Breaking: Sean Hannity Now Being Accused Of Sexual Harassment By Jewess Debbie Schlussel

[bripat9643]

Innocent/ethical people don't AGREE TO GAG ORDERS...BECAUSE THEY ARE INNOCENT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Why would I agree to not discuss a false claim against me!?

Have somebody push a check for several million dollars across a desk at you and get back to us on that.

I can't be bought.

ROFL! Sure you can.

No, I can't. As an example, not even the threat of eternal torture and the promise of eternal paradise will get me to dump science and believe that Jesus' magic is real or that the Bible is ethical.

Yeah, right. We believe that.

We're not talking about what you believe. We are talking about what you say and do. You would swear on a stack of bibles that Jesus is your savior if someone paid you $1 million to.

 

[bripat9643]

i wonder which very hot white chick will accuse Bob Beckel of groping her.

Not all allegegations of sexual harassment are made up.
People with your attitude are why so many Cosby accusers waited so long to come forward (too long, legally) - didn't think they'd be believed, or feeling shame that they were even in that situation in the first place.

Yes, not all are made up, but many are. It's about the easiest lawsuit to win these days. Showing any kind of interest in a woman at the office can land you in courthouse these days.

Nope, many are NOT made up. Several reasons for not complaining:
1. Personal shame and self-blame
2. No support from HR (as some of the women have already said on air about the HR dept at Fox)
3. Demotion or job loss
4. No one will believe them.

In the case of O'Reilly, he has projected a false image of a moral, married man.
He's a fucking liar and hypocrite and I am ecstatic that he is ending his long career in shame.

They settled, moron. They have a legal agreement that says they can't talk about their allegations.

End of story.

 

[meaner gene]

You're obviously too stupid to understand what a gag order is.

A gag order is a temporary restraint issued by a judge, usually for the period until the conclusion of the trial. Since the cases were settled, there will be no trial, and any gag orders imposed would be lifted once a settlement was made. So O'Reilly would be under no gag order. That would only be a condition of the settlement, which is imposed on the plaintiff, not the defendant.

 

[bripat9643]

What do the women who Fox hires think is going to happen the way they flash skin and fling their bottle blonde hair around? .......

YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! Time to leave the 1950's, my friend, and come into the 21st century.

Fox Noise is still in the '50s, and the dress code for women there:
1. Tight, short, sleeveless dresses hopefully with plunging necklines
2. Stiletto heels
3. Long hair extensions
4. 1.5" false eyelashes and red lipstick
was something the desperate women who want to work at Fox allowed to happen.
But dressing like a Las Vegas cocktail waitress doesn't mean a woman is inviting sexual assault or overtures.

That is dress code for women when they are on camera. The network is partially selling their sex appeal, and their appearance is a big part of why they were hired for their positions. If they don't like it, then they should go elsewhere.

We have a winner!

Hmmm, yeah, so? Why don't you blubber about the dress code at Hooters?

 

[bripat9643]

You're obviously too stupid to understand what a gag order is.

A gag order is a temporary restraint issued by a judge, usually for the period until the conclusion of the trial. Since the cases were settled, there will be no trial, and any gag orders imposed would be lifted once a settlement was made. So O'Reilly would be under no gag order. That would only be a condition of the settlement, which is imposed on the plaintiff, not the defendant.

I used the wrong term. It's a non-disclosure clause.

Settlements impose conditions on both parties, moron.

 

[WEATHER53]

Hooters
High victim potential there so libs please flock there and save those poor girls and smack a pig male in the face also

 

[meaner gene]

Keeping quiet about the details is commonly a clause in all legal settlements. Both sides commonly ask for. The accusers certainly don't want O'Reilly lambasting them every night on his program or mentioning these matters with their future employers who ask for a reference.

It would be unconstituional to restrain someone from professing their innocence. Were there to be such a condition of the settlement, if a criminal complaint was filed against O'Reily (because of the civil settlement) such a settlement would prevent O'Reilly from presenting any evidence of his innocence in the criminal case.

That would be a 5th amendment violation.

