<h1></h1>

Kari, just at face value those O'Reilly words are bodily threats, enough that both O'Reilly and his partner he ratted out, Ailes, should now have their lying pants-on-fire caught in the wringer beteen the slowly grinding wheels of justice. Free Martha. Jail FOXzis.

Media Matters has collected the O'Reilly rap sheet proving Why the more you watch the dumber they get you.

Why is Rash Lamebrain not in jail, now, today?

<h1></h1>

Kari, Thanks for that little gem. Gotta find a way to hear Al's take on this on Air America.

O'Reilly is a real piece of work. He just doesn't believe that society's accepted rules for decent behavior apply to him. Therefore he can tell lies whenever he wants to justify his own extreme views, and force his unwanted attentions on a co-worker.

What a pig.

Pedro

If there are tapes of this and it is released, O' Reilly is probably toast.

I could just imagine his radio voice making those akwardly creepy come-on's. Trying to appear young and adventurous with an intern young enough to be his daughter.

But $60 MILLION?!?

There is no other word for that than extortion. Nothing she went through was worth even 1% of that claim.

I hope O'Reilly finally falls from his perch, but she (and her lawyers) get nothing in the process.

Yeah, $60 million sounds like a lot when you think of it being handed to Mackris and her team. But as something coming out of the collective pockets of O'Reilly, News Corp., Fox News, 20th Century Fox AND Westwood One? Would they even notice the <$600,000 you suggest? Because if we as a society, and our courts, go to the expense of following a conflict through settlement or litigation, we certainly should get some assurance that any wrongdoers involved will think twice before reoffending.

Besides, I suspect that Mackris will suffer plenty more for going public with this.

I always thought he was a pompous ass. I can't wait to hear him try to explain this one.

But LC, I doubt that tapes will mean he is toast. Drug-addict Rush Limbaugh is still loved by his pro-personal-responsibility, anti-drug listeners. It's called the art of spin, and these lying liars are very good at it.

I think Suzii is absolutely right that Mackris will pay for her lawsuit. She may never get another job in her field. She's going to face pressure and repercussions she can't even begin to imagine right now, and I'll bet it will be far worse than the harrassment she's already suffered.

Could this be the Dems October surpise?

Cause if so, I fell Kerry is in a world of hurt.

Yes. This is beyond the pale.

This is way more outrageous than having an intern perform oral sex in the Oval Office then sending the First Lady and the Cabinet out to deny it for nine months.

Yes. This is more outrageous than having sex with a 14 year old while Mayor of Portland then paying hush money for 20 years so he could pull the political strings of Oregon.

I guess a sex scandal is okay as long as you're a democrat here in BlueOregon.

i found it sort of exciting until i pictured O'Reillys smirking face and pasty lips shudder

now, if it had been Edwards...

Rush is forgiven because he is considered a victim by his listerners. No one yet has suggested that Rush wanted to become addicted to pain medications, his sin was covering it up so long without seeking help. His listeners can forgive that, Rush just hurt himself and anyone who has undergone surgery can empathize with him.

But B.O.'s story is different. It's not just that he abused his position of power over an employee (people could care less) it's all the ugly kinky details connected to the unwanted come-on's.

High ick factor.

If his listeners hear these tapes, B.O. will be greaty diminished.

I don't see any mention of any tapes in the information at thesmokinggun.com. Amazing how a person can give a verbatim quote of a three-paragraph-long "monologue" from a month ago; I have enough trouble remembering what I ate for dinner last night...

"Amazing how a person can give a verbatim quote of a three-paragraph-long "monologue" from a month ago; I have enough trouble remembering what I ate for dinner last night..."

Just what I'd expect from someone who probably is used to power and control. Is it at home or work?

I have seen far more than I want to in the world of women with manipulative and powerful male bosses. You cannot begin to understand the swirl of emotions and thoughts that overwhelm a woman in that position. It's not as simple as simply quitting and walking away.

Especially if she has children.

Predators like B.O. seems to have a sense for the vulnerable ones.

There is this delicious irony -- right wingers like B.O. lament the "entitlement culture" of America and yet live their own entitlement culture.

"I guess a sex scandal is okay as long as you're a democrat here in BlueOregon."

Calling the Goldschmidt disaster a "sex scandal" is further evidence that right wingers cannot tell the difference between violent and criminal behavior and boorish, priggish behavior.

Is it worth $60 million?

Probably not.

