pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,632
- 4,685
- 136
Your words carry lots of feelings but very little of anything that makes any kind of sense.
Maybe, but deep inside you know I am right.
Your words carry lots of feelings but very little of anything that makes any kind of sense.
Maybe, but deep inside you know I am right.
IF proven guilty they should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.
But as usual in this liberal utopia that is the forum many seem to have already convicted these guys. I expected as much...
They are Fox News they have to be guilty. /s
I don't know what these three people may have done - if anything at all. Seriously, they could be completely innocent victims of a smear attack. But considering what horrific pieces of shit at least two of them are; Cucker Tarlson and Hannity, I wouldn't be surprised if they were also willing to get up to a bit of sexual harrassment on the side. Don't know anything about the third, no idea who he is, he might be just as vile as the others. After all, he works for Faux. *shrug* They don't hire nice people.And you're correct, I was ahead of myself when I said that many want to convict on the charges without a trial. The pitchforks aren't out yet.
But how will people get their outRAGE without them?I'd love to see Cucker, InSanity, and any other goons from Fox get their just desserts, but it probably won't happen this time around.
IF proven guilty they should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.
But as usual in this liberal utopia that is the forum many seem to have already convicted these guys. I expected as much...
They are Fox News they have to be guilty. /s
How about Fox News past cover-ups of sexual assault by their employees?We don't Know that they did.
Suspecting and speculation mean nothing. Facts and proof do.
I tell you that you're not making sense and you tell me that deep inside I know that your nonsensical post is correct. This may come as a surprise to you, but you're still not making any kind of sense.
I think you need to take the time to re-write what you intended to convey in a way that makes sense. Cast off what I assume was intended to be hyperbole (though I'm starting to grow concerned that it wasn't), and the unchecked emotion while you're at it. Find something of substance from it which has a basis in reality and that's worth communicating.
I am really not seeing what you are seeing. Can you point out the posters who are part of the liberal utopia already convicting these guys? Personally I don't think any of the comments are remotely out of bounds. Fox News has a well-established recent history of paying out sexual harassment settlements, O'Reilly being fired for such, resignation of Ailes for such -- all with a very large number of complaints. I don't think anyone has specifically said that any of the accused here has been proven guilty/ the women should not be required to prove their accusations to a reasonable standard/ the men should be denied the opportunity to defend themselves.
All that said, you can smell the stink from here. I would be surprised if these claims are not, at minimum, settled out of court. But if the claims are proved factitious, I will be glad these allegations did not actually happen.
How about Fox News past cover-ups of sexual assault by their employees?
lol
How about Fox News past cover-ups of sexual assault by their employees?
lol
That isn't Facts or Proof. That is called the Past.
An out of court settlement isn't a conviction or an admission of guilt. It is a tool to avoid a long and costly court battle.
I said exactly what I meant. Everybody has a presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
It also holds true for these guys, no matter how you feel about Fox News or them personally.
But as usual in this liberal utopia that is the forum many seem to have already convicted these guys. I expected as much...
What a 180 you're pulling. Why, just back in 2016, you were championing Trump saying that out-of-court settlements were indeed an indirect admission of guilt....i.e. Bill Clinton and his out-of-court settlements.
But, then again, you've always excused Trump, Fox News, et al, of any responsibility for anything, including sexual assaults, etc. Settlements aren't admission of guilt for righties, I suppose, only for Democrats.
No-one here has said that these people should be convicted without a fair trial.
But of course that isn't what you said at all:
1: "liberal utopia". wtf.
2: "many seem to have already convicted these guys". What, having an opinion about the probability of their guilt is "convicting"? By that rationale, haven't you casually "convicted" us with your opinion? What happens next, we go to jail?
Honestly dude, if you don't like people having harmless opinions about current events, then you shouldn't go anywhere near the Internet, watch the news, or socialise. People are "convicting" each other left right and centre! Or maybe you should take the simple step of admitting that talking about people here giving their opinion is anything like participating in an unfair trial resulting in imprisonment is beyond ridiculous.
You didn't "get ahead" of yourself, you spouted utter BS while insulting people here. You should be embarrassed for making such a spectacle of yourself, apologise and try not to do it again.
1. Yes this place is a literal Liberal Utopia and echo chamber.
2. I did back off on that statement later. Go look.
Me insulting people here. That is a hoot. You have to be kidding. Go back and read that is the norm here against anyone that leans slightly right. And you would be one of the many guilty parties.
1. Yes this place is a literal Liberal Utopia and echo chamber.
2. I did back off on that statement later. Go look.
And you're correct, I was ahead of myself when I said that many want to convict on the charges without a trial. The pitchforks aren't out yet.
Maybe, but deep inside you know I am right.
Me insulting people here. That is a hoot. You have to be kidding. Go back and read that is the norm here against anyone that leans slightly right. And you would be one of the many guilty parties.
The victim, again.
It's a website where people are free to discuss their opinions and few rules, including conservative-leaning views like yours and quite a few others which are frequently discussed. You apparently have a problem with that.
Actually, this is what you said:
Your emphasis. It pretty much says, "oops. still right though.", which you went on to say later to me:
So yes, you should apologise for doubling-down on pure BS.
Considering your actions so far on this thread being a completely unprovoked ad hominem that questions peoples' interest in basic justice, followed by doubling-down and then claiming otherwise, people have been extremely light on you so far in this thread, yet after all this you have the audacity to play the victim.
You just don't seem to understand that in your utter desperation to save face, you continue to make yourself look even more ridiculous. You don't lose by showing humility, you gain respect.
