View Full Version : Letterman screwing the staff.......
JustRalph
10-02-2009, 08:09 AM
This is the guy who went after Sarah Palin's Daughters for their morals?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/02/letterman.extortion/index.html
He has been screwing his viewers an hour a night five nights a week for years.
Letterman reveals affairs with staff, extortion attempt
Story Highlights
Letterman tells audience he is the victim of an extortion attempt
Host says someone threatened to reveal sexual relations unless he paid $2 million
Host admitted having sexual relations with staff members in grand jury testimony
Letterman makes revelation during his show's taping on Thursday
NEW YORK (CNN) -- "Late Show" host David Letterman acknowledged on his show Thursday night that he'd had sexual relations with members of his staff and that he revealed those liaisons during grand jury testimony for a case involving an attempted extortion.
"I have a little story that I'd like to tell you," Letterman said as he launched into his revelation.
"This morning, I did something I've never done in my life," Letterman told his audience. "I had to go downtown to testify before the grand jury" and "tell them all of the creepy things that I've done."
The 62-year-old funnyman said he received a package three weeks ago from a person who claimed to have information about Letterman's sexual dalliances, ultimately demanding $2 million to prevent public revelation. Watch Letterman acknowledge he slept with members of his staff »
more at the link
it's ok in Showbiz.......but in Corporate America he would be getting his WorldWide Pants sued off.............
JustRalph
10-02-2009, 08:14 AM
They are already defending him..............a little Clintonesque redux
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6678952
illinoisbred
10-02-2009, 08:20 AM
What he did is sexual harrassment and he committed it in the "workplace".He's as guilty as a 7-11 manager screwing the cashier.
ArlJim78
10-02-2009, 09:11 AM
Sarah Palin was right to keep her daughter away from this creepy hypocrite.
I feel sorry for Paul.
He must be crushed! :lol:
prospector
10-02-2009, 10:47 AM
What he did is sexual harrassment and he committed it in the "workplace".He's as guilty as a 7-11 manager screwing the cashier.
well said:ThmbUp:
hazzardm
10-02-2009, 11:20 AM
I could never understand what is so taboo about office romance. I'm sure CBS has some kinda policy on the subject(there is a friggin policy for everything), but if the employer has no objection, why should the moralists. It is how I met my wife of 20 years.
illinoisbred
10-02-2009, 11:24 AM
I could never understand what is so taboo about office romance. I'm sure CBS has some kinda policy on the subject(there is a friggin policy for everything), but if the employer has no objection, why should the moralists. It is how I met my wife of 20 years.
Office romance is fine.When the Romeo or Juliet is the "boss" is it romance or coercion?
Greyfox
10-02-2009, 11:32 AM
Office romance is fine.When the Romeo or Juliet is the "boss" is it romance or coercion?
We don't know. Romance is one thing. Coercion is another. If the latter, there is a harrassment problem. Remember "Power" perceived or real, is a huge aphrodisiac.
Having said that "Black Mail" is worse. I have never found Letterman to be funny. He'll have a lot of egg on his face over Clinton-Lewinsky and Governor of New York jokes for sure.
I give him credit as a person for facing the shame that he is going to experience to out a Black Mailer.
boxcar
10-02-2009, 11:57 AM
Office romance is fine.When the Romeo or Juliet is the "boss" is it romance or coercion?
I'm beginning to wonder already, from my limited exchanges with him, if our newbie poster even knows the difference.
Boxcar
boxcar
10-02-2009, 11:59 AM
I could never understand what is so taboo about office romance. I'm sure CBS has some kinda policy on the subject(there is a friggin policy for everything), but if the employer has no objection, why should the moralists. It is how I met my wife of 20 years.
Tell me, Haz, do you consider yourself an immoralist or amoralist?
Boxcar
hazzardm
10-02-2009, 12:27 PM
In general I would go with anti-moralist, but I can be all over the map ......
mor⋅al⋅ist
4. a person concerned with regulating the morals of others, as by imposing censorship.
JustRalph
10-02-2009, 01:12 PM
I could never understand what is so taboo about office romance. I'm sure CBS has some kinda policy on the subject(there is a friggin policy for everything), but if the employer has no objection, why should the moralists. It is how I met my wife of 20 years.
you cannot be that ignorant? this is a joke right?
Office romance is fine.When the Romeo or Juliet is the "boss" is it romance or coercion?
You MUST know, that the "when" is totally in the screwds control.
One places oneself in a very bad spot with the goings on he has fessed to.
It is not "anything" until one of the "ladies" comes forward.
At that point, he pays them off and that's it.
