Well Well.... A New "Wild Bill"

You do wonder why she didn't hang up.

0 Replies

Hmmm....interesting take.

0 Replies

So, who knows, maybe she did eventually decide to use his behavior against him. Thus did not hang up. Doesn't let Bill off the hook (so to speak), does it?

0 Replies

It sure does if she gave him the impression she was consenting to the activity. I have a huge problem with ALL these women who willingly put themselves into these situations and then, with no evidence of any harm done to them, accuse their partner of misconduct. But of course a whole lot of money will make them feel a lot better. Any one of you guys (and I suppose us gals) could be accused of stuff like this and how do you defend yourself? How do you get your reputation back after it's on the Drudge Report on on the nightly news?

If you don't want phone sex, you tell off the caller and hang up. It's that simple. It wouldn't have happened (I don't think) in my day, but my younger friends tell me its a popular activity now.

0 Replies

"ALL these women who willingly put themselves into these situations"? Hmm...

Leaving that aside for the moment, O'Reilly has set himself up as an arbiter of morality. Even if, for argument sake, this woman was a willing participant at one time or another, what's a married man doing carrying on with another woman like this?

0 Replies

BBB
Roger Ailes and FOX network are the ones having to make the hardest decision.

Big mouth makes a lot of money for FOX, but what he said about Roger Ailes may force Fox to fire him.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy or nicer network, don't ya think?

BBB

0 Replies

Limbaugh, O'Reilly...really...moral arbiters should use a little caution don't you think?

0 Replies

Quote:

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

I respectfully suggest that the morality or lack thereof of the people you are so eager to condemn is not the issue here. Is it not comproming your own morality--concept of right and wrong; belief in fair play; justice for all--to overlook the larger picture just so you can see somebody you despise be taken down? For instance, it was not okay for Bill Clinton to be 'falsely accused' because you liked him, but it is okay for a Bill O'Reilly to be 'falsely accused' because you despise him?

I would like to think it is possible for even those on the left to have some sense of propriety here.

0 Replies

You just murdered a fruit fly with a sledgehammer Foxy. Save the rev's classic lines for much more important debates.
Again, O'Reilly will not be an entry in American history books in the near future.

0 Replies

A principle is a principle Panzade whether it be administered by a sledge hammer or a tack hammer. I think honorable people apply the same justice regardless of how much they like or dislike a person.

0 Replies

Ok, but IMO Liberal commentators don't try to be sexual mores arbiters while conservative ones do. I might be naive though..

0 Replies

The women were given a potent weapon and they use it whenever the time is right for a little extortion. Whether it be money, job advancement or just to get even for some real or imagined slight.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

I respectfully suggest that the morality or lack thereof of the people you are so eager to condemn is not the issue here. Is it not comproming your own morality--concept of right and wrong; belief in fair play; justice for all--to overlook the larger picture just so you can see somebody you despise be taken down? For instance, it was not okay for Bill Clinton to be 'falsely accused' because you liked him, but it is okay for a Bill O'Reilly to be 'falsely accused' because you despise him?

I would like to think it is possible for even those on the left to have some sense of propriety here.

karma...that's all......if the O'Reillys of the world drag out the indiscretions of the Clintons of the world so gleefully and with such an eye for profit....they must expect the same treatment...fair has nothing to do with it....live by the sword die by the sword......action and reaction.....action and consequence......the circle is unbroken.....and any other cliche I may have forgotten........ Laughing

0 Replies

Panzade writes

Quote:

Ok, but IMO Liberal commentators don't try to be sexual mores arbiters while conservative ones do. I might be naive though

That in my opinion is an absurd observation. Look how many Republicans have had to give up lucrative positions or resign a position or withdraw from elections when some sexual indiscretion is exposed or even accused. The libs go for the jugular when they find the slightest weakness. The right has no monopoly on self-righteous moral policing.

0 Replies

You go girl!

0 Replies

BPB writes:

Quote:

if the O'Reillys of the world drag out the indiscretions of the Clintons of the world so gleefully and with such an eye for profit....they must expect the same treatment...

At some point, don't you think reasonable people would rise above the 5-year-old's "they did it first" argument? I resent either side using it.

0 Replies

why not follow your own advice then?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Panzade writes

Quote:
Ok, but IMO Liberal commentators don't try to be sexual mores arbiters while conservative ones do. I might be naive though

That in my opinion is an absurd observation. Look how many Republicans have had to give up lucrative positions or resign a position or withdraw from elections when some sexual indiscretion is exposed or even accused. The libs go for the jugular when they find the slightest weakness. The right has no monopoly on self-righteous moral policing.

Yea, but usually it is because of the responses from within their own party that makes them resign.

0 Replies

maybe not a monopoly but certainly a cartel. Can you point out to me a liberal radio or tv personality who has caused a prominent Republican to abandon a campaign? The liberals are being very fair with DeLay at the moment...his morals stink worse than roadkill.

0 Replies

This is neither a democratic or republican issue. It is a woman's weapon. She is just after making a buck the easy way. As far as I am concerned no one forced her to listen and I have no doubt engage in phone sex. All she needed to do is hang up. Suing for $60 million indeed. Talk about frivolous law suites.

0 Replies

Well Well.... A New "Wild Bill"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know