View Full Version : Bill O'Reilly 'mad at God' over sexual misconduct allegations
https://i.imgur.com/1DqVIZL.jpg
Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly blamed reports of sexual misconduct on a politically motivated media. On Monday, he admitted that he also blames a higher power.
"You know, am I mad at God? Yeah, I'm mad at him," O'Reilly said on the latest episode of his web series, "No Spin News." "I wish I had more protection. I wish this stuff didn't happen. I can't explain it to you. Yeah, I'm mad at him."
He then said that he derives perspective from the tribulations of others, including Kate Steinle, a woman who was allegedly shot by an undocumented immigrant who has been the subject of numerous O'Reilly commentaries.
O'Reilly's response to allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior has been consistent. He's emphatically denied the claims, insisting that his wealth and fame make him a target for such accusations. And he's denounced the press that has reported on the allegations -- and the ensuing settlements -- as corrupt and desperate to take him down.
But O'Reilly's comments on his show Monday evening, which came after the New York Times reported on a $32 million settlement he reached with a former Fox News colleague who accused him of sexual misconduct, might have represented his most dramatic claim for victimhood yet. At one point, he said of his adversaries, "If they could literally kill me, they would."
"If I die tomorrow and I get an opportunity, I'll say, 'Why'd you guys work me over like that? Didn't [you] know my children were going to be punished? And they're innocent,'" he said. "But then I think about people who have it much, much rougher than me. And you know, I'm a big mouth. I'm a target. They're not targets."
In the days following the Times' bombshell, O'Reilly has used social media and sympathetic media platforms to try to clear his name. Earlier on Monday, he went on a radio show hosted by Glenn Beck, also a former Fox Newser, who vouched for O'Reilly's character. O'Reilly has also directed his followers on Twitter to visit his official website for evidence designed both to exonerate himself and discredit others.
On Monday night, O'Reilly defended himself once again on his website with the latest edition of "No Spin News," which has served as his primary platform since he was ousted at Fox News in April.
The network sacked O'Reilly, who had reigned as the top-rated host on cable news for years, weeks after the Times reported on settlements that he, Fox News and the network's parent company 21st Century Fox -- together or separately -- had made with women who had accused him of sexual harassment or other inappropriate behavior.
O'Reilly said Monday that the success of his web series and his latest book, "Killing England," as well as a recent appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News program, prompted the Times to declare, "You know, we didn't kill him, so we've got to kill him again."
"So they came back with another bunch of garbage. I talked to them this time just to see the devil that I was dealing with," he said. "And I truly believe that these people at the New York Times are out to hurt people with whom they disagree. They don't want me in the marketplace. That's what this is all about."
O'Reilly said once again that he struck the settlements to protect his children, and that he wants the story "to go away." He plans on defending himself, but only on friendly platforms like Beck's show. On Tuesday, O'Reilly said he'll talk to conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, who will debut in Fox News' primetime lineup next week.
O'Reilly said he spoke to another Fox News personality, Sean Hannity, earlier on Monday.
"We're two Long Island guys, we've known each other for more than 20 years," O'Reilly said of Hannity. "So I was talking to him and you know, I said, 'Look I don't want to go on a tour or on the morning shows. I don't want to do any of this. All right. All I want to do is present what we have, get people to look at what we have, and make up your mind. Make up your own mind about it. That's what I'm trying to do here.'"
CNNMoney (New York) (http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/23/media/bill-oreilly-misconduct-allegations/index.html?sr=twCNN102317bill-oreilly-misconduct-allegations0947PMStory)
First published October 23, 2017: 9:05 PM ET
Seshmeister
10-25-2017, 12:57 PM
Creep also has some serious mental issues
Seshmeister
10-25-2017, 01:11 PM
Bill O'Reilly is just one of the countless terrible men in media
Jill Abramson
There has been much discussion of late about a secret list called Shitty Media Men that has been circulating in private emails and on the internet. But the shittiest men in media have revealed themselves. That list begins with Bill O’Reilly.