They are all handled at his level in that fashion.
IN fact some "ladies" live very well on this "crime".
Marshall Bennett
10-02-2009, 01:27 PM
Letterman's a piece of shit anyway . He has the morals of a sewer rat . I don't care what he did or even more what happens to him . :ThmbDown:
illinoisbred
10-02-2009, 01:27 PM
You MUST know, that the "when" is totally in the screwds control.
One places oneself in a very bad spot with the goings on he has fessed to.
It is not "anything" until one of the "ladies" comes forward.
At that point, he pays them off and that's it.
They are all handled at his level in that fashion.
IN fact some "ladies" live very well on this "crime".
This one was trying to live a little better.
Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 01:27 PM
It might have been more econimical to pay the 2 million dollar amount than the pending sexual harassment suits.
I am venturing a guess. It seems likely one of the harassed women leaked the damaging information to the screenwriter
It might have been more econimical to pay the 2 million dollar amount than the pending sexual harassment suits.
I am venturing a guess. It seems likely one of the harassed women leaked the damaging information to the screenwriter
We REALLY don't know that he hasn't paid someone do we???
He was imo , seeing that the game was going viral as they say and had to stop it.
He felt abused by the process at this point!
Am waiting for the lawbreaker Ensign posts, How he can remain in the Senate shows the depths of corruption we accept from these creatins.
Letterman bad - Ensign + 100 bad and traitor in my book.
Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 01:48 PM
We REALLY don't know that he hasn't paid someone do we???
He was imo , seeing that the game was going viral as they say and had to stop it.
He felt abused by the process at this point!
Am waiting for the lawbreaker Ensign posts, How he can remain in the Senate shows the depths of corruption we accept from these creatins.
Letterman bad - Ensign + 100 bad and traitor in my book.
About already paying someone sounds very plausible. One or more of the women may have profited, but without facts it is pure speculation. Taking it to its logical conclusion, if he has been paying certain women for silence, there is no need for that silence now. All the more reason for sexual harrasment suits to keep the cash flow.
However, when private details are leaked to a third party, it usually comes from an involved party, i.e. one of the harrased women.
Also, it could have been a complete set-up, knowing that Dave had a penchant for sexual encounters with women underlings.
Either way bad for Dave.
boxcar
10-02-2009, 01:53 PM
In general I would go with anti-moralist, but I can be all over the map ......
Yeah, I bet you could. I bet at any given moment, you'd blow in any direction the wind is, wouldn't you?
mor⋅al⋅ist
4. a person concerned with regulating the morals of others, as by imposing censorship.
And I couldn't help noticing that you had to go down pretty low on the list of secondary definitions to come up with that. And since by your own admission you're, generally, an "anti-moralist", I would have to conclude that you personally don't lead a very moral life, do you -- at least according to the primary definition of this term? I would have to think you govern your life by something other than moral principles and values -- "generally" speaking of course.
Boxcar
hazzardm
10-02-2009, 02:29 PM
And since by your own admission you're, generally, an "anti-moralist", I would have to conclude that you personally don't lead a very moral life, do you -- at least according to the primary definition of this term? I would have to think you govern your life by something other than moral principles and values -- "generally" speaking of course.
Boxcar
Well noooo, I specifically included the fourth definition as reference in my answer to your question. It seems kinda intellectually twisted of you to turn around and use a different definition of the word, that is not even referenced, in your conclusion. Bait and switch.
Is it moral to leave my place of employment early today and go to Belmont simulcast @ Cby? On the one hand, I abandoning my days work tasks for gambling and cocktails. On the other hand, I am trying to provide additional food and shleter for my loved ones. It seems to be a matter of perspective.
In either case, I will not impose my choice on anyone else. That is anti-moralist.
boxcar
10-02-2009, 09:09 PM
Well noooo, I specifically included the fourth definition as reference in my answer to your question. It seems kinda intellectually twisted of you to turn around and use a different definition of the word, that is not even referenced, in your conclusion. Bait and switch.
No it isn't. You gave a partial definition of a term, yet made no conditional or qualified statements to your general anti-moralist attitude; therefore, it was perfectly legit for me to conclude that in the marked absence of any such qualified statement that you also generally enjoy living an immoral kind of life -- a lifestyle that would be antithetical to a consistent moralists' lifestyle.
So, now you're telling me that you're moralist in the sense of its primary definition, but not in the sense of that fourth definition, is that correct?
Methinks you need to learn to say what you mean, since now you're saying that you really didn't mean what you said.
