Reni Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 well, there are ample examples of his scumbucketry filling the airwaves everyday both on TV and the radio. How one chooses to define scumbucketry may differ from mine.....but in my world? he is indeed, a scumbucket. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 but in my world? he is indeed, a scumbucket. It also sounds like in your world, people who settle lawsuits must be guilty. I would bet he is, but settling a lawsuit is evidence of absolutely nothing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 well, when it comes to a person who is in a position like Bill O'Reilly where his entire career rests on his "credibility" I would THINK that if he were innocent of such charges, he would want to clear his name entirely....not sweep it under the rug. Maybe he didn't sell enough Factor for Kids books to pay for the lawyers....... *shrug* Also, if she was falsely accusing him, he could have countersued for slander.....no? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 well, there are ample examples of his scumbucketry filling the airwaves everyday both on TV and the radio. How one chooses to define scumbucketry may differ from mine.....but in my world? he is indeed, a scumbucket. I'm all for substantively void conclusions. But I'd honestly be interested to know to what you are referring when you speak of the everyday examples. I know he comes off like a pompous windbag, but could you cite some examples of specific scumbucketry? thanks, Neil Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 well, I actually watch and listen to him more than a healthy, normal person should.....so I don't make all my conclusions on soundbites put out by Media Matters (which is a known liberal media watchdog). I think this has been posted before......he is pretty much a scumbag here. He is a bully and an asshole. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 (edited) well, when it comes to a person who is in a position like Bill O'Reilly where his entire career rests on his "credibility" I would THINK that if he were innocent of such charges, he would want to clear his name entirely....not sweep it under the rug. Maybe he didn't sell enough Factor for Kids books to pay for the lawyers....... *shrug* Also, if she was falsely accusing him, he could have countersued for slander.....no? Yes, but the fundamental point here is that when image/credibility is everything, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. You think a 3 year lawsuit with a jury trial where he countersues for slander is in his best interests or helps his image? You think Fox wants that? Not to mention, juries dont always make the right decisions. O'Reilly could have been right, but 3 yrs of a trial would have kept this story in the news every day. To retain any credibility he had to make the story disappear -- and that is a fact whether he was guilty or not. So the fact that the story did disappear (by settling) has no impact on whether it was true or not. I cant believe I am in the position of defending this schmuck -- I hate Bill O'Reilly. It just amazes me how folks on the left employ the guilty until proven innocent mantra for folks on the right when it suits them and then use it as their rallying cry to criticize the right for guantanamo detainees and wiretaps. EDIT: For the record, you get no argument from me on his scumbucketry. I just think its an unfair leap to say that he is definitively a sexual harrasser... Edited August 10, 2006 by MattZ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 Well, I guess you are right in that we will never know for sure if he is guilty or not..... I was just amazed that someone who rides so high on their moral highhorse wouldn't do everything in their power to keep their name in tact and denounce the person who has slanderized them by calling their bluff and turning the tables on them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 O'Reilly was fighting the allegations both legally and in the public forum up until it became known that the accuser had audio tapes of some of his more disgusting phone calls. Then all of a sudden he rushed into settling the lawsuit and vowed to never talk publicly about it again. Take that for what you will. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Well, I guess you are right in that we will never know for sure if he is guilty or not..... I was just amazed that someone who rides so high on their moral highhorse wouldn't do everything in their power to keep their name in tact and denounce the person who has slanderized them by calling their bluff and turning the tables on them. let me give you an absurd example from my own current practice. I represent a couple (two of the nicest 50 or 60-somethings you've ever met, never been in trouble, totally trustworthy folks) who in 2004 sold their home to a man who had never bought a house before. This is a $400,000, 34-year old townhouse in a nice area of Houston. Six months after the sale, a leak somewhere in a roof made part of the ceiling in the kitchen collapse. The buyer also discovered that one of the bedroom floors was off-level by about 3 inches. He also discovered that the side-yard sprinkler system was a do-it-yourselfer from home depot that my clients installed themselves. My clients have now been sued for fraud, fraud in a real estate transaction, and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The buyer claims that my little old couple defrauded him by hiding the off-level of the bedroom floor, by disclosing on the seller's disclosure form that the lawn had a sprinkler system, and by hiding the roof leak--that my clients knew NOTHING about. Now, the first thing I told them when they got served with the lawsuit, was that they could pay the buyer something now, through some form of mediation/settlement, and have this go away, or they could pay me and go to battle. We are no where even near half-way through the case at this point, and their legal bill with me is already over $8,000.00 (billed at a reduced rate of $175/hour, and I bill VERY conservatively on this file because the case just pisses me off to no end). We have not had any depositions, we've not gone to mediation yet, we're probably a year away from any trial, and we're still battling discovery issues. We probably could have settled at the very beginning for $5,000. But they would have to live with knowing that they were extorted in broad daylight, and that the payment of money, regardless of what the settlement docs would say (they all say "we're paying you $$, but we admit no wrongdoing") they would feel like somehow the world would think they're guilty of fraud. That's our legal system. Now, imagine what it would cost (in $$, time, and stress) O'Reilly in a high profile case like the one we're talking about... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.