Everyone should listen to his outrageous claims of victimhood on the New York Times’ podcast, The Daily. It is truly remarkable and more than galling to hear the self-justifications of a man who, with his ex-employer Fox News, paid out a staggering $45m to settle sexual misconduct cases with co-workers, underlings and others.
There is no hint of remorse in his voice. There is only cold fury at the two intrepid Times reporters who revealed the settlements last spring and again last week and the grotesque details of the sexual harassment complaints against him. The only pity O’Reilly expressed in an on-the-record, taped interview is for the “grave danger” and pain inflicted upon his own children.
There is still plenty of fear. There are still plenty of shitty men in the media.
After the reporters turned off the microphone they used in the interview, held in a small conference room at the office of O’Reilly’s lawyer, they kept recording on their phones. It was then that O’Reilly really let loose. “This is bullshit. It’s on you. It’s all crap,” he thunders at Michael Schmidt and Emily Steele. “This is horrible what I went through. This is crap and you know it. It’s politically and financially motivated.”
How could the Times possibly be accused of having political motivations when the paper had just brought down ultra-liberal, Democratic producer Harvey Weinstein?
O’Reilly was a uniquely powerful figure at Fox, king of the ratings and multimillionaire author (his new book, Killing England, still sits atop the Times’ bestseller list). It shouldn’t be forgotten that sexual harassment is often more about abuse of power than sex.
O’Reilly’s allegations are what’s crap. The biggest financial motivations belonged to him and Fox, which had recently lost another star, Megyn Kelly, to NBC. Kelly revealed on Monday that she was among the women who complained to Fox about Mr O’Reilly. Soon after the $32m settlement and knowing full well about it and the horrendous allegations of over 15 years of misconduct led to it, the Roger Ailes-tainted Fox nonetheless agreed to a new four-year, $100m contract.
The network only fired O’Reilly last April after learning the Feds were investigating the half-dozen sex cases involving him and after their lawyer told the Murdochs that the full scope of the O’Reilly settlements would surely be leaked to the news media. (The Times had already revealed $12m in settlements). Luckily for Fox, O’Reilly’s new contract had an escape clause allowing the network to terminate him for sexual misconduct.
Read more
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/25/bill-o-reilly-fox-terrible-men-media
Kristy
10-25-2017, 03:21 PM
Yet, here you are slave SESH promoting violence against women by allowing porn in your site. As usual, your words says nothing...nothing at all.
You really need to eat a bag of dicks, you fucking Euro-trash hypocrite.
Kristy
10-25-2017, 03:40 PM
The slave SESH genetic pool, everybody
https://youtu.be/2ELqp4LALkI
AND...
He promotes violence against women AND censorship.
Seshmeister
10-25-2017, 04:21 PM
Yet, here you are slave SESH promoting violence against women by allowing porn in your site. As usual, your words says nothing...nothing at all.
There is no porn on this site and yet you still want to CENSOR it.
A couple of years now and you don't seem to be able to work out a cohesive ideology, if only you had lasted longer at college...
Kristy
10-25-2017, 07:26 PM
Oh look everybody, the white male gets to define what porn is.
Terry
10-25-2017, 09:14 PM
What I have trouble understanding is...well, maybe it's not so much trouble understanding it...I dunno...
Like, was it outside the realm of possibility for all these wealthy media types to just hire hookers/call girls/escorts? I suppose one can make the counter-argument that some (many?) sex trade workers are also subjected to abuse, particularly if they have a pimp and are therefore sex slaves to a degree. However, I tend to doubt ALL sex trade workers are doing that they do against their will.
Or is the form of the harassment secondary to these abusers? In other words, for the abusers, is the sexualized aspect of the harassment just a means to an end, the ultimate end being forced control/physical domination of a woman?
Surely Harvey Weinstein could have found a 'massage therapist' - and not in the form of a virtually enslaved young Asian woman - to either give him a handy or watch him masturbate, seeing as that is apparently what he is into, if it was just sexual gratification he wanted. Even as ugly as he is, I'm sure Weinstein wouldn't have had a shortage of aspiring young starlets readily willing to engage in those types of activities with him, in exchange for movie roles.