But for someone who holds himself out as a sterling example of a "good American" -- hopefully this will be damaging.

Sure puts a kink in his book tour - If you haven't heard has a new book for teenagers "The O'Reilly Factor for Kids" http://www.billoreilly.com/charts/productchart.jsp?dispid=408

We'll all run out and by one now Bill - Thanks!

"Amazing how a person can give a verbatim quote of a three-paragraph-long "monologue" from a month ago; I have enough trouble remembering what I ate for dinner last night..."

Just what I'd expect from someone who probably is used to power and control. Is it at home or work?

Wow, Randy, nice to know we all feel safe making assumptions about eachother here. It's a shame you don't actually take the time to learn about the people you're talking about before jumping to such a mean-spirited sort of conclusion about them...

"Wow, Randy, nice to know we all feel safe making assumptions about eachother here. It's a shame you don't actually take the time to learn about the people you're talking about before jumping to such a mean-spirited sort of conclusion about them."

Oh, its just that it is so easy for people to cast aspersions on someone's ability to recall traumatic events by comparing it to your ability to remember what you ate last night.

Just the sort of "ditto-head" reaction B.O. and Rush's fan base jump to.

At least in my experience with such folk.

Perhaps if you don't want someone calling you on your reasoning and arguments you might want to sleep on them before posting.

Just because your reasoning and argument is weak doesn't mean you are a bad person. I have many friends and relatives who think the same way -- many of whom are genuinely good people.

Wow, Randy, you got me. I admit I am a weak-minded person. You are right and I am wrong.

Your free to have an opinion, and your free to disagree with mine. I have no qualms with that. You are free to make comments on how glib and not-well-thought-out my comment is.

However, I take umbrage with your comment that I am someone "who is probably used to power and control." That isn't an attack on my reasoning, that's a personal attack which you don't have any foundation to make, and I'd hope that you could keep debate on this board at an appropriate level. I would never make a personal statement like that about you unless I had observed how you live and had a good basis for that statement.

With regard to my comment above, I know many people who have difficulty remembering a discussion that they had with friends, family, and colleagues from just a week ago. The complainant in the O'Reilly case gives a very long and dense piece of discourse by O'Reilly as a quote. Maybe she's able to do that, maybe she's not. I personally think it's incredible, given what I know about how people are able to recall things and how difficult it can be, especially as time passes. My statement likening it to remembering what I ate last night was meant more in jest than anything.

And, while I admit that I occasionally listen to B.O. and Rush, I wouldn't consider myself a "ditto-head" by any means. I often find myself changing the station when the statements being made seem far-fetched or stupid. I agree with some of what they say, which is why I go back. Just like I agree with some of what Howard Stern says, which is why he pops up on my radio from time to time.

In the end, don't classify people based on a very short three-paragraph comment on a website. You are doing yourself a disservice by showing how quick you are to make assumptions, and you create a hostile environment that chills the discussion that these comment boards are made for.

And I realize I made spelling errors and I mis-characterized my very short two-sentence comment as a very short three-paragraph one. In case you were planning on attacking those mistakes...

I'll grant you the point about the "power and control" comment.

I find B.O. one of the ultimate power and control freaks - so assumed anyone who would automatically assume the complainant was incapable of remembering the incident reliably - must admire B.O and, yea, even aspire to him.

Although you haven't, in any of your 3 responses, provided any indication of whether you are in a position of power and control at home or work.

So -- my bad.

"you create a hostile environment that chills the discussion that these comment boards are made for".

Are you using the reasoning from the Bush campaign that got those Oregon women ejected from his appearance because they wore tee-shirts asking that out civil rights be protected? That tough opinions and differences -- and, yes, even what might be called "tough" words -- keep people from posting?

It didn't stop you from posting.

Do you know anyone who had an opinion (either novel or repetitive) that didn't post because of an observation I made of your reasoning?

Is there something in the "Rules" of the Board that I violated?

My conclusion after several weeks at this site is -- almost everyone seems pretty intelligent and capable of handling themselves in public discussions. And I include you in that "assumption".

Is there anything else you'd like explained about my opinion?

If you're asking me whether I agree with keeping the t-shirts out, the answer is no, I don't. That was ludicrous.

If you think my commentary amounts to the same thing, I have to respectfully disagree. Although I don't personally know anyone who does or doesn't comment here, I've viewed many of the dialogues at this site and noted that some people get very personal in their statements. I wouldn't be surprised if some people decide not to say anything out of some fear that they will be insulted or not accepted.

