Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Also, if he were a hypocrite and didn't believe that traditional family values were best, why would he be fighting his ex for custody of his children? From the quoted "shameful exchange" if he were a hypocrite he would have lost his kids in the divorce due to a combination of drug and alcohol addiction and truly not giving a gak about his kids.

There's lots of reasons to fight for full custody that have nothing to do with traditional family values.

Notably? If you've not got full custody, you're the one getting paid by your ex rather than the one paying.

 kronk wrote:

 feeder wrote:
He *is* a dirtbag. He *is* a hypocrite. These are facts.

Please learn the difference between facts and opinions.

Not to get too philosophical, but there really isn't a difference between facts and opinions. Facts are just opinions that we expect "reasonable" people to accept based on reality. Of course, some people are more "reasonable" than others, which is why there are certain facts, like evolution, which aren't accepted by some (unreasonable) people, most likely the same people who like Bill O'Reilly.

 kronk wrote:

 feeder wrote:
He *is* a dirtbag. He *is* a hypocrite. These are facts.

Please learn the difference between facts and opinions. Preferably before you vote on elections that affect us all.

This explains Trump.

Everyone on my Ignore list is an idiot. That's a fact.

Opinion makes reality!

I think what everybody in this thread is trying to say is that if you do not like the man, that is perfectly fine. Just do not involve his kids in the matter. That makes you the bad person.

Has anybody really said anything about his kids, beyond the fact that they didn't want him to gain custody?

The whole argument of this "involving his kids in the matter" is a huge strawman.

Here's the thing, and why I'm kinda keeping this story at arm's length.

I do think Bill O'Reily is pretty abhorrent. Whether or not it is his television persona or his actual self, he is not a pleasant guy to be around, and I think the less respectability and airtime he has, the better we all are.

Having said that, celebrating, exalting and cheering over an ugly custody battle is not becoming of anyone. It isn't necessarily 'involving the kids' directly, but it is certainly making a party out of many lives being damaged and strained, just because you don't like one of those people. It's just not cool.

 kronk wrote:

 feeder wrote:
He *is* a dirtbag. He *is* a hypocrite. These are facts.

Please learn the difference between facts and opinions. Preferably before you vote on elections that affect us all.

He assaulted his wiffe in front of his child. Dirtbag. He is the strident clarion for "family values", while his personal life contains nothing of the sort. Hypocrite. Facts.

Don't worry kronk, I live in a tiny Canadian town that consistently elects an opposition MP. My vote will not affect you.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Has anybody really said anything about his kids, beyond the fact that they didn't want him to gain custody?

The whole argument of this "involving his kids in the matter" is a huge strawman.

The whole thread is about him and his kids, the thread is about a custody battle.....

Like his custody battle this thread getting ugly

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Has anybody really said anything about his kids, beyond the fact that they didn't want him to gain custody?

The whole argument of this "involving his kids in the matter" is a huge strawman.

The whole thread is about him and his kids, the thread is about a custody battle.....

Yeeeah...

I don't think you quite understand what is meant by someone "saying anything about his kids".
The kids are a part of the story by the simple fact of it being about a custody battle. No argument there.
Nobody is discussing the kids themselves beyond the fact that they're part of the custody battle. Nobody is saying anything about the kids being terrible kids or thugs or any of that kind of nonsense.

To trot out the whole "Let's not involve his kids in the matter" defense is just nonsense.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Has anybody really said anything about his kids, beyond the fact that they didn't want him to gain custody?

The whole argument of this "involving his kids in the matter" is a huge strawman.

The whole thread is about him and his kids, the thread is about a custody battle.....

Yeeeah...

I don't think you quite understand what is meant by someone "saying anything about his kids".
The kids are a part of the story by the simple fact of it being about a custody battle. No argument there.
Nobody is discussing the kids themselves beyond the fact that they're part of the custody battle. Nobody is saying anything about the kids being terrible kids or thugs or any of that kind of nonsense.

To trot out the whole "Let's not involve his kids in the matter" defense is just nonsense.

