Bill O'Reilly shitcanned from Fox

[Tribble]

Wait, so you, who has never worked or has any real notion of how employment works in the US, are whining about things you have no actual knowledge of? And in the process are white knighting Bill fucking O'Reilly? What the hell, dude?

Please re-read above posts. This is now the 3rd-4th time where I have stated that O'Reilly's termination was (almost certainly) legal. I don't agree with the way US law works, but it appears to be legal.

Again, I will ask you to clarify a comment you made which is separate (though related) to this: you have made the assertion that O'Reilly is a sexual predator (which potentially goes far beyond employment law as I'm sure you are well aware). What evidence do you have to support that claim apart from the accusations themselves (which have not been tested nor proven in any formal proceeding) and settlements (of which we have no real knowledge of their contents, and any admissions of wrondoing, if any)? Are you privy to information that I have not been made aware of, and have so far been unable to find? If not, why do you appear to be insisting that I should abandon the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (even if only to a civil law standard of 50% +1 ) and agree with you?

It's your opinion and you're entitled to have it, but I don't see why I should be supporting it. Would you care to elaborate?

[Flagg]

Dude, go away. You don't know shit about shit and are arguing with people that do.

I don't give a shit about whether you "think" what happened is legal or not because you don't know shit.

I don't care whether you have the vapors over Bill O'Reilly getting canned because you don't know shit.

I am now going to ignore you because I find your ignorance, obtuseness, and arguing with people who know what they are talking about when it comes to this issue offensive.

[Tribble]

Dude, go away. You don't know shit about shit and are arguing with people that do.

I don't give a shit about whether you "think" what happened is legal or not because you don't know shit.

I don't care whether you have the vapors over Bill O'Reilly getting canned because you don't know shit.

I am now going to ignore you because I find your ignorance, obtuseness, and arguing with people who know what they are talking about when it comes to this issue offensive.

I have now acknowledged multiple times that I was in error, and that Fox was well within their grounds to terminate his employment.

You either seem to have completely missed the point I have been trying to make for awhile now, or are deliberately ignoring it.

The fact that O'Reily was fired does not really concern me anymore, as it was pointed out that's apparently standard practice in the US.

What does disturb me is people like you labelling someone things like being a sexual predator (not exactly a trivial thing to say) and demanding everyone agrees with you without any real evidence to support your claim apart from the accusations themselves and the fact that there were settlements (of which we don't know the details).

You appear to be against the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," at least in this particular instance. I have asked why and/or to clarify your position, but you have yet to provide any meaningful response. I'm asking you once more to do so. Allow me to repeat:

What evidence do you have to support your claim that O'Reilly is a "sexual predator" apart from the accusations themselves (which have not been tested nor proven in any formal proceeding) and settlements (of which we have no real knowledge of their contents, and any admissions of wrong doing, if any)?

Are you privy to information that I have not been made aware of, and have so far been unable to find?

If not, why do you appear to be insisting that I should abandon the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (even if only to a civil law standard of 50% +1 ) and that I agree with you?

If you choose not to respond, for the purposes of this discussion I will assume you have conceded my points.

[Flagg]

Dude, go away. You don't know shit about shit and are arguing with people that do.

I don't give a shit about whether you "think" what happened is legal or not because you don't know shit.

I don't care whether you have the vapors over Bill O'Reilly getting canned because you don't know shit.

I am now going to ignore you because I find your ignorance, obtuseness, and arguing with people who know what they are talking about when it comes to this issue offensive.

I have now acknowledged multiple times that I was in error, and that Fox was well within their grounds to terminate his employment.

You either seem to have completely missed the point I have been trying to make for awhile now, or are deliberately ignoring it.

The fact that O'Reily was fired does not really concern me anymore, as it was pointed out that's apparently standard practice in the US.

What does disturb me is people like you labelling someone as a sexual predator and demanding everyone agrees with you without any real evidence to support your claim apart from the accusations themselves and the fact that there were settlements (of which we don't know the details).