 

[bripat9643]

Keeping quiet about the details is commonly a clause in all legal settlements. Both sides commonly ask for. The accusers certainly don't want O'Reilly lambasting them every night on his program or mentioning these matters with their future employers who ask for a reference.

It would be unconstituional to restrain someone from professing their innocence. Were there to be such a condition of the settlement, if a criminal complaint was filed against O'Reily (because of the civil settlement) such a settlement would prevent O'Reilly from presenting any evidence of his innocence in the criminal case.

That would be ma 5th amendment violation.

You should shut the fuck up before you fully reveal your ignorance of the law. Non disclosure agreements are as common as dirt and do not violate the 5th Amendment.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Bible teaches you to hate "faggots", but Scientific Humanism teaches you to "love gay, equally". Something to think about.

Or you could learn to think for yourself.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Keeping quiet about the details is commonly a clause in all legal settlements. Both sides commonly ask for. The accusers certainly don't want O'Reilly lambasting them every night on his program or mentioning these matters with their future employers who ask for a reference.

It would be unconstituional to restrain someone from professing their innocence. Were there to be such a condition of the settlement, if a criminal complaint was filed against O'Reily (because of the civil settlement) such a settlement would prevent O'Reilly from presenting any evidence of his innocence in the criminal case.

That would be ma 5th amendment violation.

You should shut the fuck up before you fully reveal your ignorance of the law. Non disclosure agreements are as common as dirt and do not violate the 5th Amendment.

$13 million says he's guilty in the first place. I don't think most people realize how gigantic of a sum of money that is!
Bill-O, you are either guilty or you have no self-respect.

 

[meaner gene]

I used the wrong term. It's a non-disclosure clause.

Settlements impose conditions on both parties, moron.

Non-disclosure can't abrogate constituional rights to a defense. They are usually part of the settlement terms, that in return for a settled amont, the party would no publically disclose the terms or make further accusations. A breech would mean they would not receive the money, or would have to return all or part of the settlement.

In O'Reilys case, he received no settlement which can be used in a breech, so non-disclosure can't be imposed on those not subject to the settlement.

 

[Joy4Uall]

The Bible teaches you to hate "faggots", but Scientific Humanism teaches you to "love gay, equally". Something to think about.

Or you could learn to think for yourself.

Yes, think for yourself, and have the moral courage to not give your children a book that says to kill gays (Bible/Qur'an) and that gays can't get into heaven (Romans.)

 

[Iceweasel]

The Bible teaches you to hate "faggots", but Scientific Humanism teaches you to "love gay, equally". Something to think about.

Or you could learn to think for yourself.

Yes, think for yourself, and have the moral courage to not give your children a book that says to kill gays (Bible/Qur'an) and that gays can't get into heaven (Romans.)

I guess you should avoid giving them porn too but what's that got to do with what I said?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

What do the women who Fox hires think is going to happen the way they flash skin and fling their bottle blonde hair around? .......

YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! Time to leave the 1950's, my friend, and come into the 21st century.

Fox Noise is still in the '50s, and the dress code for women there:
1. Tight, short, sleeveless dresses hopefully with plunging necklines
2. Stiletto heels
3. Long hair extensions
4. 1.5" false eyelashes and red lipstick
was something the desperate women who want to work at Fox allowed to happen.
But dressing like a Las Vegas cocktail waitress doesn't mean a woman is inviting sexual assault or overtures.

That is dress code for women when they are on camera. The network is partially selling their sex appeal, and their appearance is a big part of why they were hired for their positions. If they don't like it, then they should go elsewhere.

Yes, idiot, that is the dress code for on air. They don't sell advertising time when everyone, including the men, is off air.
Fox News' is supposed to be a news outlet. If they are serious journalists they shouldn't be selling sex appeal. Goddamn, you're stupid.

 

[meaner gene]

They settled, moron. They have a legal agreement that says they can't talk about their allegations.

End of story.

That's a term of settlement. O'Reily isn't involved in the settlement, he's a third party,

 

[bripat9643]

Keeping quiet about the details is commonly a clause in all legal settlements. Both sides commonly ask for. The accusers certainly don't want O'Reilly lambasting them every night on his program or mentioning these matters with their future employers who ask for a reference.

