Why do Republicans have so many sex scandals?

[Tassman]

o'reilly lost what, 75 million dollars and his job? 75 million sounds pretty steep to me.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ger-ailes.html

Of course, you idiots think making a lewd remark should result in being executed or something so I'm not surprised that isn't "steep" enough for you. At this point I'm pretty much aspiring to be a sexual harassment victim because I'd be a few comments about my butt away from a multi-million dollars payout.

So it's OK to trivialise victims of sexual harassment apparently, gotta love your Conservative moral values.

[Cow Poke]

It is perceived by Conservatives as the preferred news source:[/url]

Give it up, Tazzy ---- your original statement was a steaming pile of horsie poo, and you're just twisting in the wind.

[Cow Poke]

From presents itself as to perceived by some as [ATTACH=CONFIG]22059[/ATTACH]

Yeah, I think it's physically impossible for him to say "yeah, I may have overstated...."

[Cow Poke]

So THIS is the real reason for your rancor... Ailes was able to build a counter to the mainstream elitist leftist propaganda arm for the DNC, and give the "drop even the pretense of fairness" lefties a run for their money.

[Darth Executor]

Oh really! Ailes and O'Reilly are both walking away with millions of dollars.

So what? What does their issue with various women have to do with whether Fox owes them money as per their contract? Neither of them have even been convicted in a court of law.

O'reilly was getting 25 million dollars A YEAR. Claiming that his losing that contract is actually him benefitting is insanely stupid.

So it's OK to trivialise victims of sexual harassment apparently, gotta love your Conservative moral values.

Like I said, I'd trade having lewd remarks thrown my way for millions of dollars any day. It's not me trivializing sexual harassment, it's that it actually is a trivial issue compared to the overbloated payout. You can falsely accuse someone of sexual harassment and rob them of milions of dollars just because they want to make you go away.

[Mountain Man]

So THIS is the real reason for your rancor... Ailes was able to build a counter to the mainstream elitist leftist propaganda arm for the DNC, and give the "drop even the pretense of fairness" lefties a run for their money.

Of course he doesn't have a single problem with liberal outlets like CNN and The New York Times and all the rest giving what are essentially "gift in kind" handouts to the Democrat party.

[Tassman]

So THIS is the real reason for your rancor... Ailes was able to build a counter to the mainstream elitist leftist propaganda arm for the DNC, and give the "drop even the pretense of fairness" lefties a run for their money.

No, you were querying my assertion that Fox saw itself as the font of Conservative values. It did! Ailes made that his stated mission. AND it was perceived by Conservatives as such. Hence its position as the preferred news source for conservatives. .

[Tassman]

So what? What does their issue with various women have to do with whether Fox owes them money as per their contract? Neither of them have even been convicted in a court of law.

Are yoiu casting doubt on their claims?

O'reilly was getting 25 million dollars A YEAR. Claiming that his losing that contract is actually him benefitting is insanely stupid.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ger-ailes.html

Like I said, I'd trade having lewd remarks thrown my way for millions of dollars any day. It's not me trivializing sexual harassment, it's that it actually is a trivial issue compared to the overbloated payout. You can falsely accuse someone of sexual harassment and rob them of milions of dollars just because they want to make you go away.

Yes it IS you trivializing sexual harassment by implying, without evidence, that the women were in it for the money. I'm sure the highly expensive lawyers retained by Murdoch and co would not have recommended paying out such large sums, nor losing such top revenue earners in Ailes and O'Reilly, if there was any other way around it.

[Mountain Man]

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...illy-coverage/

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

No, you were querying my assertion that Fox saw itself as the font of Conservative values.

At this point, I can't tell if you're just that blatantly dishonest, or downright stupid. I was not "querying" it, I was challenging it as false. Here is what you actually said... (bolding mine)

They were face of Fox, that self-proclaimed promoter of Conservative moral values.

Why can't you just be a big boy and say, "ok, I exaggerated a bit".

[rogue06]

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...illy-coverage/

© Copyright Original Source

It appears that many of the companies like Pfizer, Allstate, Bayer, and Eli Lilly that stopped advertising on O'Reilly's show because of the allegations against him were also heavy contributors to the Clinton Foundation

[Tassman]

At this point, I can't tell if you're just that blatantly dishonest, or downright stupid. I was not "querying" it, I was challenging it as false. Here is what you actually said... (bolding mine)

Why can't you just be a big boy and say, "ok, I exaggerated a bit".

Ah! So in your mind you separate Conservative values, as actively promoted by Ailes and co. at Fox, from Conservative moral values. I see. Just as well given the moral reprobates who were the leading lights at Fox News!

[Roy]

It appears that many of the companies like Pfizer, Allstate, Bayer, and Eli Lilly that stopped advertising on O'Reilly's show because of the allegations against him were also heavy contributors to the Clinton Foundation

No surprise there - many large corporations contribute to both repubs and dems, so that they've got influence regardless of which party is in government. The same happens in the UK, albeit on a smaller scale.

[rogue06]

No surprise there - many large corporations contribute to both repubs and dems, so that they've got influence regardless of which party is in government. The same happens in the UK, albeit on a smaller scale.

Aside from the fact that O'Reilly is not a Republican, in this case they boycotted one because of allegations of sexual harassment while supporting the other in spite of allegations of not just harassment but far worse.

Still, you are right about contributions made to the Clinton Foundation being made because they expected to have influence with a Hillary Clinton Administration (pay for play, quid pro quo or what have you), and now that this won't happen it seems that donations have rapidly dried up (as have offers of $200,000 for a couple minutes long speech).

[rogue06]

Ah! So in your mind you separate Conservative values, as actively promoted by Ailes and co. at Fox, from Conservative moral values. I see. Just as well given the moral reprobates who were the leading lights at Fox News!

He simply wants you to corroborate your accusation that Fox is a "self-proclaimed promoter of Conservative moral values." When has the network ever made this claim?