All of the above scenarios are hardly laudable, but at least they're not criminal in that Weinstein wouldn't have been forcing himself upon anyone in those scenarios.
When it crosses the line into assault, which is what Weinstein was doing (and is still assault even if the victim eventually relents)...I can't say it becomes less about sex to the victim, but I think for Weinstein it was a type of sexualized...violence against women.
It's not a shock that more and more of these men in positions of power in the entertainment world are being outed as abusers now that the floodgates have opened.
I'm sure Elliot Spitzer is laughing his ass off at the irony of all this bullshit. He may have paid way too much for his hookers, but at least he wasn't harassing his co-workers.
I hope Bernie appoints him Attorney General in 2020.
Kristy
10-26-2017, 02:33 PM
*sigh*
Once again, the deluded Bernie brats refuse to accept reality.
Hey, maybe you and slave SESH can go on the road together. You know, talking about how high school never ended, you homoerotic obsession with a aging rock star that most people think is dead, but most of all you can speak on your white male burden of how you must redefine everything.
Best of luck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uQ1e1isOa0
Kristy
10-26-2017, 03:15 PM
Ghey.
As usual.
private parts
10-26-2017, 03:17 PM
Bernie........ in 2020........:lmao::lmao::lmao:
http://thepoliticalinsider.com/content/uploads/2017/09/2020-Dem-Primary-Poll-1505407632.png
For the record, I would also vote for Elizabeth Warren. The rest of that list? Not fucking likely.
Seshmeister
10-26-2017, 09:44 PM
You democrat people need to find a fucking sensible candidate soon who isn't over 70. It's not an overstatement to say a second Orange 45 term could seriously endanger Western civilization.
Also I'm astonished that Mark Zuckerburg is as high as 4th? That is a fucking ridiculous idea.
Problem with the Democratic party is that so-called "Democrats" under 50 literally have no idea what a Democratic president looks like, because they have never seen one. Jimmy Carter was the last actual Democrat to hold that office, and sadly the Turd Way types have helped perpetuate the BCE lies about him that he was "weak" and "ineffective" (which means he wasn't a warmongering whore of the oil industry, and actually managed to broker a peace deal between Israel & Egypt, rather than prostitute himself out to the Likud party)
Hell, Jimmy's really the only Democratic president I can remember. I was born during LBJ's term, and aside from the obvious Vietnam clusterfuck, he was alright. But I can't exactly remember anything about those years.
Terry
10-26-2017, 10:09 PM
It'll be Oprah Winfrey in 2020 for the Dems.
And I'll gladly vote for her.
At least those pretenders Corey Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand didn't even make that list above: if the Democratic Party nominated either of them, they deserve to lose to Trump.
That McAuliffe even garnered 1% is depressing.
Gillibrand is on the poll. Fortunately she only got 3%. As far as Oprah goes, I'm sure she could take Cheeto in a celebrity vs celebrity match. And unlike Cheeto, she's actually successful at business. Still doesn't mean she would make a good president though. So it would come down to who her VP was. Hopefully not the "Democratic" equivalent of Pence. (that actually would be the piece of shit who ran with Hillary last time)
Kristy
10-27-2017, 12:00 AM
Gillibrand is on the poll.
We have a winner! It's still early Bernie brat so try not to cry too much.
vandeleur
10-27-2017, 05:29 AM
The democrats are like th uk Labour Party, it’s incredible to think neither have an alternative to the shit people in power but here we are.
You can say what you like in opposition but when you get into power it’s a different thing , then you have to lie about it :)
twonabomber
10-27-2017, 09:57 AM
Also I'm astonished that Mark Zuckerburg is as high as 4th? That is a fucking ridiculous idea.
I like when someone claims that Trump isn't qualified to be president, then they say that Michelle Obama should run. Being a former First Lady qualifies one for the presidency?
Seshmeister
10-27-2017, 11:27 AM
No but she's more qualified than Trump as are you and the majority of people.
