Nearly every post against O'Reilly contains some form of ad-hominem attack. You see, that is why you Liberals hate him and others like him. You hate the fact that their arguments are well constructed, well articulated, poignant and make sense, while those on the Left nearly always consist of fallacious thinking and personal attacks. With the Left the argument always comes down to the other guy being a homophob, xenophobe, bigot, racist, misogynist, etc. The Left rarely produces an argument that is intelligible and articulable.
Never the less I will address a couple of the personal attacks mentioned. First, charges of sexual harassment. Its very easy to be accused of sexual harassment when you have deep pockets and a lot to loose. Women know this as do lawyers - its a great way to make a lot of money. As far as why he settled the case, most law suits are settled out of court. Many times its just better and cheaper to settle the case and make it go away than to drag it out through trial. This is especially true in a sexual harassment case because the burden of proof is almost nil. All the woman had to say is that she "felt uncomfortable" by anything that was said or done. It's also very easy to trick a guy into doing things that could easily be perceived as SH. At any rate nobody knows what happened and I doubt this is the reason anyone here doesn't like him. Its more probable that this is just another personal attack.
As far as him cutting off guests. That is something that tends to happen in debates - I too think this is bad form. But, I will say that a lot of times he has real idiots on his show and he is forced to cut them off in order to maintain the integrity of the conversation. Suppose you are talking to a 911 conspiracy nut who made one false statement after another. I am sure such a person would babble on non-stop with a bunch of absolute BS unless you cut them off. Otherwise, they would never give you a chance to correct their stream of misinformation.
But all personal attacks aside, is there a single issue that anyone wishes to show where O'Reilly is off the mark or is that too much thinking?