You appear to be against the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," at least in this particular instance. I have asked why and/or to clarify your position, but you have yet to provide any meaningful response. I'm asking you once more to do so. If you choose not to respond, for the purposes of this discussion I will assume you have conceded my points.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not an every day in all circumstances concept. The fact is that Bill O'Reilly, just like President Pussygrabber and Slick Willy Clinton is a sexual predator. Deal with it.

[Tribble]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not an every day in all circumstances concept.

Presumption of innocence is perhaps one of the most important concepts we have as a civilization - that you don't go around bashing people until you know whether or not they have done something wrong.

Forum rules aside, If I were to accuse you of being a sexual predator on this board and started calling you in every post from now on "Flagg - Sexual Predator" or "Flagg - Child Molester" would you object to that? After all, no need to prove you're guilty or anything, right? That's only a legal concept, not an "every day in all circumstances" concept.

The fact is that Bill O'Reilly, just like President Pussygrabber and Slick Willy Clinton is a sexual predator. Deal with it.

IIRC, Clinton has publically admitted to (at least some) of his sexual conduct. Ditto for Trump.

I am not aware that O'Reilly done so, nor am I aware of any formal evidence that he has done so, nor has he been convicted of doing so, whether civilly or criminally.

[Tribble]

If and when O'Reilly admits to wrongdoing and/or he has been found in some formal process to have done wrong doing, I will be the first to happily join Flagg in his condemnations. Not before. Same for anyone else.

[Flagg]

If and when O'Reilly admits to wrongdoing and/or he has been found in some formal process to have done wrong doing, I will be the first to happily join Flagg in his condemnations. Not before. Same for anyone else.

Well your jumping into the thread with both feet and sharing your opinion on matters you are almost totally ignorant of sure added to the conversation. I know I'll be waiting on baited breath for Captain Falafel to admit to something he and his former employer were paying millions in hush money to avoid doing so.

[Tribble]

Well your jumping into the thread with both feet and sharing your opinion on matters you are almost totally ignorant of sure added to the conversation.

There are two parts to this thread: O'Reilly's firing by Fox and the (directly related) harassment accusations.

I acknowledged that in the former, I was not fully aware of the full extent to which US employers can fire their employees with ease.

As for the harassment accusations, that definitely falls into civil / criminal law territory, and based on your posts so far you seem woefully ignorant in those areas. More disturbingly, you seem to wish for those areas of law to be changed, so that we don't have to bother with such things like evidence before condemning and punishing people.

I know I'll be waiting on baited breath for Captain Falafel to admit to something he and his former employer were paying millions in hush money to avoid doing so.

I agree it's not likely atm, but then again, neither was it initially likely in Clinton's case. Trump doesn't appear to care.

Seeing as we are at the stage of mere accusations at this point, and we the public do not know why the other cases were settled and what the contents in the settlements were (there have been instances where a company / individual has settled even though they were likely in the right just to avoid the publicity of a trial) yes, I am going to assume innocence, at least to a civil law standard. If and when things come out, I am of course willing to adjust my views accordingly.

[Flagg]

Your opinion doesn't matter to me. Your ignorant, obtuse, and holier than thou attitude does. Especially when you know jack shit about the situation.

Are we done now? Can we let this thread get back on topic?

[Tribble]

Your opinion doesn't matter to me. Your ignorant, obtuse, and holier than thou attitude does. Especially when you know jack shit about the situation.

Are we done now? Can we let this thread get back on topic?

You also know practically nothing, apart from the legalities of his firing. Which, well, has happened now, so there you go. Until that situation changes or we have something more to go on, is there anything meaningful to talk about, apart from more media speculation?

Or shall we jump back in with the media frenzy? Who will accuse him next? Just what was he up to on his vacation? How was it possible that he met the Pope right before he was kicked out of Fox? Was that just a Coincidence? Or had he come to secretly confess his sins before it was too late? You decide!

[Flagg]

Your opinion doesn't matter to me. Your ignorant, obtuse, and holier than thou attitude does. Especially when you know jack shit about the situation.

Are we done now? Can we let this thread get back on topic?

You also know practically nothing, apart from the legalities of his firing. Which, well, has happened now, so there you go. Until that situation changes or we have something more to go on, is there anything meaningful to talk about, apart from more media speculation?