For me it's mostly that the thread can be summed up as: "your kids hate you and would rather live without a father than have you in their lives *nelson laugh*" and someone personally rejoicing that the whole family has a relationship that is so gakky that it makes this one guy miserable.

The thread, the topic as well as the original tone of the opening post, just feels gakky.

Gone through a custody battle myself. I feel for O'Reilly as a dad and not as Bill O'Reilly of Fox

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Has anybody really said anything about his kids, beyond the fact that they didn't want him to gain custody?

The whole argument of this "involving his kids in the matter" is a huge strawman.

The whole thread is about him and his kids, the thread is about a custody battle.....

Yeeeah...

I don't think you quite understand what is meant by someone "saying anything about his kids".

I don't think you understand the thread then, as it has been pointed out multiple times by people that his kids do not like him/do not want to live with him. That is putting words in the kids mouths. We do not know what the kids want. We do not know what happened. We have no clue what is going on. So again, lets not involve the kids in this.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Has anybody really said anything about his kids, beyond the fact that they didn't want him to gain custody?

The whole argument of this "involving his kids in the matter" is a huge strawman.

The whole thread is about him and his kids, the thread is about a custody battle.....

Yeeeah...

I don't think you quite understand what is meant by someone "saying anything about his kids".

I don't think you understand the thread then, as it has been pointed out multiple times by people that his kids do not like him/do not want to live with him. That is putting words in the kids mouths. We do not know what the kids want. We do not know what happened. We have no clue what is going on. So again, lets not involve the kids in this.

Maybe you didn't read the news story. This is not the usual legal battle between parents over custody. This is a legal battle between "Mr." O'Reilly and his children. His own children don't want anything to do with the "man".

Let's assume that everything is factual, that he really chocked the mother in front of the kids, that he dragged her down the stairs in front of the kids, that he is really this horrible person that is so toxic that his own kids want nothing to do with him. Let's just assume it's all true and correct.

In the end, people are happy that the kids had to experience all this and suffer through it, because now it makes the guy look like a hypocrite and he is suffering.

That's my problem with this thread: "Yeah, the kids had a horrible experience growing up, but I get to laugh at the abuser so that's awesome."

 feeder wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Has anybody really said anything about his kids, beyond the fact that they didn't want him to gain custody?

The whole argument of this "involving his kids in the matter" is a huge strawman.

The whole thread is about him and his kids, the thread is about a custody battle.....

Yeeeah...

I don't think you quite understand what is meant by someone "saying anything about his kids".

I don't think you understand the thread then, as it has been pointed out multiple times by people that his kids do not like him/do not want to live with him. That is putting words in the kids mouths. We do not know what the kids want. We do not know what happened. We have no clue what is going on. So again, lets not involve the kids in this.

Maybe you didn't read the news story. This is not the usual legal battle between parents over custody. This is a legal battle between "Mr." O'Reilly and his children. His own children don't want anything to do with the "man".

No, I read the news story. I dislike O'Reilly as much as the next guy, trust me. I just know that some issues are private and there is no need to drag them out in to the open for out personal enjoyment.

As much as I think he's scum, I find joy in this matter to be distasteful.

 d-usa wrote:
Let's assume that everything is factual, that he really chocked the mother in front of the kids, that he dragged her down the stairs in front of the kids, that he is really this horrible person that is so toxic that his own kids want nothing to do with him. Let's just assume it's all true and correct.

In the end, people are happy that the kids had to experience all this and suffer through it, because now it makes the guy look like a hypocrite and he is suffering.

That's my problem with this thread: "Yeah, the kids had a horrible experience growing up, but I get to laugh at the abuser so that's awesome."

To be clear, that is not my attitude. If that is what I am projecting, that is not my intent.

My hope is that perhaps this will finally sink this loathsome demagogue. Not a realistic hope, given the stupendous levels of cognitive dissonance amongst his fans, but a hope nonetheless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


I don't think you understand the thread then, as it has been pointed out multiple times by people that his kids do not like him/do not want to live with him. That is putting words in the kids mouths. We do not know what the kids want. We do not know what happened. We have no clue what is going on. So again, lets not involve the kids in this.

