Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/13/2004 1:31:32 PM PDT by scottybk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last
To: scottybk

Kerry will now DUMP his O'reilly interview


75 posted on 10/13/2004 1:42:22 PM PDT by mmyers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk
Wait a minute. On page 3, at the very top, the report says:

WESTWOOD ONE and BILL O'REILLY to preach the principles of the so-called "compassionate conservatism" espoused by George W. Bush and the Republican Party. The Defendants also use this forum to preach their belief in family values and to bemoan the moral decline of politicians and others in positions of power.

This doesn't pass the smell test. Look how it's worded. It doesn't look like a legal report, it looks like a DNC handbook. "so-called compassionate conservatism?" "Preach their belief...and bemoan..."

Looks like crap.

76 posted on 10/13/2004 1:42:27 PM PDT by RockinRight (John Kerry is the wrong candidate, for the wrong country, at the wrong time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

I hope this "turncoat" loses his spot on Fox!

LLS


79 posted on 10/13/2004 1:43:02 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (kerry... a girlie-man who built his life on a bedrock of lies, and derives his strength from EVIL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

O'Reilly is a nut job. Did anyone hear him today?
He's saying that "sin" is throw around way too much in America today. He says the Bishops are trying to intimidate Kerry and they ought to stay out of it. Then he turns around and says they have every right to talk about these issues in concrete theological terms. At one minute he stating that voting for Kerry isn't going to increase the number of abortions and the next minute he's saying that Kerry as President would affect the courts which might increase the number of abortions. O'Reilly has something mental going on. He's all over the place. In the matter of just a few minutes he will sound like Kerry is bad/Bush is good. The next minute he's saying there's no difference between the two. Is he schizophrenic? I don't know.

He then says to his sycophant sidekick lady [who offered that Kerry should have stood outside of the Black Baptist church on Sunday with a Bible in one hand and O'Reilly's book in the other. I have no idea what that meant] that Kerry is "making me nervous." As if addressing Kerry: "you're making me nervous." To his sidekick: "I want to like this guy but he's making me nervous. I want to like these two, but they are making me nervous." First, It sounded like he was talking about Kerry and Bush, but maybe he was talking about Kerry and Edwards. Second, why does he "want to like them." Why the heck does he want to like a couple of socialist DemocRATS? O'Reilly really gets to me. I wish there was something else on during that 15 or so minutes I'm driving in the afternoon.


81 posted on 10/13/2004 1:43:37 PM PDT by discipler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

By far the funniest thing in that whole document was when Bill was talking about his loofa sponge/shower fantasy, and once instead of loofa he says falafel. That still has me laughing!


82 posted on 10/13/2004 1:43:48 PM PDT by CSM43 (President Bush, I'm standing with you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

he's wounded. time to take the lib down.


83 posted on 10/13/2004 1:43:57 PM PDT by phxaz (for now it's a cold civil war in the usa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

I hope this takes that liberal jackass down.


85 posted on 10/13/2004 1:44:05 PM PDT by myself6 (Nazi = socialist , democrat=socialist , therefore democrat = Nazi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

Page 3 asserts a gratuitous direct link between O'Reilly and the Bush agenda/Republican party.

Lets guess the media spin on this.


89 posted on 10/13/2004 1:44:42 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

He betrayed his conservative supporters.

He can now hope his new left-wing friends cover his back. New York jury will love him,I'm sure.


110 posted on 10/13/2004 1:47:41 PM PDT by Finalapproach29er ({about the news media} "We'll tell you any sh** you want hear" : Howard Beale --> NETWORK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

Maybe O-Reily is auditioning for a job on one of the MSM channels. Maybe he thinks his days are numbered on Fox. I say he needs to be dropped from Fox. What a gross man!


115 posted on 10/13/2004 1:48:35 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

That stuff reads like a smutty fiction novel. My Lord in heaven its disgusting. I am always the last one to push the "guilty" button. I hope this is all made up. I really don't care for O'Rielly, but I just don't want to see any more people in positions like his being guilty of this lewed conduct. We've had nothing but politicians, priests, celebrities and every "public figure's" sexual sickness shoved in our faces for too many years.


120 posted on 10/13/2004 1:50:55 PM PDT by Integrityrocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

Holy crap. She may have him dead to rights..... If she's got tapes, he's a goner.


124 posted on 10/13/2004 1:52:54 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

Wonder if he'll investigate himself like he said he would with the Dan Rather forgery?


125 posted on 10/13/2004 1:53:07 PM PDT by Bommer (“ To be believable, we must be credible; to be credible, we must be truthful.” Edward R. Murrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

I read through the thing, and I'm having a tough time believing this thing isn't going to be instantly tossed as a matter of law.

She claims "discrimination" but does not cite a single instance of it.

She claims a sexual harrasment "qui pro quo" but never shows in any way how this could be the case. In every instance she claims not to be returning his advances, yet she receives multiple raises, is re-hired after she leaves for CNN, and is given a plum assignment at the Republican convention.

She talks about a "hostile work environment", but almost every instance she refers to takes place outside of work, and she doesn't appear to have complained to anyone at Fox regarding the behavior.

Finally, she claims "damages" but never cites anythign specific to base them on. No loss of income. No psychiatric diagnosis. Nothing.

It's hard to see how this is going anywhere in court.


133 posted on 10/13/2004 1:54:47 PM PDT by Moral Hazard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

Just read the complaint. The specificity of the words that plaintiff alleges O'Reilly spoke leads me to think that she recorded these conversations, via a device attached to her phone and/or a device on her person.

Here's an interesting legal question for lawyers may be lurking:

1 - It appears that the plaintiff's firm would have a motive to file this suit - apart from or in addition to a motive related to the interests of the plaintif - which would be to defend against O'Reilly's suit for extortion. For if the plaintiff's firm did NOT file the complaint, it would lend credibility to O'Reilly's claim that the attempt to hit him up for 60 million prior to filing was not a legitimate request for a settlement, but was extortion.

2 - But if the above is the case, then wouldn't the plaintiff's firm have a fatal or at least compromising conflict of interest?

3 - On the other hand, perhaps there should be a more individualized analysis, or else whenever a defendant wanted to knock a plaintiff's attorney out of a case, he need only file a separate suit for extortion or abuse of process or defamation or interference with contractual relations, etc.


151 posted on 10/13/2004 2:01:19 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

He may beat the suit but his reputation will be destroyed. Couldn't happen to a nicer blowhard.


154 posted on 10/13/2004 2:01:35 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

Many have commented that the complaint makes it clear that the woman must have recorded some conversations in order to quote that much dialogue. If that is the case, the one thing that can settle it one way or the other is to release the tapes. Until then, this looks like a political hit against Fox to me.


156 posted on 10/13/2004 2:01:41 PM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk
Woman's point of view here.

O'Reilly is being unfairly charged. I read the entire 22 pages and it is filled with unsubstantiated/unprovable comments. The only time a witness was mentioned was the comment about her friend and her being told that they could all go to his hotel and "have the time of their lives".
Even that is open to interpretation.

The fact that this woman was suffering so greatly because of O'Reilly but then came back to work for him is the smoking gun.

I am no O'Reilly fan but he is being unfairly charged.
167 posted on 10/13/2004 2:05:07 PM PDT by Republican Red (A Global Freak'n Test ???????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk

Does anyone really DO this kinda stuff? Especially with SOOOO much to lose? I mean how big does one's head have to get?

Rush was a different case. He had an ACTUAL medical condition (not like alcohlism) that took over. I feel sorry for him because I believe that he didn't WANT to be addicted, but surgery wasn't an alternative.

But after reading these allegations. Just...WOW.

Here's to hoping Hannity ditches cadaver boy and get's his own hour.


171 posted on 10/13/2004 2:05:58 PM PDT by JiggyMac (Bush/Cheney '04 - Kicking ass and takin' names.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: scottybk
I think this is a DNC hit job. Remember, Kerry has not agreed to come on his show, why?

I'm not defending OR, he's my least favorite person, but he's not stupid. He'd have to be unbelievably stupid to do what this claim says.

174 posted on 10/13/2004 2:06:11 PM PDT by McGavin999 (If Kerry can't deal with the "Republican Attack Machine" how is he going to deal with Al Qaeda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson