Yerdaddy, I find it quite bothersome that you disagree with my Democratic Bush-bashing theory (which is fine), but you completely blow by my quite-accurate portrayal of the woman's handling of sexual harrasment proceedure and call me a mysogynist because I called the woman a whore.
No, because <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/75/Topic/39841/page/My_favorite_word_lately_is__whore__.htm" target="_blank">whore is your favorite word</a>, but more importantly you also used the word to describe Kobe's accuser despite the fact that you posted absolutely no credible evidence that any of the claims you made about here were true. (How's that pregnancy story coming along?) It just seems to me that when a public figure is accused of wrongdoing, you determine at the outset that she's a lying whore. Like the Kobe case you might be right about the woman, but you have presented no evidence as proof. This case is only three or four days old and yet you've already decided she's a whore.
Answer me this... if the woman wants a comfortable workplace, why didn't she just use the tapes with Fox News and get something done?
I don't know firsthand the culture of Fox News, but I would bet that it's not one in which you can just walk in and tell the senior management that the man who is single-handedly bringing the company millions of dollars won't stop hitting on you and expect them to side with you. I'd say it's more likely that to protect their cash cow they're going to start looking at your file for reasons to discredit and destroy you if necessary. You can't talk about that kind of culture of wealth and power as if it's the shift manager at I-Hop looking down the hostess' blouses. But again, this is going to be a long legal process, but you've already made your verdict.
I mean, the woman already got a superior fired at CNN.
Sources. (And some O'Reilly fan from another messageboard doesn't count.)
She went RIGHT for the payday, and in fact, may have tried to extort Fox News.
...and the operative word here is what?
60 million dollars for "forced phone sex" does not equate. Christ, I know people who have lost limbs on the job and haven't gotten that much.
True. But how often do people get what they ask for in lawsuits? People usually get a small fraction of what they ask for, (in fact nearly all civil awards are reduced to a fraction of the original award on appeal). So they started high, and Fox and O'Reilly started with a counter-suit. Where's the unusual part? None of this is evidence that she's lying. The high dollar amount will be based on the assumption that by having to sue a public figure to get him to stop the harassment will damage her otherwise lucrative career, making her subject for the rest of it that she's a gold-digging opportunist just like you've assumed.
Or you may end up being right. But the assumptions you're making, and based on what evidence you've presented or is even available at this point, leads me to agree with what you said earlier in this thread - that it seems that you are a mysogynist.
<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.