Seshmeister
10-27-2017, 11:31 AM
It'll be Oprah Winfrey in 2020 for the Dems.
And I'll gladly vote for her.
The queen of pseudo science, superstition and an egomaniac, surely you can do better.
Being a black woman would go down well though in those marginal states I'm sure... :)
SHAFTA Tommy Perez says he wants his own clown car in 2020, just like the Republicans had in 2016
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoinc/ct-met-tom-perez-dossier-1027-chicago-inc-20171026-story.html
Ironically, there is no mention of either Oprah or Michelle (both Chicago natives) in the article.
Seshmeister
10-27-2017, 11:46 AM
Unfortunately I think Tom Hanks ruled himself out a while ago.
People just want someone they think they already know because they can't be bothered reading or learning and stuff.
I'm trying to think of someone from US TV that seems nice, Jim Henson sprang to mind but he's dead...
twonabomber
10-27-2017, 12:08 PM
The queen of pseudo science, superstition and an egomaniac, surely you can do better.
Being a black woman would go down well though in those marginal states I'm sure... :)
Dr. Phil as surgeon general? That's one way to get him off TV.
Unfortunately I think Tom Hanks ruled himself out a while ago.
People just want someone they think they already know because they can't be bothered reading or learning and stuff.
I'm trying to think of someone from US TV that seems nice, Jim Henson sprang to mind but he's dead...
The FundaMENTAList wackjobs would never vote for Tom Hanks. He used to be a cross dresser....
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vb-t-JtspXI/TrCpTx8JlYI/AAAAAAAAB7I/mMXlItjq5jQ/s1600/bosom-buddies-tom-hanks.jpg
Von Halen
10-27-2017, 02:49 PM
I don’t know why you people are even thinking about this right now. You’ve got 7 years to go.
You really think Cheeto is going to make it to 2020, let alone "re-elected" (even through that outdated leftover of slavery known as the "electoral college")
I used to think ImOrangement would begin on January 21, 2019, regardless of which party won the Congressional midterms. Now I'm not so sure they're going to wait that long. Pence won't be very happy about losing his shot at a 10 year reign (like he's not in charge already, like Poppy & Cheney before him???) but the Kochs & the Mercers & the other inheritance billionaire scum can smell the blood in the water. Why do you think they're trying so hard to ram another tax burden on the working class down our throats now, while they still can?
https://youtu.be/GXl8vRmLeJk
Von Halen
10-27-2017, 03:39 PM
Wasn’t there just some revelation about the Dems, NObama and Hillbillary included, with Russian bullshit?
It’s hilarious some of you people actually believe any of the Governmental, with an emphasis on mental, is any better than any of their counterparts.
Yeah, I've heard about something like that......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7yWn-RosPQ
Not all that surprising to me. I was "over" the Clintons the day that Bill signed the FAUX Noize/Scumcast/Fear Channel Enabling Act of 1996. :puke:
Kristy
10-27-2017, 07:12 PM
The democrats are like the uk Labour Party...
Not really. Ours still have their teeth.
Terry
10-27-2017, 07:40 PM
The queen of pseudo science, superstition and an egomaniac, surely you can do better.
Being a black woman would go down well though in those marginal states I'm sure... :)
No, sadly, right now in the Democratic Party we CAN'T do any better.
The states that went for Trump in a landslide - the usual republican stronghold states - would doubtless not vote for Winfrey: they wouldn't vote for anybody else, either. Probably not even Sanders, because in those states socialism equals 'commonism'.
Terry
10-27-2017, 07:42 PM
You really think Cheeto is going to make it to 2020, let alone "re-elected" (even through that outdated leftover of slavery known as the "electoral college")
I used to think ImOrangement would begin on January 21, 2019, regardless of which party won the Congressional midterms. Now I'm not so sure they're going to wait that long. Pence won't be very happy about losing his shot at a 10 year reign (like he's not in charge already, like Poppy & Cheney before him???) but the Kochs & the Mercers & the other inheritance billionaire scum can smell the blood in the water. Why do you think they're trying so hard to ram another tax burden on the working class down our throats now, while they still can?