Is it moral to leave my place of employment early today and go to Belmont simulcast @ Cby? On the one hand, I abandoning my days work tasks for gambling and cocktails. On the other hand, I am trying to provide additional food and shleter for my loved ones. It seems to be a matter of perspective.
In either case, I will not impose my choice on anyone else. That is anti-moralist.
Then surely, you must be up in arms at the militant homosexuals in this country who want to force acceptance of their lifestyle (which very many in this nation find to be repugnant) down society's throat, including "gay" marriage, legal heirs status, etc?
Boxcar
Show Me the Wire
10-02-2009, 09:13 PM
Now I understand Letterman's affinity for Chicago politicians, like Obama, Letterman is a big fan of play for pay. :lol:
mountainman
10-03-2009, 10:34 AM
Common citizens love to see the rich and famous suffer-especially from self inflicted injury- but there is something deeply troubling about a person's sex life, for whatever reason, being held up to public scrutiny. If Letterman violated company policy by having sex with subordinates, then that's between him and his superiors. Inevitably however, he will be expected to grovel and apologize (repeatedly) to people he has done no harm. The apologies will then be analyzed(and analyzed) for sincerity as a groundswell raises that calls for his firing. It's a vicious cycle that we seem to savor.
Bochall
10-03-2009, 10:46 AM
How do you know that Letterman has been screwing his viewers for years? Have you been watching that long? Looks like he found exactly what you like huh....getting screwed.
Common citizens love to see the rich and famous suffer-especially from self inflicted injury- but there is something deeply troubling about a person's sex life, for whatever reason, being held up to public scrutiny. If Letterman violated company policy by having sex with subordinates, then that's between him and his superiors. Inevitably however, he will be expected to grovel and apologize (repeatedly) to people he has done no harm. The apologies will then be analyzed(and analyzed) for sincerity as a groundswell raises that calls for his firing. It's a vicious cycle that we seem to savor.
In this SOS's case, he gets paid to make fun of people - he mocked Sara for her family morals. If you are a pig enough to stick your nose in everyone else's business, expect payback. Screw Letterman - he gets what he deserves. My prediction - the case get tossed or the guy gets off.
Just a den on iniquity over at cBS.
mountainman
10-03-2009, 01:50 PM
In this SOS's case, he gets paid to make fun of people - he mocked Sara for her family morals. If you are a pig enough to stick your nose in everyone else's business, expect payback. Screw Letterman - he gets what he deserves. My prediction - the case get tossed or the guy gets off.
Just a den on iniquity over at cBS.
I assume you felt the same way when Rush Limbaugh was exposed as a conniving junkie.
Hardly the same thing, but yes, I hold Rush to the standards he himself set on he topic of drug users. He was wrong, and if he got arrested for it, it was his own fault.
What does that have to do with it?
JustRalph
10-03-2009, 03:14 PM
How do you know that Letterman has been screwing his viewers for years? Have you been watching that long? Looks like he found exactly what you like huh....getting screwed.
Have you always been a troll? Or did you wake up under a bridge this morning?
trying2win
10-04-2009, 03:12 AM
So, David Letterman is revealed as another sleazeball. I confess I've watched his talk show in the past the odd time, but never found him funny. Now that this sleazeball's sexual encounters with his female staff in the past have been revealed, I definitely won't watch his show anymore in the future.
I hope this negative publicity will spur sponsors of his TV talk show to cancel their ads and make him and CBS suffer. Hopefully his regular viewers who have a conscience, will demand CBS cancel his show and also remember who his sponsors are, and contact them demanding that they cancel their ads on DL's late night show, or else they won't buy their products in the future. For famous people I don't like, I love it when I see them being publicly embarrassed and humbled about some things.
T2W
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
--Winston Churchill
Couple of good article in the Post today - about his "love nest" hidden away in his offices! they refer to him as a "serial swordsman!" :lol:
Also, a great cartoon - the Top Ten topic, what do you say to a hypocrite?
Number 10 - Hello Mr. Letterman.
Steve 'StatMan'
10-04-2009, 06:03 PM
So far, Conan has stayed avoided the subject, but I'm imaging a sketch for his old show, Late Night w/Conan O'Brien - since they had a running gad with their announcer with him, as a comedic character with an open lust for men, esp. asian male strippers. I'm imagining some setup lines with either that affair stuff wouldn't happen here, or leaks from the staff, maybe some setup of their (typical) fake segments where their comedy bits somehow show up on Letterman, and then the announcer comically confessing appologetically that he too had been having sex with Letterman! Sounds like it'd fit on that prior show, would work with Joel, Andy could pull it off if comedy wise if they tried that. Just an idea of mine for a comedy sketch of mine, not an actual event.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.