Morelli is the lawyer. I’m not finding her party affiliation anywhere.
Wow, umm, point 81 is umm…Ew… I gotta wash that thought outta my head.
Indeed. Let’s not.
You’re a damn hypocrite, sir.
The name ‘Anita Hill’ comes to mind.
Whatever her affiliation (she’s worked for Fox – and CNN, to be fair – for quite a while), if she’s pursuing O’reilly, she’s de facto a Democrat.
Nice try, but off the mark. Ms. Lewinsky was not the “victim” of anything. She was a willing participant. I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that Clinton somehow pressured her into having sex with him. By all reports, in fact, she initiated the activity.
Take umbrage elsewhere.
I fail to see a connection between this and the Clinton lynching. Please explain.
Am I getting wooshed here? I’m a Democrat, and he’s never phone sexed me. 
Anita Hill was telling the truth. Just ask David Brock. He wrote a book saying he was paid to lie about her.
Fellow guys, here is an opportunity to get in touch with your feminine side. Imagine you are female. Then try to imagine that you might do anything even remotely intimate and/or sexual with Bill O’Reilly, short of threats.
I rest my case.
Heheh, sure thing, boss. When even Slate doesn’t put much stock in Brock (hey!), don’t expect me to take the words of some purportedly born-again lefty at face value.
Well, I am not the person who posted it, but the connection I think he is trying to make is that you turned unbelievably convoluted cartwheels to excuse Clinton’s misdoings, even after he was found guilty, yet you automatically assume O’Riley is guilty as sin, simply because he has been accused. If this is not because one is a Democrat and thus on your side and one is a Republican and thus the target of your ire, why is it?
Clinton was found guilty of sexual harrassment? Really? When?
And Moto connected his post to me saying “don’t blame the victim.”
In the Clinton-Lewinski case, there was no victim.
The cases are not analogous.
Good question. You seem amazingly eager to believe this, and yet it’s really too soon to know.
Look—I think O’Reilly is capable of this. I do. I think it’s possible. But I am not at all convinced just because someone makes the claim. I need a little more proof than that.
I don’t hold O’Reilly in such high regard that I’m going to do flips to defend him. It’s nothing to me either way. But I can’t see how anyone can so quickly be so confident that he must be guilty, just because someone unknown entity (at this point) says so.
Horndog-Americans have rights too, you know! One of those is the inalienable right to get some so long as the endeavor is cooperative and fully voluntary. As was certainly the case with Ms. Lewinski, by her own account.
The charges against Mr. O’Reilly are of a different sort entirely. I cheefully admit I am inclined to accept them largely because I find him obnoxious and negative. In my experience, obnoxious and negative persons are far more likely to do something shitty to you. YMMV.
And don’t forget moralistic. Moralistic assholes always have some bizarre hidden kinks, and it’s usually something pretty vicious.
God only knows what Ashcroft gets up to. I fear for his pets.
Are you really that stupid? I just said that the issue (as I saw it, Mr. Moto is free to come in here and tell me I’m 100% wrong) was not sexual harassment, but the assumption of guilt without proof VS the blind defense of proven guilt, and you come back with a post about the issue of sexual harassment. If you’re going to bother to reply, at least address what I posted and not something else entirely.
I would like to know Diogenes’ view of Paula Jones’ accusations before the discovery phase of her lawsuit started.
I’d also like to know why he assumes the accusations are true. O’Reilly’s a blowhard, but there are plenty of blowhards who don’t sexually harass their co-workers. Why do you assume she’s right and he’s wrong? Isn’t the right posture to take the accusations seriously, but demand that the women prove her charges?
Yeah, a young girl has a chance at the most powerful man in the world, and she’s supposed to turn it down?!? :eek:
Allow me a moment here while I try to remind myself Clinton should have had the self-control to not shove a cigar up her twat and then smoke it after she blew him. :rolleyes:
You dems are getting pretty desperate. I can’t even get worked up over the bombs anymore. I just sit back and laugh. And smoke a cigar. 
I fail to see actionable evidence here. If the suit isn’t some sort of publicity stunt, what is it? If hearsay is all the plaintiff has got, then the suit’s DOA, as it should be.