One of my favorites... people claiming moral superiority only to prove otherwise by their own actions. And before you say it was settled out of court, know that he paid her $2,000,000 to shut her up.
The caveat to this is that this payment is not an admission of guilt at all, and should not in the least be construed as an admission of guilt.
To wit - I will be closing a case today after the settlement check changes hands. The "victim" was terminated after a year's worth of documented attendance issues, which she agrees with. She had gone into arrears on PTO by over 100 hours in less than six month's of employment and never caught up from there. She never successfully completed her new hire probation because of her ongoing attendance problem. She was at best a marginal employee.
The employer is settling this dispute for $16,000. Why? Because they just want it to go away. There is NO WAY on this planet I'm ever going to go Cause on a case where a person can't even get her butt into her chair to work. It is NOT a reasonable accommodation to allow an employee not to show up for work for the better part of each work week. I had actually completed my work on this case and had it written up to close when the settlement negotiations heated up. Why this company is settling with this woman I cannot fathom, but it's their money and they can do what they want.
The employer is 100% in the clear here. This woman is not disabled (she has "migraines") and she is not a good worker even when she's there. But they want to get it over with and this is what they decided to do.
Settlements happen all the time, even when the accused is not guilty. Sometimes it's best to have a final end to the situation rather than risk a jury trial, when who knows what can happen.
One of my favorites... people claiming moral superiority only to prove otherwise by their own actions. And before you say it was settled out of court, know that he paid her $2,000,000 to shut her up.
Liberals: Look! Bill O'Reilly is a Racist! He said mean things about black people!
Others: Not really - those comments were taken out of context from his radio show in which he was trying to combat racism.
Liberals: He still sucks.
Josebach and others - is this a thread about the evilness of Bill O'Reilly or about the propencity of mainstream media to mislead in order to further an agenda? Does your answer speak volumes?
I am “others.”
I think Bill O’Reilly sucks because he is an overblown windbag whose “no spin zone” is full of bias. I think he’s as dangerous as any other goofball with a microphone because people listen to what he says without thinking about the context or giving rational thought to his agenda. Blind faith is dangerous, whether its political, religious or sports-related.
Is he in the clear in this situation? Most likely. Does that make him less of a tool? No.
One of my favorites... people claiming moral superiority only to prove otherwise by their own actions. And before you say it was settled out of court, know that he paid her $2,000,000 to shut her up.
Liberals: Look! Bill O'Reilly is a Racist! He said mean things about black people!
Others: Not really - those comments were taken out of context from his radio show in which he was trying to combat racism.
Liberals: He still sucks.
Josebach and others - is this a thread about the evilness of Bill O'Reilly or about the propencity of mainstream media to mislead in order to further an agenda? Does your answer speak volumes?
Easy there Cornbread... You're trying to speak with liberals using facts and reason.
Yo, Met... thanks for the sig! GO DUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Liberals: Look! Bill O'Reilly is a Racist! He said mean things about black people!
Others: Not really - those comments were taken out of context from his radio show in which he was trying to combat racism.
Liberals: He still sucks.
Josebach and others - is this a thread about the evilness of Bill O'Reilly or about the propencity of mainstream media to mislead in order to further an agenda? Does your answer speak volumes?
I see you either have a really short memory or really poor reading comprehension. Either way, let me re-post something I said immediately before the quote you copied so that it may take you down off of your high horse.
josebach wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:Also, his comments were a little out of line, but taken in context they aren't as bad as they seem when you read them on their own, which is almost always the case.
That was my thought when I read more on it. I can't stand the guy and his comments did shown poor judgement, but in this case at least, I think his intentions were in the right place.
One of my favorites... people claiming moral superiority only to prove otherwise by their own actions. And before you say it was settled out of court, know that he paid her $2,000,000 to shut her up.
Liberals: Look! Bill O'Reilly is a Racist! He said mean things about black people!
Others: Not really - those comments were taken out of context from his radio show in which he was trying to combat racism.
Liberals: He still sucks.
