Goodbye Bill!!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

@cthulhuspawn82: Conservatives regularly get away with criminal acts. To many of us on the left, being a conservative or being a criminal is much the same.

O'Reilly is a terrible person who has no morals and very bigoted. That he and many other conservatives can make a career on bigoted views is the real crime. That it took so long for sexual assault to bite him on the ass is well...FUCKING TRUMP IS PRESIDENT AND DOES IT! Like, he got elected after admitting that shit.

Smithnikov:
Much as I hate the man, not all that joyful about it, since this is likely an internal politics move, not because he's a horrible person. Conservative media, I've noticed, tend not to can people unless they've already had it in for them for awhile now. People, Micheal Savage and Mark Levin are still on the air, remember....

They fired him because he was bad for business. They were losing a lot of advertisers because the latest revelations about him. So basically they don't give a fuck that he sexually harassed women. They only care that it costs them money. So much for traditional family values.

Thaluikhain:

inu-kun:
Anyways shitty people using their position is in pretty much every organization regardless of political affiliation (with cover up being as well)

Certainly, though to what extent, and how active people are in rooting them out varies immensely.

Again, pretty much the same regardless of political affiliation. I only need to say Bill Cosby or Bill Clinton for examples on the left, one of them is even still seen as good and I remember hearing about his wife forciblly silencing women who complained (but I can't be arsed to see if it is just rumours or truth).

cthulhuspawn82:
I wont try to defend Bill, but in a perfect world the cheers would be that of "Hurrah, a bully accused of sexual assault was fired" as opposed to "Hurrah, a prominent conservative was fired". I'm wondering which of the two is driving the overwhelming vocal support for this move.

The latter, it's the same old "let's represent an entire group with opinions we don't agree with by a single guy from it", always said by people complaining about being labeled as the extremists of other people from their group.

LEAKED: Fox News 8pm anchor audition tape. pic.twitter.com/k7JHKSDgAt? The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) 20 April 2017

Speaks for itself. This is only the tip of the shit mountain that is Fox news media.

Kwak:

LEAKED: Fox News 8pm anchor audition tape. pic.twitter.com/k7JHKSDgAt? The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) 20 April 2017

Speaks for itself. This is only the tip of the shit mountain that is Fox news media.

Many knew about Fox News's sexist behaviour for several years now. Hell, the female host have to show leg. This is some Mad Men whatever fucking decade it is, bullshit. Another question. Now on fucking earth can women still watch Fox News? How? Why and How? They treat women like objects and shit and YET get support. Actually same question about voting Trump. HOW AND WHY?!?
It's like me voting to support the KKK and other White Supremacist groups. Why would I ever fucking do that? I don't have a death wish.

One more thing. These so called sponsors who advertise on that network and still give money to Fox News even with all this information? Who are they? How much are they giving? Cause if those same ones are boycotting YouTube, you better give me a fucking good reason why you support Fox News.

Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly is being replaced by Tucker Carlson, who's just about as bad as O'Reilly.

Dr. Thrax:
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly is being replaced by Tucker Carlson, who's just about as bad as O'Reilly.

Was anyone expecting a non-bigot to replace O'Reilly?

Dr. Thrax:
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly is being replaced by Tucker Carlson, who's just about as bad as O'Reilly.

>>Carlson Downplayed Male Victims Of Domestic Violence Because It's "Embarrassing, Getting Beaten Up By Your Girlfriend." In 2014, Tucker Carlson welcomed a report illustrating that domestic violence is under-reported by students, saying "I hope" that male victims of domestic violence would not come forward because "that is embarrassing, getting beaten up by your girlfriend. ... I don't care. It's embarrassing, period." [Fox News, Outnumbered, 7/31/14]

Oh GOD, I so want to throw this in some smug MRA's face one day...

Dr. Thrax:
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly is being replaced by Tucker Carlson, who's just about as bad as O'Reilly.