It wouldn't shock me to see Trump make it to the end of his term.
Unless Mueller comes up with some hard evidence.
And Congress gets the fortitude to impeach.
Right now, those are two maybes, at best.
Terry
10-27-2017, 07:43 PM
I like when someone claims that Trump isn't qualified to be president, then they say that Michelle Obama should run. Being a former First Lady qualifies one for the presidency?
It's moot, because Michelle Obama isn't going to run for president...or anything else.
Terry
10-27-2017, 07:44 PM
Gillibrand is on the poll. Fortunately she only got 3%. As far as Oprah goes, I'm sure she could take Cheeto in a celebrity vs celebrity match. And unlike Cheeto, she's actually successful at business. Still doesn't mean she would make a good president though. So it would come down to who her VP was. Hopefully not the "Democratic" equivalent of Pence. (that actually would be the piece of shit who ran with Hillary last time)
I stand corrected. She was on the poll. As you put it, fortunately at 3%.
If Hillary couldn't make it happen, why would Hillary-lite?
Terry
10-27-2017, 07:51 PM
You democrat people need to find a fucking sensible candidate soon who isn't over 70. It's not an overstatement to say a second Orange 45 term could seriously endanger Western civilization.
Also I'm astonished that Mark Zuckerburg is as high as 4th? That is a fucking ridiculous idea.
If Zuckerburg has any grand ideas beyond Facebook, it'd be a first, because having heard/read/watched several lengthy interviews of him, he's not some grand strategic thinker. He has certainly been able to portray himself in the press as such by cultivating that image, but when you get down to the substance he comes across as more boyish than mannish. A fairly smart kid who got lucky by cresting a wave that would have arrived sooner or later with or without his participation: if not Facebook, something else similar would have happened.
Seshmeister
10-27-2017, 07:59 PM
It’s hilarious some of you people actually believe any of the Governmental, with an emphasis on mental, is any better than any of their counterparts.
False equivalency. Just because one politician has faults does not mean they are all the same.
This is a big fucking dumb hole a lot of people seem to fall into these days and I think it's partly because people don't pay enough attention to history. Things in the west have been so fucking fluffy and nice for so long now people have forgotten just how cunty a government or ruler can be. In fact cunt is pretty much the norm throughout history.
Cambodians were not too worried about immigrants when the Khmer Rouge were slaughtering millions.
Kristy
10-27-2017, 08:00 PM
Not all that surprising to me. I was "over" the Clintons the day that Bill signed the FAUX Noize/Scumcast/Fear Channel Enabling Act of 1996. :puke:
Oh, for fucks sake, you can do better than this babbling asshole.
Von Halen
10-28-2017, 12:29 AM
False equivalency. Just because one politician has faults does not mean they are all the same.
Are all Scottish people as dense as you?
Yes Sesh, in American politics, they are ALL the same. Even if they don’t start out like all the others, they end up like all the others. FACT!
Terry
10-28-2017, 08:56 AM
Are all Scottish people as dense as you?
Yes Sesh, in American politics, they are ALL the same. Even if they don’t start out like all the others, they end up like all the others. FACT!
It certainly seems, by and large, that once in office most of these these elected officials (of both parties) become more concerned with perpetually staying in office - and saying and doing whatever they think will achieve that end - than doing whatever they think is right and voting in a way that reflects this rather than merely attempting to be weather vanes perched on a fence.
That certainly was a widespread perception, and not an inaccurate one, about Hillary Clinton. This perception went straight to the heart of questions people had about her ideological or core principles: in case after case (and keep in mind I voted for her) her rhetoric didn't match up with what she ended up supporting. To the point where it wasn't outlandish to wonder what exactly she DID stand for, and what principles she would be willing to defend against any and all costs and wouldn't jettison when it became politically expedient to do so, beyond her own sense of self-promotion and self-enrichment. And Hillary is FAR from the only one these various officials such a case can be made against.
private parts
11-02-2017, 02:39 PM
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774[/url][/URL]
Now I'm starting to feel the Bern
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKxB5yblWnU
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.