It would be unconstituional to restrain someone from professing their innocence. Were there to be such a condition of the settlement, if a criminal complaint was filed against O'Reily (because of the civil settlement) such a settlement would prevent O'Reilly from presenting any evidence of his innocence in the criminal case.

That would be ma 5th amendment violation.

You should shut the fuck up before you fully reveal your ignorance of the law. Non disclosure agreements are as common as dirt and do not violate the 5th Amendment.

$13 million says he's guilty in the first place. I don't think most people realize how gigantic of a sum of money that is!
Bill-O, you are either guilty or you have no self-respect.

No, that says nothing of the sort. It says FOX didn't want to fight it in court. This was not handed out all in one case. It's the sum of a number of cases.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Innocent/ethical people don't AGREE TO GAG ORDERS...BECAUSE THEY ARE INNOCENT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Why would I agree to not discuss a false claim against me!?

Have somebody push a check for several million dollars across a desk at you and get back to us on that.

I can't be bought.

ROFL! Sure you can.

No, I can't. As an example, not even the threat of eternal torture and the promise of eternal paradise will get me to dump science and believe that Jesus' magic is real or that the Bible is ethical.

Yeah, right. We believe that.

We're not talking about what you believe. We are talking about what you say and do. You would swear on a stack of bibles that Jesus is your savior if someone paid you $1 million to.

No, I would not. I left Jesus because I didn't "take the offer" of eternal paradise, so a mere $1 million would of course not work on me. Paradise is for 99.999999999999%+ longer than anything on this earth (such as $1 million), so of course I can't be bought. Not even Jesus' unscientific and barbaric threats of torture for thinking for myself will deter me.

 

[bripat9643]

What do the women who Fox hires think is going to happen the way they flash skin and fling their bottle blonde hair around? .......

YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! Time to leave the 1950's, my friend, and come into the 21st century.

Fox Noise is still in the '50s, and the dress code for women there:
1. Tight, short, sleeveless dresses hopefully with plunging necklines
2. Stiletto heels
3. Long hair extensions
4. 1.5" false eyelashes and red lipstick
was something the desperate women who want to work at Fox allowed to happen.
But dressing like a Las Vegas cocktail waitress doesn't mean a woman is inviting sexual assault or overtures.

That is dress code for women when they are on camera. The network is partially selling their sex appeal, and their appearance is a big part of why they were hired for their positions. If they don't like it, then they should go elsewhere.

Yes, idiot, that is the dress code for on air. They don't sell advertising time when everyone, including the men, is off air.
Fox News' is supposed to be a news outlet. If they are serious journalists they shouldn't be selling sex appeal. Goddamn, you're stupid.

If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Apparently FOX's viewers like it.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! Time to leave the 1950's, my friend, and come into the 21st century.

If your "problem" is realty I can't help you.....I grew up in the 50's and nothing between men and women has changed other than the number of lawsuits filed by scheming witches who tease a guy into making an advance and then rat him out if he doesn't pay hush money. I been in the Big Leagues....where the hell have you ever been?

You just don't get it, I'm afraid. Fortunately the kids in their 20's today are starting to get it, and by the time THEY become the old horny sleaze-bags like Trump/Bill-O/Roger-A/Clinton/Cosby there will be way less harassment - they will respect women as much as Scientific Humanists respect women.

Whatever man, them faggots just want to bugger them in the wrong hole and not feel guilty about it.

Bovine feces.

The Bible teaches you to hate "faggots", but Scientific Humanism teaches you to "love gay, equally". Something to think about.

Yeah, I'm not into faggotry so fuck that.

Men are men and women are women, except for 1 out of every 2200.

I suggest you go watch two big black men have anal sex and get back to me when you approve.

Be sure and take in the aroma.


Nasty, it is.

So you've watched two black men have anal sex? And you even know how it smells?
That sort of thing doesn't circulate in my consciousness.

 

[Siete]

Hannity harassing women?

I dont see it.

He has monogrammed Trump knee pads and matching bib.