Maybe there would be if you hadn't turned the thread into "Ignoramus jumps into thread, has to have several people educate him because he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about."

But it seems your goal is now to get the thread locked to avoid a meaningful discussion of powerful sexual predators permeating the right wing from politics to media.

I bet if you had a daughter in her mid-late teens you wouldn't let her go anywhere alone with O'Reilly.

[Tribble]

Maybe there would be if you hadn't turned the thread into "Ignoramus jumps into thread, has to have several people educate him because he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.

When it comes specifically to US employment law, sure. When it comes to an actual sexual harassment claim and/or criminal charge, you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about.

But it seems your goal is now to get the thread locked to avoid a meaningful discussion of powerful sexual predators permeating the right wing from politics to media.

Oh really, that's the goal of the thread? Have discussion about "powerful sexual predators" permeating the right wing politics to media? Without always ensuring there is solid evidence that the people being discussed being such? Sorry, I thought the thread was about O'Reilly getting fired. Of which we only know "Fox decided to legally terminate contract" the rest so far all being accusations + media speculation of which we have no idea of their validity.

But by all means go ahead and continue. Actually, if it's important enough to you to have that conversation perhaps it would be better to start a dedicated thread.

if you had a daughter in her mid-late teens you wouldn't let her go anywhere alone with O'Reilly.

What exactly does this statement have to do with anything? I'm now trying to find information that O'Reilly has sexually harassed a child, do you know which of the plaintiffs are children?

[Flagg]

Maybe there would be if you hadn't turned the thread into "Ignoramus jumps into thread, has to have several people educate him because he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.

When it comes specifically to US employment law, sure. When it comes to an actual sexual harassment claim and/or criminal charge, you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about.

But it seems your goal is now to get the thread locked to avoid a meaningful discussion of powerful sexual predators permeating the right wing from politics to media.

Oh really, that's the goal of the thread? Have discussion about "powerful sexual predators" permeating the right wing politics to media? Without always ensuring there is solid evidence that the people being discussed being such? Sorry, I thought the thread was about O'Reilly getting fired. Of which we only know "Fox decided to legally terminate contract" the rest so far all being accusations + media speculation of which we have no idea of their validity.

But by all means go ahead and continue. Actually, if it's important enough to you to have that conversation perhaps it would be better to start a dedicated thread.

if you had a daughter in her mid-late teens you wouldn't let her go anywhere alone with O'Reilly.

What exactly does this statement have to do with anything? I'm now trying to find information that O'Reilly has sexually harassed a child, do you know which of the plaintiffs are children?

Are you going to answer the question? It's a simple yes or no.

[Tribble]

if you had a daughter in her mid-late teens you wouldn't let her go anywhere alone with O'Reilly.

Are you going to answer the question? It's a simple yes or no.

I don't think I would be legally allowed to prevent a child 16 or over (aka mid-late teens) from meeting with whom she pleases, and if I used force to prevent her from doing so, where I live that's a crime. Please correct me if forcible confinement is permitted in the US for someone who is in their mid-late teens, that would be news to me. I also don't think I could legally force her to take someone with her, if she is against it. Nor would I be inclined to do so. Your question is rather moot.

[Flagg]

if you had a daughter in her mid-late teens you wouldn't let her go anywhere alone with O'Reilly.

Are you going to answer the question? It's a simple yes or no.

I don't think I would be legally allowed to prevent a child 16 or over (aka mid-late teens) from meeting with whom she pleases, and if I used force to prevent her from doing so, where I live that's a crime. Please correct me if forcible confinement is permitted in the US, that would be news to me. I also don't think I could legally force her to take someone with her, if she is against it. Nor would I be inclined to do so. Your question is rather moot.

You're ridiculous. Bored now.

[Tribble]

You're ridiculous. Bored now.

I take it then that you would forcibly prevent your mid-late teen daughter (or hypothetical daughter), if necessary? Because the way your statement is structured it's implied that said daughter decided to see to see O'Reilly and I am making the determination as to whether or not I will "let her".

Here that is a crime, it's called "unlawful" or "forcible" confinement. Don't know what that is in the US.

[Enigma]

You're ridiculous. Bored now.