Carlson's too much of a nebishy weenie to retain O'Reilly's audience though. Yes he is the human equivalent of accidentally putting your hand in a dirty diaper. Star power though? Uh-uh.

Smithnikov:

Dr. Thrax:
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly is being replaced by Tucker Carlson, who's just about as bad as O'Reilly.

>>Carlson Downplayed Male Victims Of Domestic Violence Because It?s ?Embarrassing, Getting Beaten Up By Your Girlfriend." In 2014, Tucker Carlson welcomed a report illustrating that domestic violence is under-reported by students, saying ?I hope? that male victims of domestic violence would not come forward because ?that is embarrassing, getting beaten up by your girlfriend. ? I don?t care. It?s embarrassing, period.? [Fox News, Outnumbered, 7/31/14]

Oh GOD, I so want to throw this in some smug MRA's face one day...

Would you really though?
I mean, don't you feel the perpetuation of this harmful social stigma as some sort of "gotcha" argument is at least a little bit petty and spiteful?

Something I just thought of...

...what is it with Bills and sexual harassment?

I mean, at this rate calling your kid Bill Whatever is going to be like calling him Peter File.

And this is the way of the world, folks.

You can maliciously and illegally harass people for decades just so long as you're powerful enough to have your employer cover it for you.

inu-kun:
Snip

cthulhuspawn82:
Snip

Don't start. He was a horrific human being that was a major conservative with a lot of major supporters. Shit like this keeps happening. I just have to ask a question, the people that liked him, that watched his show (Fox News is the top news show for conservatives in America) how are they responding to this? How are they responding to the man who is replacing him, who says you're pathetic if your girlfriend beats you up and is glad that abuse is under reported?

erttheking:

inu-kun:
Snip

cthulhuspawn82:
Snip

Don't start. He was a horrific human being that was a major conservative with a lot of major supporters. Shit like this keeps happening. I just have to ask a question, the people that liked him, that watched his show (Fox News is the top news show for conservatives in America) how are they responding to this? How are they responding to the man who is replacing him, who says you're pathetic if your girlfriend beats you up and is glad that abuse is under reported?

And? Do you want to say that this guy represents all american Conservatives?

inu-kun:

erttheking:

inu-kun:
Snip

cthulhuspawn82:
Snip

Don't start. He was a horrific human being that was a major conservative with a lot of major supporters. Shit like this keeps happening. I just have to ask a question, the people that liked him, that watched his show (Fox News is the top news show for conservatives in America) how are they responding to this? How are they responding to the man who is replacing him, who says you're pathetic if your girlfriend beats you up and is glad that abuse is under reported?

And? Do you want to say that this guy represents all american Conservatives?

Did I say that? Did I say that? Seriously, look through my post and then tell me if I said that. Spoiler alert. I didn't.

erttheking:

inu-kun:

erttheking:

Don't start. He was a horrific human being that was a major conservative with a lot of major supporters. Shit like this keeps happening. I just have to ask a question, the people that liked him, that watched his show (Fox News is the top news show for conservatives in America) how are they responding to this? How are they responding to the man who is replacing him, who says you're pathetic if your girlfriend beats you up and is glad that abuse is under reported?

And? Do you want to say that this guy represents all american Conservatives?

Did I say that? Did I say that? Seriously, look through my post and then tell me if I said that. Spoiler alert. I didn't.

So what is your point? That shitty people with biased world view and millions of listeners exist? Simply seeing who is popular on Youtube shows that (and that it's true on both sides). Or maybe that Big corporations like Fox only care about money than morals? The thing that absolutely everyone here already knows?

There's no actual politics here involved, unless someone wants to be a strawman that says that guy represents an entire political group.

inu-kun:

erttheking:

inu-kun:

And? Do you want to say that this guy represents all american Conservatives?

Did I say that? Did I say that? Seriously, look through my post and then tell me if I said that. Spoiler alert. I didn't.

