Posted on 04/20/2017 6:55:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Politically he’s not liberal. What is upsetting is that liberals know they can destroy someone based on unproven allegations.
He’s not accused of anything approaching lechers like clinton or wiener, and libs seem to have no problem with them.
“I didn’t watch his show, however putting THE FIVE at 9pm seems lame.”
Tucker won’t get nearly the ratings O’Reilly did unless he changes his shtick. He needs to dump the smug.
The Five won’t get nearly the ratings that Tucker did, because they have mostly mediocre talent. I’ll be surprised if the prime time lineup doesn’t change in a year.
Yep, Classic hypocrisy.
To every thing, there is a season.
Agreed, needs a total new format.
If O’Reilly’s end is a tragedy then it’s a tragedy of his own making.
Has anyone said what he did, exactly? Did he tell the fox news bimboes that they looked great in the tight, short, cleavage busting dresses, or what? Was he touching them, pinching them on the ass? What?
You can’t tell a woman she looks good anymore?
He brought it on himself.
By doing what?
Bill is NOT “conservative”.
He is a populist seeking to gain the largest audience.
Bit improvement.
Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother not because of some character flaw but because of mistaken identity--he doesn't know the man he encountered on the road was his own father (thinking that the king of Corinth was his father) and he has no reason to suspect that the widowed queen of Thebes is his own mother (not knowing that he was born in Thebes).
Hamartia can also mean "guilt" or "sin" in both pagan and Christian authors. It's from a verb meaning "to miss the mark."
I don't think Bill O'Reilly ever claimed he was a conservative. I don't think it was his job to be a conservative. Fox News presented itself as fair and balanced. Even though O'Reilly came down more often than not on the conservative side of an issue, I think he wanted to be perceived as "fair and balanced". What I liked about O'Reilly in the days that I watched him was that he did not go easy on any of his guests, whether liberal or conservative. We are so used to seeing powder puff interviews from the MSM, and here was O'Reilly telling his guests "I don't believe you answered my question". He would present his perception of something to a guest and then ask "how am I wrong?", giving them a chance to set the record straight. The idea of the "No Spin Zone" was that he would not let people spin their way out of things. For a long time, I think he succeeded in this.
Eventually, I got tired of watching O'Reilly and all the rest of the bite-sized debates and analyses that make up TV news. I often noticed that O'Reilly was not terribly well informed about the subjects he was trying to debate, and he would sometimes bring on a throw-down guest simply to use as a sounding board while he went off on one of his rants.
Even though I "outgrew" O'Reilly, I know he was admired by many of the conservatives in flyover country. There is a reason he was consistently #1. This article says little about what O'Reilly is supposed to have done. I am still not convinced that his ouster is based on legitimate complaints (though I could be wrong about that; more info may come out). It is not good for conservatism IMO that O'Reilly is gone. Most of the base that elected Trump does not hang out on message boards like Free Republic. Their only source for news has been Fox News or the MSM. O'Reilly was able to explain things in an entertaining way. He regularly pointed out the hypocrisy of the MSM. I think a lot of people are not going to be up to speed on things without O'Reilly to guide them.
Good sentence structure.
I’m troubled by this quick destruction of a person’s life, career and reputation over unproven allegations. What’s next, go back to Trump and revive that flurry of sexual harassment allegations that popped up out of nowhere during his campaign? Remember at least one of those allegations was negated by a passenger on the plane who said he remembers the supposed incident well, since Trump was such a famous man, the witness remembers that the woman was all over Trump harassing him and he was not receptive, so the woman is clearly sick, deluded, greedy and politically motivated in making this false claim in the 2016 election cycle.
Personally I think if O’Reilly had been 47 instead of 67 Fox would have done whatever it took to keep him (as they did 13 years ago in 2004 when much more damning audiotapes of him “talking dirty” to women reared their head). I’m guessing their calculus was O’Reilly was showing his age and probably would be retiring in another 5 years or so, so it really wasn’t worth the investment to salvage him this time, and instead they decided to put him out to pasture and bring in some fresh talent. (Or to use the sports analogy, “If your 40 year old star pitcher becomes injured, do you keep him knowing he might only have one or two good years left, or cut your loses and replace him with a rookie that might not be as good but will do the job for $5 million and has room to grow?)
Except that Fox signed a new contract with Bill a few weeks ago
Bill is a buffoon, but he’s our buffoon. Hate the way the left got him out
Bill was frustrating to watch. He’d always hedge his bets to “keep it balanced”. His kissing up to Obongo was insufferable. Tucker is OK but he lets the parade of lefties filibuster too much. I don’t think Tucker is the right guy for Bill’s slot. Love to see Steyn but that won’t happen. Maybe Laura but PLEASE not Dana P. It Least I am not hearing any talk of that lying poofter Shemp getting the job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.