I personally don't care if you accept me. I don't know you, as far as I know. Maybe I do and neither of us know it. Either way, you're insults, or your rejections, or your acceptance of what I have to say do nothing to validate or invalidate me as a person. They are simply expressions of your opinion. As it appears that the primary purpose of this site is for contributors to offer opinions, and a secondary purpose is for people to respond, although you aren't violating any rules (that I'm aware of) you may be working to defeat the purposes of this forum.

My point is that where hostility is involved, people are (or, more correctly, may be) steered away from contributing their thoughts for fear that people will respond emotionally instead of logically to an idea that is asserted.

I don't disagree with feeling strongly about things.

What I'm talking about is the tendency of people to take an idealogical disagreement and mutate it into something personal. If you look back at the dialogue, I made a statement, Randy made a personal attack, and then we got into the discussion.

Randy, thanks for conceding that the personal attack wasn't necessary -- "I'll grant you the point about the 'power and control'comment." I appreciate that.

I guess what my discussion has morphed into is one about respectfully disagreeing. If I've said anything that indicates I think people should agree with my opinions, I apologize. That's not what I mean.

What I mean is the tendency to pepper a person who gives an opinion, political or otherwise, with personal statements regarding them being stupid, mindless followers or the other sort of invective that gets thrown around. What we pride ourself in as Americans, among other things, is the ability we have to speak our minds in the marketplace of ideas and either sway opinions or have ours swayed.

I tend to think that the best way to operate in this marketplace is to act civilly towards eachother. I don't see any reason why my original statement in this commentary should be countered with a personal attack. That doesn't do anything to argue the validity of my statement, it simply acts to punish me for raising my voice. And, if I feel like I am likely to get punished for raising my voice, I may never do so. And, what if I have brilliant ideas? People would miss out because I no longer saw this as a place for civil discourse, and that would be unfortunate for us all.

I see BlueOregon as a place for people to come and voice opinions, and to debate ideas. Emotional response is fine, in my opinion, as long as it is kept in check.

Why would a person want to discuss opinions in an angry place? Why would I want to talk about my opinion with someone when their response is "you suck" or "f*** off"?

If you were at a table with a bunch of friends who were Bush supporters (I assume you don't invalidate friendships based simply on differences of opinion), and you wanted to talk to them about the merits of Kerry (or Badnarik, or Cobb, or Nader) and all they responded with is "you're an idiot" or "that's asinine" or whatever, would you go back for more conversation? Or would you decide that that is not a good forum for debate?

I'm not going to write on this anymore. I think I've made my point, and if you disagree, that's fine. From my end, when and if I contribute in the future, I will keep things on a civil level. I would only ask that you all do the same.

sigh

Some final observations.

1. "Either way, you're [sic] insults, or your rejections, or your acceptance of what I have to say do nothing to validate or invalidate me as a person."

As cc suggested above -- this is a political board. It is not some self-help touchy-feely group. I've explained my contretemps and even apologized after learning of your sensitivity.

But opinions and reasoning are open to attack or agreement and in times like these, there simply isn't any way to water it down in some cases. If you say something which is illogical or unreasonable (and, in my opinion, you did) -- you will be challenged on it.

1. "That isn't an attack on my reasoning, that's a personal attack which you don't have any foundation to make, and I'd hope that you could keep debate on this board at an appropriate level."

together with

"Although I don't personally know anyone who does or doesn't comment here, ... I wouldn't be surprised if some people decide not to say anything out of some fear that they will be insulted or not accepted."

How did you originally put it?

"Wow, Randy, nice to know we all feel safe making assumptions about eachother here. It's a shame you don't actually take the time to learn about the people you're talking about before jumping to such a .... conclusion about them..."

Pot. Kettle. Black.

1. And finally...

"Emotional response is fine, in my opinion, as long as it is kept in check."

How can one be expected to keep your emotions in check with the kinds of crazy and dangerous things being done in our names?

Bush lies in the debates -- and we're just supposed to write a nice letter, "Please don't."

B.O. is once again unmasked -- and someone instantly attacks the veracity of the complainant instead of perhaps considering the possibility of some truth? And you expect people to keep their emotions to a level acceptable to you?

If this kind of discussion is too much for you, then perhaps you should join those (none of whom you apparently know) who sit on the sidelines afraid to open their mouths.