So what is your point? That shitty people with biased world view and millions of listeners exist? Simply seeing who is popular on Youtube shows that (and that it's true on both sides). Or maybe that Big corporations like Fox only care about money than morals? The thing that absolutely everyone here already knows?

There's no actual politics here involved, unless someone wants to be a strawman that says that guy represents an entire political group.

No, I don't have to pick between "no politics" and "he represents all conservatives." That's a false dilemma. Fox News as a whole represents a subset of conservatives. A decent size subset of conservatives that are anti-intellectual (I would like to remind you that this guy once claimed that you can't explain how tides work and there wasn't so much as a blip in his viewership) and take a disturbing amount of pleasure in warfare (Fox News recently reacted to footage of the MOAB being dropped by claiming "this is what freedom looks like." This is the conservative news in America and it gets so many people watching it for a reason.

Now, I know that there are plenty of conservatives out there that absolutely hate Fox News. The numbers of pro FN vs anti FN? I can't claim to know those. But there's plenty of conservatives out there that swallow up a lot of what they say. Including them glorifying the Bill of Rights one second, yet advocating that every nearly single part of it get violated because of Muslims (Oh, except the one that allows people to own their precious fucking guns of course, and the third amendment, but that's only because citizens housing soldiers has pretty much no relevance in the modern era)

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/iiculo/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-weak-constitution

Something something "their moral code is a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble."

Agema:
And this is the way of the world, folks.

You can maliciously and illegally harass people for decades just so long as you're powerful enough to have your employer cover it for you.

You can admit to sexually assaulting women and become President.

But god forbid you have a vagina.

I used to think Feminists were exaggerating about this "patriarchy" thing, but I am starting to see their point.

Saelune:

Agema:
And this is the way of the world, folks.

You can maliciously and illegally harass people for decades just so long as you're powerful enough to have your employer cover it for you.

You can admit to sexually assaulting women and become President.

But god forbid you have a vagina.

I used to think Feminists were exaggerating about this "patriarchy" thing, but I am starting to see their point.

Not to be as pedantic as the legal systems partially shared by the US and Canada, but it seems to me that: "And they let you!" Is a lot different then assault. If something is permitted by a party that party has consented. That said my main issue with your post is that somehow Mrs. Clinton lost the election due to being Mrs. and not Mr.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

If anything this demonstrates that her gender helped carry her campaign rather then hinder it, it simply couldn't overcome her past, and general lack of charisma. Ironically it also demonstrates that a woman could confront a male politician of identical behaviour to Mrs. Clinton using Mr. Trump's style and shine against her opponent. If sexism played a roll in the previous election it was likely to favour Mrs. Clinton not Mr. Trump.

Combustion Kevin:

Would you really though?

Considering my experience with them, yes.

I mean, don't you feel the perpetuation of this harmful social stigma as some sort of "gotcha" argument is at least a little bit petty and spiteful?

If it were any other special interest, I would.

@Namehere: Bill Clinton almost got impeached on alot less.

Namehere:
That said my main issue with your post is that somehow Mrs. Clinton lost the election due to being Mrs. and not Mr.

I don't see Saelune saying that. Or anyone else saying that. Now, that her gender was a factor, or that sexism was a factor, certainly.

Namehere:
If sexism played a roll in the previous election it was likely to favour Mrs. Clinton not Mr. Trump.

Yeah, no.

inu-kun:
So what is your point? That shitty people with biased world view and millions of listeners exist? Simply seeing who is popular on Youtube shows that (and that it's true on both sides). Or maybe that Big corporations like Fox only care about money than morals? The thing that absolutely everyone here already knows?

There's no actual politics here involved, unless someone wants to be a strawman that says that guy represents an entire political group.

Spoiler alert: You don't actually know everything.