I take it then that you would forcibly prevent your mid-late teen daughter (or hypothetical daughter), if necessary? Because the way your statement is structured it's implied that said daughter decided to see to see O'Reilly and I am making the determination as to whether or not I will "let her".

Here that is a crime, it's called "unlawful" or "forcible" confinement. Don't know what that is in the US.

But I can assume you could ground her in order to keep her from leaving and thus avoid committing a crime?

[Tribble]

You're ridiculous. Bored now.

I take it then that you would forcibly prevent your mid-late teen daughter (or hypothetical daughter), if necessary? Because the way your statement is structured it's implied that said daughter decided to see to see O'Reilly and I am making the determination as to whether or not I will "let her".

Here that is a crime, it's called "unlawful" or "forcible" confinement. Don't know what that is in the US.

But I can assume you could ground her in order to keep her from leaving and thus avoid committing a crime?

If the grounding involves forcing her to remain in a location against her will, that's still a crime. We're specifically talking about someone who is at the age where they are legally allowed to make those kinds of decisions themselves.

I'll go one step further here and take this to the logical extension:

Assuming that O'Reilly has been found guilty in criminal and/or civil court, what would I do?

I would advise my daughter of that fact, and to read up on the cases against him.
I would advise my daughter not to meet him, as he is in fact guilty under this scenario.
I would advise that should she still desire to meet him that she should not do so alone.
Would I be upset if she ignored all of my advice? Would I be concerned? Sure. But it's ultimately her decision, not mine.
Whoever feels that trying to illegally force a teenage daughter to do something against her is a good idea has no real clue as to what a female teenager is. Good luck.

[Tribble]

My turn for a question:

Suppose after all that, your daughter ends up meeting up with O-Reilly tomorrow and has consensual sex with him (the age of consent being 16 in Canada). You find out about it, and know that it was consensual (your daughter freely admitted to you as such and is not lying, or afraid to tell the truth or anything etc). What do you do?

[Flagg]

You're ridiculous. Bored now.

I take it then that you would forcibly prevent your mid-late teen daughter (or hypothetical daughter), if necessary? Because the way your statement is structured it's implied that said daughter decided to see to see O'Reilly and I am making the determination as to whether or not I will "let her".

Here that is a crime, it's called "unlawful" or "forcible" confinement. Don't know what that is in the US.

But I can assume you could ground her in order to keep her from leaving and thus avoid committing a crime?

Don't bother, this thread is kaput. When legalistic bullshittery is used to avoid answering a yes or no question it's time to call shenanigans and bail.

[Tribble]

I take it then that you would forcibly prevent your mid-late teen daughter (or hypothetical daughter), if necessary? Because the way your statement is structured it's implied that said daughter decided to see to see O'Reilly and I am making the determination as to whether or not I will "let her".

Here that is a crime, it's called "unlawful" or "forcible" confinement. Don't know what that is in the US.

But I can assume you could ground her in order to keep her from leaving and thus avoid committing a crime?

Don't bother, this thread is kaput. When legalistic bullshittery is used to avoid answering a yes or no question it's time to call shenanigans and bail.

You really do have a habit of not bothering to read other people's posts, don't you? And of selectively ignoring ones that you don't like and pretending like they don't exist. Must feel so much easier to argue with someone who isn't there, right? For the last freakin' time, read all of my damn posts before responding. At this point you are almost as bad as Archinist.

I'll make this clear so even an idiot like yourself will understand: I will not illegally prevent my daughter from meeting someone, even if I personally disagree with it. Give advice? Sure. Illegally stop her, or force someone to be with her? No.

[Flagg]

And DOWN GOES HANNITY!!!

Of course the usual "She was harassing me, honest!" bullshit.

Swamp keeps on draining!

[Gandalf]

And DOWN GOES HANNITY!!!

Of course the usual "She was harassing me, honest!" bullshit.

Swamp keeps on draining!

It's the purge of Fox News!

Is Colmes also in trouble somehow?

[Gerald Tarrant]

It's the purge of Fox News!

Is Colmes also in trouble somehow?

He died in February.

[Flagg]

It's the purge of Fox News!

Is Colmes also in trouble somehow?

He died in February.

I just googled it up and shit, cancer.