It's really all about 'not protecting predators'...regardless of how much some people like them.

And you've already made up your mind that he's completely innocent...based simply on the fact that you like him. :oops:

I'm guessing you are taking the same position...over Roger Ailes?

Fox News Fires Bill O’Reilly Amid Sexual Harassment Storm [Video]

Post Deleted because it was already posted

Many years ago a neighbors daughter accused her father, her brother in law, and her sisters father in law of sexual abuse.

Then she accused a teacher. He lost his job.

I believed then, and I believe now that none of those men sexually abused her.

I still know the family and thirty five years have passed.

I think that some woman accuse men of sexual harassment and lie to get attention or money.

I don't think it happens a lot, but I think that sometimes women pile on.

You of all people are talking about being respectful of women. I know tons of men who have been annoyed by women but never called them names and lied about them.

As I said earlier - innocent until proven guilty. I haven't made up my mind either way. Enough said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

The courts will decide! We can kick this can down the road, really doesn't matter what any of us think, ONLY Bill O'Reilly KNOWS and the accusers!

As to your disgust concerning the behaviors of many in this nation I totally agree. But I would not defend Bill O'Reilly.

I explained to my wife early on that something was amiss with O'Reilly. On the air he seemed to be too dismissive of women. I explained if that was the way he treated women in front of millions of people then God what was the guy like behind the scenes.

a part of my job was to look into claims of sexual harassment. So as to the allegations against O'Reilly my experiences with those outcomes is "one should not judge".

It could be the allegations are factual. It could be the accusers were over-sensitive. keep in mind what a guy views as flirting a radical feminist would view as a sexual attack. I am not arguing either way because that is the subject for another thread.

As to his firing it simply could be that Fox had enough of the distraction given Ailes, Megan Kelly, etc.

My personal view is O'Reilly was very dismissive of women and that alone would have gotten him in trouble, that and he had far too high an ego both of which caused me not to view his show.

Personal Best Regards:

:1rotfl:

You will never fvcking get it...will you? :oops:


I "respect" women, by treating them EQUAL...which is the ultimate respect.


YOU on the other hand, want special treatment even when you act...so nasty, passive-aggressive, two-faced and hypocritical. :ohdear:


Sorry to treat you equally...but you're gonna have to live with it:. :D


Anything less, is tantamount to you agreeing with Racist Boy Baldwin...that as a female you're NOT equal.


And of course, I'm talking about as a human being...not based on physical strength.



Deepest Sincere Wishes:. :wave:

That sounds good, except it only seems to apply...to those you like.

There was enough 'proof' unearthed by the law firm of Fox, for Fox to let their #1 cash cow go...how much more proof will it take to change your mind, if any?

MORE than just some...many falsely accuse. Most "rapes" aren't...they are "screwer's remorse". They let themselves get too drunk and the man took advantage of it. No different than women taking advantage of men. And women DO take advantage of men...drunk or not. If you don't want to have sex...you don't go with Mike Tyson up to his hotel room at 2am. You keep your legs closed and OUT of iffy situations. VERY few "rapes" are a true violent unwanted taking of a woman.

To their face...we talk about you in private...the same way YOU talk about us.

Then you're for eliminating ALL quotas? Raising the standards that have been lowered so they could "qualify"?

It'll be nice to actually HAVE equal treatment and NOT be the VICTIM of discrimination as WE are unjustly passed over because there are quotas.

UNTIL you allow the standards to go BACK to where they were...until you eliminate ALL affirmative action...ALL quotas...ALL you do is PROVE you are NOT equal.

So...you're talking exclusively about WHITE women? You specifically mentioned "human being"...and them being a different species...wouldn't qualify.

BTW...STRENGTH has EVERYTHING to do with it. There are a myriad of things a woman just CAN'T do because of the strength issues. Women aren't ironworkers, steelworkers, pipefitters, don't do much heavy construction at all...because they're physically too weak to do it. Therefore they are/were incapable of creating the modern technological world/civilization we live in.

It's a mans world...because WE built it.

Just to make it official:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...dd6e782ffb.jpg

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Yes, and I have a black friend. You treat women equal? Very WHITE of you. THey ARE your equal, dummy.

Another question:

Would you want your daughters or sisters to work with O'Reilly?

I've got daughters. "Boys will be boys" and "locker room talk" are inappropriate and don't get laughed off in the modern world, thank goodness. I'm glad the advertisers and FOX have the morality to get rid of him.

Even though I do not like O'Reilly, I would not have any input on who my daughters or sisters work for. I guess a chauvinist would assume the right to demand that their female family members adhere to their wishes.
Morality had nothing to do with FOX dismissing O'Reilly. Money did. FOX was losing advertisers due to the innuendos and accusations. They couldn't afford to keep paying him if the money was not coming in.

And yet, you are a supporter of Hillary Clinton, the wife and defender of Slick Willie's continuing perversion and sexual exploits. Some folks would consider that to be hypocritical.