I would say O'Reilly is more a symptom of a broken system on multiple level. Fox's toxic corporate culture, which is itself indicative of broader problems in American corporate culture. The inherent hypocrisy in modern American conservative Christianity. The ethical bankruptcy that defines today's Republican party. The lingering anachronistic idea of masculine strength that doesn't fit into 21st century culture. To repeat: O'Reilly doesn't represent all conservatives. That was your strawman retort. Rather, he is one symptom among thousands of the damage caused by broken systems.

Namehere:
Not to be as pedantic as the legal systems partially shared by the US and Canada, but it seems to me that: "And they let you!" Is a lot different then assault. If something is permitted by a party that party has consented.

This is how I can tell you're not really a lawyer. My brother is and he would laugh in your face if you said that to him. A lack of protest out of fear of reprisal is not the same thing as consent dude. If you think otherwise, try it and let my know how it works out for you. On second thought, don't try it. I don't want that on my conscience.

BeetleManiac:
This is how I can tell you're not really a lawyer. My brother is and he would laugh in your face if you said that to him. A lack of protest out of fear of reprisal is not the same thing as consent dude. If you think otherwise, try it and let my know how it works out for you. On second thought, don't try it. I don't want that on my conscience.

"She didn't say no" is equated by a lot of people as "she said yes", though. A lot of lawyers would use that sort of thing, not to mention the general public.

BeetleManiac:

inu-kun:
So what is your point? That shitty people with biased world view and millions of listeners exist? Simply seeing who is popular on Youtube shows that (and that it's true on both sides). Or maybe that Big corporations like Fox only care about money than morals? The thing that absolutely everyone here already knows?

There's no actual politics here involved, unless someone wants to be a strawman that says that guy represents an entire political group.

Spoiler alert: You don't actually know everything.

I would say O'Reilly is more a symptom of a broken system on multiple level. Fox's toxic corporate culture, which is itself indicative of broader problems in American corporate culture. The inherent hypocrisy in modern American conservative Christianity. The ethical bankruptcy that defines today's Republican party. The lingering anachronistic idea of masculine strength that doesn't fit into 21st century culture. To repeat: O'Reilly doesn't represent all conservatives. That was your strawman retort. Rather, he is one symptom among thousands of the damage caused by broken systems.

Namehere:
Not to be as pedantic as the legal systems partially shared by the US and Canada, but it seems to me that: "And they let you!" Is a lot different then assault. If something is permitted by a party that party has consented.

This is how I can tell you're not really a lawyer. My brother is and he would laugh in your face if you said that to him. A lack of protest out of fear of reprisal is not the same thing as consent dude. If you think otherwise, try it and let my know how it works out for you. On second thought, don't try it. I don't want that on my conscience.

"Aha! Caught you at not being a lawyer!" Congratulations. Did you want to respond to the meat of my post, namely that article that suggested democrats viewed the female actor playing at being Trump more favourably then the male playing at being Mrs. Clinton, or...

Thaluikhain:

Namehere:
That said my main issue with your post is that somehow Mrs. Clinton lost the election due to being Mrs. and not Mr.

I don't see Saelune saying that. Or anyone else saying that. Now, that her gender was a factor, or that sexism was a factor, certainly.

Namehere:
If sexism played a roll in the previous election it was likely to favour Mrs. Clinton not Mr. Trump.

Yeah, no.

Well strangely the mostly 'liberal' New York audience preferred the Trump message and the manerisms of the actress giving it... people who by the way almost to an individual did vote for Mrs. Clinton. How do you explain that if there wasn't an element of sexism to begin with foisted for Hillary Clinton rather then against? After all this was a word for word, gesture for gesture - to the best of the two actors' abilities - rehash of the debate. Nothing else changed... except who they liked. So how do you explain that?

Edit: And and by 'Mr. Clinton' I didn't mean former President Bill Clinton, I just meant if she'd been a man instead of a woman. She could have followed more of his campaign advice though. He warned her about avoiding the Rust Belt and in retrospect it seems he was correct.

inu-kun:

erttheking:

inu-kun:

And? Do you want to say that this guy represents all american Conservatives?

Did I say that? Did I say that? Seriously, look through my post and then tell me if I said that. Spoiler alert. I didn't.

So what is your point? That shitty people with biased world view and millions of listeners exist? Simply seeing who is popular on Youtube shows that (and that it's true on both sides). Or maybe that Big corporations like Fox only care about money than morals? The thing that absolutely everyone here already knows?

If I may...yes, big corporations generally care about money more than morals. But when you're Fox News and you constantly sermonize about morality and family values while covering up, defending and yes, enabling the sexual harassment behavior of two of your top people over more than a decade...well, that's not a great look.

And no, not every big corporation would do that sort of thing (see the case of Mark Hurd, former CEO of HP, as an example).

Parasondox:

Kwak:

LEAKED: Fox News 8pm anchor audition tape. pic.twitter.com/k7JHKSDgAt? The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) 20 April 2017

Speaks for itself. This is only the tip of the shit mountain that is Fox news media.

Many knew about Fox News's sexist behaviour for several years now. Hell, the female host have to show leg. This is some Mad Men whatever fucking decade it is, bullshit. Another question. Now on fucking earth can women still watch Fox News? How? Why and How? They treat women like objects and shit and YET get support. Actually same question about voting Trump. HOW AND WHY?!?
It's like me voting to support the KKK and other White Supremacist groups. Why would I ever fucking do that? I don't have a death wish.

One more thing. These so called sponsors who advertise on that network and still give money to Fox News even with all this information? Who are they? How much are they giving? Cause if those same ones are boycotting YouTube, you better give me a fucking good reason why you support Fox News.

The propaganda of the far right does target women too. Doesn't work as well on them as it does on men because it tends to play to a certain masculine machismo and has a lot of weird ideas about women's rights but that doesn't mean there are none who take the bait. Marine LePen's a woman, so's our Frauke Petry

Basically, the narrative rightists present women is that there are these wife beaters and rapists coming from abroad who want to rape them and molest them and force them to wear burquas and only good, european men can save them by locking them in their kitchen, making dozens of blonde haired, blue eyed babies with them and do terrible things to these evil muslim invaders.

Probably somewhat the same in America, just replace "muslim invaders" with "mexican invaders" and remove the part about burquas.

erttheking:

inu-kun:

erttheking:

Did I say that? Did I say that? Seriously, look through my post and then tell me if I said that. Spoiler alert. I didn't.

So what is your point? That shitty people with biased world view and millions of listeners exist? Simply seeing who is popular on Youtube shows that (and that it's true on both sides). Or maybe that Big corporations like Fox only care about money than morals? The thing that absolutely everyone here already knows?

There's no actual politics here involved, unless someone wants to be a strawman that says that guy represents an entire political group.

No, I don't have to pick between "no politics" and "he represents all conservatives." That's a false dilemma. Fox News as a whole represents a subset of conservatives. A decent size subset of conservatives that are anti-intellectual (I would like to remind you that this guy once claimed that you can't explain how tides work and there wasn't so much as a blip in his viewership) and take a disturbing amount of pleasure in warfare (Fox News recently reacted to footage of the MOAB being dropped by claiming "this is what freedom looks like." This is the conservative news in America and it gets so many people watching it for a reason.

Now, I know that there are plenty of conservatives out there that absolutely hate Fox News. The numbers of pro FN vs anti FN? I can't claim to know those. But there's plenty of conservatives out there that swallow up a lot of what they say. Including them glorifying the Bill of Rights one second, yet advocating that every nearly single part of it get violated because of Muslims (Oh, except the one that allows people to own their precious fucking guns of course, and the third amendment, but that's only because citizens housing soldiers has pretty much no relevance in the modern era)

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/iiculo/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-weak-constitution

Something something "their moral code is a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble."

Give me numbers, what is the precentage of conservatives you think are represented by this guy? And while you are at it prove me that all of them actually support this guy on everything he says and does rather than just the parts they agree with (he is a political commentator no? Why would people care he doesn't know how tides work) and couldn't give less of a shit about his personnal life.

