It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Revealed! Clinton cartel behind Bill O’Reilly’s firing

page: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UnBreakable

Yeah? What has she said? Whatcha got?





The Democratic presidential nominee reportedly laid blame on several external factors — incompetent campaign staff, Russian interference in the election, the news media, and FBI Director Jim Comey — rather than consider that she was a flawed candidate. Her campaign has publicly blamed Comey for the loss.

www.businessinsider.com...




posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Swillsyou act like he is the first entertainer to have those charges filed against him hell look how many years charlie sheen was on cbs.sponsors don't give 2 cquacks about that their was something else to it.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328
killary got away with it because she bribed the attorney general of united states and members of the fbi. first thing sessions should have done was set up independent investigators and set them loose on her and bill and their money laundering operation , ugh i meant foundation.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost




At least O'Reilly's supporters and descendants will not record his words 20 years after he is fired, make the claim his words were delivered through an archangel by a deity, go on to divide amongst themselves based on disagreements on who his successor should be for the next 1000 years, completely suppress his abhorrent and disgusting behaviour while he was on air and instead claim his views represented the beacon of peace, love and reason, and in his name spread that peace, love and reason by murdering anyone else who criticises those beliefs or won't accept them.

Yeah, let's hope Bill O'Reilly's legacy does not tarnish the the chance of peace, stability and cohesion in the world in the years to come! (We can only hope).


Just wtf you're on about? Your great deceiver is a master bull#ter.
edit on 22-4-2017 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mekhanics

Haha, as if you have NO IDEA what I am referring to in my reply. That's ok, you can feign ignorance.

Anybody with an idea about your post history and the consistent position you have maintained will be aware of why what I said is relevant, as well as yourself — no matter how hard you try to plead ignorance.

In the country I am living, BOR is not a nationally recognised TV personality that is relevant to our country's political commentary. While I have seen him several times on pay TV and watched YouTube videos where he has been featured — including the HILARIOUS "DO IT LIVE" video, which I do watch for the comedic value — I am not a supporter of his and I do not agree with the majority of his views. He is certainly not deceiving me.


edit on 22/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost


You don't want to promote the idea that women have the capacity to be motivated by greed and fame just as men do, do you?

Why yes... yes I do.

It drives certain individuals wonky. A man has to have a little comedy relief once in a while.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Complete lack of detail.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Most likely the corporations who pulled their ads from O'Reilly donated heavily to the Clinton's. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Nothing more than a political hit job.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879


Ok so we are doing the Bill Cosby thing all over again, all those ladies just lied because???..

Because they get money for it... a lot of money! That's not rocket science.


FOX just love to dole out mad millions to staff and conservative female host and anchors just because

No one likes to dole out millions. Some people get paid that well, because they make Fox more than they get paid.

No idea about the acquisition.

You seem to be severely confused... you seem to think that a company is devoted to spending as much as is humanly possible, and that women are forced into accepting huge court settlements they don't want. Strange universe you live in.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


Perjury is lying under oath.

Yes it is, and yes she did. So did Martha Steward... remember what happened to her?


Not forgetting three little Cs in a few emails.

Otherwise known as mishandling of classified documents. General Petraeus got in big trouble for that; Clinton did much worse and got a high five from Loretta Lynch.

And Bill O'Reilly is accused of calling a woman "hot chocolate." Riiiiiiiiight.....

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No one likes to dole out millions. Some people get paid that well, because they make Fox more than they get paid.

No idea about the acquisition.

You seem to be severely confused... you seem to think that a company is devoted to spending as much as is humanly possible, and that women are forced into accepting huge court settlements they don't want. Strange universe you live in.

TheRedneck.


Oh dear, TheRedneck.

Didn't I reprimand you before about your "sexist" assumptions?

Do you honestly expect us to believe that companies "owned" by heterosexual white men would not be willing to shell out millions to settle cases involving the protection of their heterosexual white male employees so that they can keep those employees who will create the same situation in the future, perhaps multiple times?

It's pretty hard to find somebody as special and talented as BOR who is so good at being balanced and objective when speaking about controversial issues or having guests on his show and treating them with politeness and respect.

Now, if they replaced BOR with a strong independent woman, not only would they be able to avoid any future incidents of sexual harassment taking place on set (only men can perpetrate acts of sexual harassment), but everything else I mentioned before can just be safely ignored because the real issue would have been felt with. And now that the real issue has been dealt with, it is only fitting to remove all males (unless they happen to be of a different colour) from these types of positions or ensure only strong independent woman are hired in the future.

Do you really think these victims of sexual harassment on the hands of BOR only settled out of court because the "right" amount of money was compensation enough for the "trauma" they experienced at the time of the incidents? Your views about companies operating according to capitalist economics (even though they are a company that exists within a capitalist economy) means nothing, as well as your disgusting implication that the victims might be greedy or vindictive. What does that have to do with the fact that you are being apologetic towards a misogynist?


edit on 22/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Back at ya
edit on 22-4-2017 by Crumbles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Ah, you've caught me again. Foiled, in the midst of an argument!

Yes, it's true... I wake up in the middle of the night fantasizing about denying women basic human rights. I scour the Internet looking for ways to keep then from thinking they can even approach the level of superiority a male holds from birth. I'm so ashamed!

(If we don't get those sarcasm tags soon, I'm gonna bust a gut laughing...)

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: xuenchen

Do people on the right ever take any self responsibility?


...not after 8 years of the public accepting "blame my predecessor" or "blame racism" and proving how stump-ass dumb the average voter is. The right realized they had no need to take responsibility and, truth be told, they picked up a lot of registered Democrats in the rust belt since adopting that strategy.

edit on 22-4-2017 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Most everything you just said for examples would possibly be something to consider if we weren't talking about the fact she was Employed by him.

That stuff isn't legal when you have an employee/employer situation.

If we were just talking about some women that he had no power over that would be different.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   


That stuff isn't legal when you have an employee/employer situation.


Is that true legally? If it is a mutual relationship?

It seems to be about company policy, not law example:



According to a story in The New York Times, the "IMF maintains a more permissive stance" towards superior-subordinate sex, which do not, per se, constitute harassment. But "the World Bank, by contrast, says such a relationship is 'a de facto conflict of interest.'"

www.theatlantic.com...
edit on 22-4-2017 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Bill O' being a gross old pervert is behind him finally getting fired.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Most everything you just said for examples would possibly be something to consider if we weren't talking about the fact she was Employed by him.

That stuff isn't legal when you have an employee/employer situation.

If we were just talking about some women that he had no power over that would be different.


God, your post sounds awfully similar to the reasoning used by people who argue "only people in positions of power can be racist" and "only people in positions of power can be sexist", which are both BS reasons, because they are both a MISREPRESENTATION of the definition of a word and how that word functions ordinarily in every other context it is used. They use this as a way to force a narrative they want to present without allowing you to question what they are saying.

At the time BOR was working there, did the company have a specific policy outlining that relationships (outside work) between employees were strictly forbidden? Had he been warned by his superiors that there were complaints about sexual harassment from his colleagues before they fired him?

If the answer to the above to two questions is NO, then him being fired was inherently unjust and far more likely it was done to protect the image of the company compared to him breaking company policy.


edit on 23/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
It was simply ... the Murdochs. Love the CT though.

The Murdochs are known lefties.


Not sure the most of the UK would agree with that statement.
I mean they constantly push the conservative right narrative in this country and couldn't be any more against the left if they tried.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Umm the Russians DID interfere. WTF?
She didn't make that up.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join