Bill O'Reilly hit with multimillion $ sexual harassment suit! OMG gross.

[CptStern]

oh sure... this is the first time you've flamed . just take some constructive criticsm like a good boy. i'm out of this thread if you have more concerns, raise them in a pm. thx.

edit: goes for you too stern.

please, I started off fine it didnt turn till someone started flinging mud

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I could say the same for you.

You are so hopelessly biased that any further debate is a waste of any sane man's time. You accuse O'Reilly of these things based on a woman who has shown no evidence so far to back up her claim. O'Reilly called for her to publically release any incriminating evidence she may of had against him. You seem to think that he needs to prove his innocence, when it is infact she who needs to provide this. How do you know that her lawyer didnt agree to defend her and he would take a cut if he won, and none if he lost? Again, I can make up any wild story, but unless there is proof it is useless. You are obviously so blinded with hate that you are willing to jump upon even the most pointless, outrageous claims thrown out across the internet.

No, you can't say the same for me.

Where in the hell did I ever accuse O'Reilley of anything? My point is that it's too soon to judge anyone a liar, even if you really, really want to.

This woman's claims should not be discounted off-hand, as you seemingly enjoy doing. You need evidence to point things either way. So far, a woman has made a claim, and O'Reilly's counter-claim has been rather weak. So far, the woman's story is more solid.

I'm trying to point out the folly of just making a snap decision based on nothing but assumption and what I interpret to be anti-liberal paranoia.
Oh I hate you CNN, CBS and others! Damn you liberal media!!

You are claiming that this is all just a publicity stunt, for slander, money, fame or any other easy-to-comprehend motive. But you have no facts whatsoever, and are still steadfast in your position. Why? Why is O'Reilley so infallible as to be beyond judgement?

Yes, she hasn't shown off the evidence yet. Does this mean she has no evidence? Of course not.

And anyone could tell you that there's no way in hell she isn't paying legal fees.

So why, oh why, with no evidence, do you so steadfastly pick sides?

Weren't you the same person as while back who was convinced that Bush had WMD evidence solid enough to go to war with Iraq, even though you did not know what that evidence was? Just because George Tenet called it a "slam dunk"?

Well, this woman has a claim that is millions of times more complicated than those two words, but you are not even willing to consider it possible.