To me it just seems like people using him as a way to rant on "the right" which is entirely smiliar to how people rant on "the left".

inu-kun:

erttheking:

inu-kun:

So what is your point? That shitty people with biased world view and millions of listeners exist? Simply seeing who is popular on Youtube shows that (and that it's true on both sides). Or maybe that Big corporations like Fox only care about money than morals? The thing that absolutely everyone here already knows?

There's no actual politics here involved, unless someone wants to be a strawman that says that guy represents an entire political group.

No, I don't have to pick between "no politics" and "he represents all conservatives." That's a false dilemma. Fox News as a whole represents a subset of conservatives. A decent size subset of conservatives that are anti-intellectual (I would like to remind you that this guy once claimed that you can't explain how tides work and there wasn't so much as a blip in his viewership) and take a disturbing amount of pleasure in warfare (Fox News recently reacted to footage of the MOAB being dropped by claiming "this is what freedom looks like." This is the conservative news in America and it gets so many people watching it for a reason.

Now, I know that there are plenty of conservatives out there that absolutely hate Fox News. The numbers of pro FN vs anti FN? I can't claim to know those. But there's plenty of conservatives out there that swallow up a lot of what they say. Including them glorifying the Bill of Rights one second, yet advocating that every nearly single part of it get violated because of Muslims (Oh, except the one that allows people to own their precious fucking guns of course, and the third amendment, but that's only because citizens housing soldiers has pretty much no relevance in the modern era)

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/iiculo/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-weak-constitution

Something something "their moral code is a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble."

Give me numbers, what is the precentage of conservatives you think are represented by this guy? And while you are at it prove me that all of them actually support this guy on everything he says and does rather than just the parts they agree with (he is a political commentator no? Why would people care he doesn't know how tides work) and couldn't give less of a shit about his personnal life.

To me it just seems like people using him as a way to rant on "the right" which is entirely smiliar to how people rant on "the left".

What would that change? Numbers? I have no goddamn idea. Enough to help keep afloat the number one conservative news station in America, is that good enough? Proof that they support everything that they say? How about the fact that they support him at all. If you support someone but don't agree with everything they say, it doesn't matter, because they still support him. This isn't the election, you don't have a grand total of two people to choose from and you have to stick with one. Why wouldn't they care if he knew how tides work? Because when you're listening to someone for commentary, you're supposed to listen to someone who isn't a fucking moron. I never said anything about his personal life.

Well it certainly would seem like that if you ignore the bulk of my post. I was only talking about some conservatives, but sure, let's boil it down to that. Trust me, if I wanted to criticize the right as a whole, I'd have no shortage of ammunition, what with their main public news station should stop talking about how human rights should be trampled on the second upholding them stops being convenient, but I'm not. I'm talking about the people who watch and support that. Which isn't a small number.

Smithnikov:
Much as I hate the man, not all that joyful about it, since this is likely an internal politics move, not because he's a horrible person. Conservative media, I've noticed, tend not to can people unless they've already had it in for them for awhile now. People, Micheal Savage and Mark Levin are still on the air, remember....

Well lets be fair. Bill probably is a terrible person. It was a still a politically motivated move, seeings how some of the harassment claims go back decades. So his behavior hasn't suddenly changed. And Fox knew about his behavior for years.

Why now can only be answered as a political move.

But he still deserved it, regardless the backroom deals.

Namehere:
"Aha! Caught you at not being a lawyer!" Congratulations. Did you want to respond to the meat of my post, namely that article that suggested democrats viewed the female actor playing at being Trump more favourably then the male playing at being Mrs. Clinton, or...

Not really, no. I do find it disturbing that you have such a flippant attitude as regards consent and seem willing to side with a sexual predator over the victim. I'm really hoping it isn't just a wind-up for another disingenuous "WAT ABOUT DA MENZ!!?" rant.

BeetleManiac:

Namehere:
"Aha! Caught you at not being a lawyer!" Congratulations. Did you want to respond to the meat of my post, namely that article that suggested democrats viewed the female actor playing at being Trump more favourably then the male playing at being Mrs. Clinton, or...

Not really, no. I do find it disturbing that you have such a flippant attitude as regards consent and seem willing to side with a sexual predator over the victim. I'm really hoping it isn't just a wind-up for another disingenuous "WAT ABOUT DA MENZ!!?" rant.

Name the victim please. That's what I thought. In a hypothetical I can only go off the evidence at hand. Taking his statement entirely out of context, you might be right. In context, it appears that wealth seems to attract women. No surprise really. I find it shocking that you have such a flippant attitude towards criminal allegations. I guess we'll all have to learn to live with it. After all he wasn't talking about groping his staff. Or is his wealth so overpowering to those around him that nobody can be trusted to act without heavily influencing them? If that's the case I guess nobody could consent to anything he did to them. You know, because money. I can't accept that.

I would further add that it seems to me billionaire came up... What was it, vampire, werewolf and then billionaire I believe. So the third most sought after pornographic stories for women on Google's search engine according to Googles engineers who collected the analytics. So while he likely isn't quite a billionaire yet, he seems to fit the bill for many women's sexual fantasies. It's not terribly surprising they might not object to him. And while the absence of objection isn't consent, given a lack of formal charges effectively filed against him and his willingness to discuss that incident? I have to assume she didn't object in the aftermath. To me it's merely another element of a smear campaign that fits in nicely with the modern progressive movement. I am naturally unmoved by it.

Did you want to continue this meaningless dance where neither of us can prove the actual circumstances of the incident, or if it even happened? Shall we chalk it up to his character that he thought this was a good story to tell anyone? This is a rather tired song and dance...

No no wind up for what about the menz. I leave it to you and the what about the womenz rants. I merely find it unseemly to make allegations of criminal conduct against a person when the police and courts don't seem to be able to substantiate them. I'm weird that way.

Namehere:
Name the victim please. That's what I thought. In a hypothetical I can only go off the evidence at hand. Taking his statement entirely out of context, you might be right. In context, it appears that wealth seems to attract women. No surprise really. I find it shocking that you have such a flippant attitude towards criminal allegations. I guess we'll all have to learn to live with it. After all he wasn't talking about groping his staff. Or is his wealth so overpowering to those around him that nobody can be trusted to act without heavily influencing them? If that's the case I guess nobody could consent to anything he did to them. You know, because money. I can't accept that.

I would further add that it seems to me billionaire came up... What was it, vampire, werewolf and then billionaire I believe. So the third most sought after pornographic stories for women on Google's search engine according to Googles engineers who collected the analytics. So while he likely isn't quite a billionaire yet, he seems to fit the bill for many women's sexual fantasies. It's not terribly surprising they might not object to him. And while the absence of objection isn't consent, given a lack of formal charges effectively filed against him and his willingness to discuss that incident? I have to assume she didn't object in the aftermath. To me it's merely another element of a smear campaign that fits in nicely with the modern progressive movement. I am naturally unmoved by it.

What in fuck's name are you on about? Is this your actual opinion of women?

No no wind up for what about the menz. I leave it to you and the what about the womenz rants. I merely find it unseemly to make allegations of criminal conduct against a person when the police and courts don't seem to be able to substantiate them. I'm weird that way.

You're also the dude who thought that the Canadian government adding LGBTQ people to the list of demographics it's illegal to discriminate against was going to abolish your freedom of speech. And when I posted the actual text of the law, you abandoned the thread.

You can talk all the shit you want. Just don't be surprised if that's the only thing people know you for.

Coming from the right, I couldn't care less. I just find it amusing how the left finds this a victory. Most folks on the right, in my opinion, are far more concerned about the message rather then the messenger.

Oh and lastly, I'd love to get fired and get 25 million.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here