Josebach and others - is this a thread about the evilness of Bill O'Reilly or about the propencity of mainstream media to mislead in order to further an agenda? Does your answer speak volumes?
Easy there Cornbread... You're trying to speak with liberals using facts and reason.
Cornbread?
I hate to tell you, but both extremes (left and right) have problems with facts and reason. When one is so committed to one side, they stop listening to anything the other side says. And let me fill you in... neither side is all right or all wrong.
One of my favorites... people claiming moral superiority only to prove otherwise by their own actions. And before you say it was settled out of court, know that he paid her $2,000,000 to shut her up.
I still get a kick out of how popular this guy is..."Who's Looking Out For You?" sold a lot of copies. And he also wrote "The O'Reilly Factor For Kids". Every time I turn on his show, he's talking about child predators...seriously, every time. Ever wonder why he's so passionate? Reminds me a little of Foley being the Chairman for House Caucus Missing & Exploited Children. And Craig talking about what a naughty boy Clinton was and opposed the gay lifestyle time and time again.
Well at least they're entertaining. Funny crowd, these guys.
One of my favorites... people claiming moral superiority only to prove otherwise by their own actions. And before you say it was settled out of court, know that he paid her $2,000,000 to shut her up.
The caveat to this is that this payment is not an admission of guilt at all, and should not in the least be construed as an admission of guilt.
To wit - I will be closing a case today after the settlement check changes hands. The "victim" was terminated after a year's worth of documented attendance issues, which she agrees with. She had gone into arrears on PTO by over 100 hours in less than six month's of employment and never caught up from there. She never successfully completed her new hire probation because of her ongoing attendance problem. She was at best a marginal employee.
The employer is settling this dispute for $16,000. Why? Because they just want it to go away. There is NO WAY on this planet I'm ever going to go Cause on a case where a person can't even get her butt into her chair to work. It is NOT a reasonable accommodation to allow an employee not to show up for work for the better part of each work week. I had actually completed my work on this case and had it written up to close when the settlement negotiations heated up. Why this company is settling with this woman I cannot fathom, but it's their money and they can do what they want.
The employer is 100% in the clear here. This woman is not disabled (she has "migraines") and she is not a good worker even when she's there. But they want to get it over with and this is what they decided to do.
Settlements happen all the time, even when the accused is not guilty. Sometimes it's best to have a final end to the situation rather than risk a jury trial, when who knows what can happen.
How often would you go to work if Bill O'Reilly gave you 2 million dollars?
One of my favorites... people claiming moral superiority only to prove otherwise by their own actions. And before you say it was settled out of court, know that he paid her $2,000,000 to shut her up.
Liberals: Look! Bill O'Reilly is a Racist! He said mean things about black people!
Others: Not really - those comments were taken out of context from his radio show in which he was trying to combat racism.
Liberals: He still sucks.
Josebach and others - is this a thread about the evilness of Bill O'Reilly or about the propencity of mainstream media to mislead in order to further an agenda? Does your answer speak volumes?
I am “others.”
I think Bill O’Reilly sucks because he is an overblown windbag whose “no spin zone” is full of bias. I think he’s as dangerous as any other goofball with a microphone because people listen to what he says without thinking about the context or giving rational thought to his agenda. Blind faith is dangerous, whether its political, religious or sports-related.
Is he in the clear in this situation? Most likely. Does that make him less of a tool? No.
Could not have stated it better myself.
Also, the pot-shots at "liberals" in this thread are some of the most asinine comments I've ever read on this board.
josebach wrote:I hate to tell you, but both extremes (left and right) have problems with facts and reason. When one is so committed to one side, they stop listening to anything the other side says. And let me fill you in... neither side is all right or all wrong.
Ya, Mon... I'll give you that.
I'm just playing. I come here for fun. Work is where I have to be serious. The Cafe is my escape from work... while I'm at work.
(presently contributing to lost productivity statistics due to fantasy football)
Yo, Met... thanks for the sig! GO DUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by knapplc » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:42 am 