Whether private issues or not, you claimed people were "putting words in the kids mouths" when it was said they don't like/do not want to live with him. The suit is between him and his children, with the children suing to be exempt from having to visit him. That's pretty clear they don't like/do not want to live with him. No one is putting words anywhere.

No, that is putting words in their mouths. Did the kids say " I do not like my father"? Was there a quote anywhere? Maybe they still love their father, they would just rather be with their Mom. There is a lot going on in a divorce. The kids could also be coached in to saying these things or there could be any number of things going on behind the scenes in their lives/the divorce. Speculating what the kids want based on what is happening in a custody case is putting words in to their mouths.

To echo comments above:

It is regrettable that kids have to endure such treatment.

It is a situation, though, that illustrates and demonstrates his sociopathic and megalomaniac nature...that persona that he blatantly and purposefuly projects and lives....all while berating and condemning others (guests, other public figures, etc) for similar life choices and not espousing "family values".

If you read past the slanted language and just look at the facts and information, you will see that Bill is a terrible person and doesn't deserve sympathy....he threw the stones andnis now having them come back upon him.

http://gawker.com/5990571/bill-oreillys-divorce-is-so-ugly-god-got-involved

He is seeking to annul his marriage....a marriage which produced 2 children. How do you think that makes the kids feel? "I was never married. Therefore even though you were born, it was out of wedlock, making you bastards."

He paid the kids' supposedly neutral therapist 6-figures to work for him in the house.

Those are two indisputable facts.

While some of the other information has yet to be proven factually....there is a pattern of behavior that lends credibility to the veracity of the story: if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it's probably a duck.

Now....

Do I hold his ex blamemess? No. She was seeing another guy while still technically married. Not a great choice. Was this relationship started prior to their separation? Only two people can answer that.

So while I am not excusing her actions, his are far, far more reprehensible, vindictive, and hypocritical. Indefensible, even.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And have brought upon him the reaction from his children that they *don't want to live with or visit him*.

As I said earlier....

You need to be a special kind of scum for your kids to want nothing to do with you.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
No, that is putting words in their mouths. Did the kids say " I do not like my father"? Was there a quote anywhere? Maybe they still love their father, they would just rather be with their Mom. There is a lot going on in a divorce. The kids could also be coached in to saying these things or there could be any number of things going on behind the scenes in their lives/the divorce. Speculating what the kids want based on what is happening in a custody case is putting words in to their mouths.

 feeder wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
No, that is putting words in their mouths. Did the kids say " I do not like my father"? Was there a quote anywhere?

The court/judge said so:

“Particularly relevant in this case are the clearly stated preferences of the children, especially considering their age and maturity...”

The kids don't want to be around him.

And neither would I if I had seen my father choke and drag my mother down stairs.

 curran12 wrote:
Here's the thing, and why I'm kinda keeping this story at arm's length.

I do think Bill O'Reily is pretty abhorrent. Whether or not it is his television persona or his actual self, he is not a pleasant guy to be around, and I think the less respectability and airtime he has, the better we all are.

Having said that, celebrating, exalting and cheering over an ugly custody battle is not becoming of anyone. It isn't necessarily 'involving the kids' directly, but it is certainly making a party out of many lives being damaged and strained, just because you don't like one of those people. It's just not cool.

Yep. I think it should be pretty straight forward to establish that Bill O'Reilly is a piece of crap just by talking about his politics and the way he runs his show. His personal life isn't really needed to prove that.

Long term, though, I think the story could form a part of a discussion about why O'Reilly's brand of angry, self-righteous morality is such a total load.

This is a lot like each time a public figure with strong opposition to gay rights is caught having gay sex. Shaming and targeting that one person is pretty crappy, but using that event as part of a whole case on why resistance to gay rights is bs is good work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I just know that some issues are private and there is no need to drag them out in to the open for out personal enjoyment.

This was all put in a court of law. It's public by definition. I do agree with you that it's important we don't personal enjoyment out of this, that we don't revel in it.