balance in the coverage of politics. Bill O'Reilly, for all his overbearing egotism and bluster, was still worth watching for the incisive interviews he conducted. Who can forget his 2008 interview of then-Massachusetts congressman Barney Franks, co-author of the infamous Dodd-Franks Bill that precipitated the financial meltdown that led to the '08 recession? O'Reilly demonstrated honest anger at the prevaricating congressman who had no trouble matching O'Reilly's belligerence. As usual in these arguments, neither Mr. Frank or O'Reilly really 'won' but it made for good TV. Conservatives cheered in their living rooms as O'Reilly challenged Franks with the kinds of questions the viewers wanted asked and knew the Big 3 broadcast news anchors and the rival cable news shows never would.

    This was the value of Bill O'Reilly, despite his foibles. It is why his show was the highest rated on the Fox News network. This clearly made him a target for the left and with these allegations of sexual harassment from female employees of Fox News, the huge payouts they received and resulting advertiser cowardice they have managed to dispose of that pesky O'Reilly fellow.

    As we see and read the left's expressions of smug triumph and sanctimonious preening as they condemn Bill O'Reilly, we should realize that this was not just a blow at Bill O'Reilly but at his millions of viewers...and part of the relentless drive by the political left to silence any hint of dissent from their POV no matter the source.

    In that light, I hope Bill O'Reilly does land on another TV network and it thrives with his presence. I'll watch O'Reilly just to help thwart the left's attempt to silence all opposition.

    Jim


    Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” - William F. Buckley, Jr.



  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jim Scott For This Useful Post:

    BobJam (04-21-2017),Matt (04-21-2017)

  14. #120
    Alumni Member
    Overall activity: 26.0%

    Dan40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    24,060
    Thanks
    909
    Thanked: 12,074
    Rep Power
    21474865
    O'Reilly is guilty of NOTHING. Litigation was settled with no admission of ANY guilt and the parties agreed to nondisclosure.

    However, the left has,

    A Sec of State and presidential candidate, that is an obvious criminal.

    An IRS head that is an obvious criminal.

    A National Security Advisor that is an obvious criminal.

    Not 1 but 2 AG's that are obvious criminals.

    A former Senate Majority Leader that has many times bragged about being a successful liar.

    Why should an agreement in a CIVIL Court bother any leftist. The judge did not decree the agreement, he simply approved the the agreement between the litigants. The left will not worry about any contempt of court finding, although it is obvious the vigilantes are in contempt.
    #BlackLIESMatter

    I VOTED FOR THE PRESIDENT!

    Political Correctness is HATE SPEECH!

    THE GREATEST DANGER TO THE USA IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Dan40 For This Useful Post:

    sargentodiaz (04-21-2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •