Bill O'Reilly Fired!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Bill O'Reilly out at Fox News after sexual harassment allegations

Longtime Fox News host Bill O’Reilly will not return to the network in the wake of renewed scrutiny over allegations of sexual harassment, 21st Century Fox said Wednesday.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,� the Fox News parent company said in a statement.

The announcement comes after weeks of renewed scrutiny over O’Reilly’s behavior toward women at Fox News. O’Reilly and Fox reportedly settled several multi-million-dollar lawsuits with women who accused the host of sexual harassment.

O’Reilly last appeared on air on April 11 before taking what he said was a pre-planned vacation. New York magazine reported earlier Wednesday that the Murdoch family, which controls 21st Century Fox, had decided to cut ties with the host.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-oreill ... legations/


Keith Olbermann continuously portrayed O'Reilly as the "Worse person in the world." Personally I think there are many much worse than O'Reilly.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Veteran newsman Ted Koppel told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he is "bad for America" in an interview that aired on CBS' Sunday Morning that quickly became a trending topic on social media Sunday. (3/27/17)

[bluethread]

Yes and where did the research to heavily mechanics production come from...

The British government and others had been heavily investing in scientific research this research was applied to new processes and technology which led to the industrial revolution..... Yes there was plenty of private industry involved but without the investments in science that were made by various governments you would not have had the same results.

There is a serious logical problem here. It is correlation equals causation. Yes, man has had government ever since three people got together and decided that two of them should be able to tell the third one what to do. Also, it is true that "two heads are better than one", when it comes to solving problems. However, that does not mean that the only way innovation can happen is for an organization to do it. Even more, that does not mean that the two guys, therefore, have an inherent right to require the third(forgotten man) to fund their experimentation.

Also, the fruit of the tree argument is fallacious. Just because I pick up a stick that someone else threw down does not mean that I could not have found my own stick to begin with. Two government workers wasting time playing with an oscilloscope does not mean that the video game industry would not have existed if those guys had not been government workers. In fact, it is well known in the computer industry that government software sucks and it costs at least twice as much to develop as software developed in the open market.

Yes, forced labor and the use of force to collect funding have made many things possible. However, as I pointed out earlier, that is not the only way, or the de facto the best way to fund things. In fact, in many cases, it is the worst way to do things.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

That's not a correlation causation problem. That is what happened, sure it could have happened differently but it didn't. The problem with relying on purely market driven forces is there is some research that has no practicle market applications. Take telecommunications and satellites for example. There is a tremendous industry utilizing communication satellites the Internet uses it your cell phones use it gps relies on it. Yet how do you get satellites into orbit? Rockets are the current primary means and there was no market driven forces that spurred investment in rockets. The primary reason for rocket development was for military purposes and the space race.

60 years later the private rocket industry is catching on as well, yet still heavily relying on government initiatives like supplying the space station to fund its r&d and remain viable into the private industry catches up.

To sum up my point is the federal government is best utilized in scientific endeavors as a stop gap in research. Where there is huge dividends at the end of the research but where the intial investment in research extends beyond where one can expect reasonable returns in their lifetime.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

That's not a correlation causation problem. That is what happened, sure it could have happened differently but it didn't. The problem with relying on purely market driven forces is there is some research that has no practicle market applications. Take telecommunications and satellites for example. There is a tremendous industry utilizing communication satellites the Internet uses it your cell phones use it gps relies on it. Yet how do you get satellites into orbit? Rockets are the current primary means and there was no market driven forces that spurred investment in rockets. The primary reason for rocket development was for military purposes and the space race.

No, that's exactly the argument. Just because something happened one way does not mean it would not have happened otherwise. In addition, I am not now and I have never argued for no government. Also, as I pointed out, Trump is asking for an INCREASE in the military budget. He is not proposing a cut in military research. He is proposing cutting general unspecified research.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

That's not a correlation causation problem. That is what happened, sure it could have happened differently but it didn't. The problem with relying on purely market driven forces is there is some research that has no practicle market applications. Take telecommunications and satellites for example. There is a tremendous industry utilizing communication satellites the Internet uses it your cell phones use it gps relies on it. Yet how do you get satellites into orbit? Rockets are the current primary means and there was no market driven forces that spurred investment in rockets. The primary reason for rocket development was for military purposes and the space race.

No, that's exactly the argument. Just because something happened one way does not mean it would not have happened otherwise. In addition, I am not now and I have never argued for no government. Also, as I pointed out, Trump is asking for an INCREASE in the military budget. He is not proposing a cut in military research. He is proposing cutting general unspecified research.

I didn't mean it couldn't have happened any other way I am simply pointing out that is the way it happened and to highlight the value in such research. As well as highlighting the difficulties the private industry has in long term investments that extend generationally.

Now I wouldn't want to cut the science budget but, I would like more of it to be specified. To have clear and concise goals. When we have clear goals we can achieve monumental things like landing on the moon in a decade.

[bluethread]

Now I wouldn't want to cut the science budget but, I would like more of it to be specified. To have clear and concise goals. When we have clear goals we can achieve monumental things like landing on the moon in a decade.

I'm glad to hear that. The question then becomes the best funding mechanism and merits of the goal. I don't know if you've been to our nations capital, but if you stop by the air and space museum you might note that we traveled to the moon and back with little more than spit and bailing wire. That is an idiom of course, but the point is that even though there were some interesting spinoffs, the stated goal of sending an man to the moon and returning him to earth wasn't really much more than bragging rights. The national security argument, i.e. beating the Russians, was the selling point and had some merit at the time. But, had there not been that argument, we may have gotten the spinoff benefits in other ways.

[Danmark]

....I don't think Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Eileen Wellstone, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Becky Brown, Helen Dowdy and Cristy Zercher gave their consent.

YOU don't think.... Do you have any more authoritative evidence? I'm not familiar with all the names you've mentioned, or the facts of their cases. Tho' I agree that in a civil case being in a position of power when 'seducing' someone is a tort; this is a far cry from what Trump is accused of, nonconsensual sexual contact. THat is not just wrong, it is a crime.

More importantly, why do so many Christians defend Donald Trump? He is a despicable human being. He's an immoral braggart who lies on a daily basis. Why is there such a large segment of "Christians" who support conservative Republicans despite their behavior and policies which are antithetical to the teachings of Christ?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 65 by bluethread]

I have been to the capital and I have been to the air and space museums it's a bit more than spit and bailing wire though. For a cursory glance at the benefits of the program that you probably were not aware of.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... olloFS.pdf

That was just an example though, what if we took a cancer moonshot?

[bluethread]

....I don't think Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Eileen Wellstone, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Becky Brown, Helen Dowdy and Cristy Zercher gave their consent.

YOU don't think.... Do you have any more authoritative evidence? I'm not familiar with all the names you've mentioned, or the facts of their cases. Tho' I agree that in a civil case being in a position of power when 'seducing' someone is a tort; this is a far cry from what Trump is accused of, nonconsensual sexual contact. That is not just wrong, it is a crime.

I did say, "I do agree that Trump is not very judicious regarding the thing he says." In fact I said that in that post right after that list of women who accused Clinton of, not seduction, but actual nonconsensual sexual contact. Sure, I stated it in passive voice and not all those in the list I provided say there was actual physical contact, however:

"Juanita Broaddrick: Broaddrick, a former nursing home administrator, alleges that Bill Clinton, who was running for Arkansas governor at the time, raped her in an Arkansas hotelroom in the spring of 1978.

Kathleen Willey: Willey was a White House volunteer aide who, in March of 1998, alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her during his first term as President.

Eileen Wellstone: Wellstone, an English woman, alleges that Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near Oxford University where Clinton was a student in 1969.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen: A Miss Arkansas who would go on to win the Miss America contest in 1982, Gracen alleges that she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won the Miss Arkansas competition." Muskegon Pundit

The rest only allege threat and intimidation.

More importantly, why do so many Christians defend Donald Trump? He is a despicable human being. He's an immoral braggart who lies on a daily basis. Why is there such a large segment of "Christians" who support conservative Republicans despite their behavior and policies which are antithetical to the teachings of Christ?

Well, one can support one's views without supporting one's behavior. From what I hear, Hitler was quite the gentleman. I have no problem with Trump being prosecuted for crimes any less than I believe Clinton should have been. One major difference is Clinton was a darling to the femnists on the left. Though, Trump has a proven record for promoting women in business, he gets no credit for that.

[Danmark]

Well, one can support one's views without supporting one's behavior. From what I hear, Hitler was quite the gentleman. I have no problem with Trump being prosecuted for crimes any less than I believe Clinton should have been. One major difference is Clinton was a darling to the femnists on the left. Though, Trump has a proven record for promoting women in business, he gets no credit for that.

Trump has a record for sexually assaulting women and for supporting Bill O'Reilly who has been fired for his sexual intimidation of women.

What exactly is it about Trump's policies that are consistent with what Jesus taught in the Beatitudes? Jesus overturned the money changers' tables and talked about helping the poor. Jesus preached humility. What is it about Trump that Christians think is Christlike? What is it about Trump's policies that are Christlike?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 69 by Danmark]

It seems to me few men in the public eye with a measure of power have escaped such allegations. True or false its a sad testimony to our times.