This is from a recent show where our hero, no-spin O'Reilly, has a calm discussion with the son of one of those lost in the WTC. Seems son signed a petition called "Not in our Name." I love how O'R finds refuge in the guy's dead father when it's obvious the son knew his dad a little better. _______________________ O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to. GLICK: It's marginal -- right. O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even --I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this. GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate. O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but... GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush... O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are. GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that. O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed... GLICK: What I'm saying is... O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that. GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government. O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to... GLICK: Maybe... O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you. GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics. O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think. GLICK: Well, OK. O'REILLY: You're -- I want to... GLICK: But you do care because you... O'REILLY: No, no. Look... GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11... O'REILLY: Here's why I care. GLICK: ... to rationalize... O'REILLY: Here's why I care... GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide. O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch... GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families. O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people. GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me. O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why? GLICK: Why? O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country. GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel... O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right. GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14... O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the... GLICK: On September 14... O'REILLY: Here's the record. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK. GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father! GLICK: The people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father. GLICK: ... didn't kill my father. O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there. GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people? O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are! GLICK: So what about George Bush? O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA. O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were... O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this. GLICK: Well, I hope she is. O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: In respect for your father... GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing? O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up! GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up. O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians... GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government... O'REILLY: Out of respect for him... GLICK: ... not the people of America. O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to... GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority. O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.
having not seen it, i'm pretty sure that is the whole coversation. ... just means stopping one person's sentence when the other cuts it.
Wish I had seen this one. The kid's language sounds more brain-washed than heartfelt: GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government... GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority. What about they flight-schools that enabled the terrorists to pull off their crime?
An ordinary person reaching for stock phrases in a political discussion isn't very surprising. Since I've never watched O'Reilly's show, I'm far more amused by how a professional talk-show host treats a guest who was invited to discuss his opinions: That's the transcript of a man getting his ass kicked on his own show. I don't agree with all of the kid's opinions, but I applaud him for keeping his composure in the face of O'Reilly's badgering. It's funny how the kid's refusal to be rattled caused O'Reilly to totally lose it.
This show is stupid. Does O'Reilly want to discuss issues or just give his own opinions? What's the point of having guests on this show. I watch it sometimes just to see how much of an ass O'Reilly can be. And if he wants a serious discussion he wouldn't bring this wacko on his show.
Shows like this one are about as big a waste of time as Jerry Springer. Why the hell do I care what a TALK SHOW HOST thinks about politics? I don't listen to crazy lefty Pacifica radio shows, I don't listen to Limbaugh and I don't watch talk shows on Fox. They are all just a bunch of blowhards screaming at the top of their lungs and hoping someone will listen. They all have a very specific political agenda. No one listens. Absolutely nothing is accomplished. It reminds me of that scene in The Birdcage where Gene Hackman and Diane Weist are watching a broadcast of a Sunday morning political talk show Hackman's character was on. The show was basically men are screaming all at the same time and all at one another. No one listening to anyone else. Hackman says, "It's the most intellegent show on television."
I would have to agree, watched the show once for about 5 min and he just rambles on about his opinions and if the person doesnt think hes right he just argues with them, and ends the conversation with a look on his face that he was right the whole time, guy is freaking stupid.
I've never seen Bill O'reilly win an argument with any guest he brought on the show who disagreed with him. Even the morons in ICP made O'Reilly look r****ded. The fact that people can seriously watch O'Reilly and agree with him scares the **** out of me. He constantly has opinions about subject matter that he has no knowledge of and then has the gall to argue about experts who have been working with said subject matter for years. An intelligence man knows enough to admit that he knows nothing. A stupid man knows enough to admit that he knows everything. Bill O'Reilly falls directly into the second category, that idiot couldn't even beat out a junior high debate team.
I like watching O'Reilly because I find him amusing, but everyone here is right. If you disagree with him one bit, he'll either run you over by interrupting you every two seconds or by cutting off their mic or going to commercial.
O'Reilly has the number one program in all of cable news, and liberals absolutely hate that. I don't understand what the conversation in the title is supposed to show. What's funny is that liberals spend time trying to find this stuff and show it to people. Comparing news analysis shows to Springer? Good one.
Comparing news analysis shows to Springer? Good one. You're comparing this to news analysis? <I>O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you. ... I don't really care what you think. ... you keep your mouth shut ... ... I'm not going to debate this with you ... ... I'm not going to say anymore. ... Shut up! Shut up! ... Cut his mic... </I> [edited] If that's what people consider news analysis in this country, YIKES.
I'm glad that some of the conservative posters on this board write O'Reily off as not serious. It scares me that people in this country take this guy as a serious journalist. Limbaugh at least makes credible arguments, this guy is a joke. And I needed no more proof, then when he actually got into an on air argument with Michael Irvin, BTW, another FOX employee, so I don't know how real that was. Do you think Limbaugh, George Will, Sam Donaldson, or any other political journalist would actually engage Michael Irivn in an argument. I doubt it.
While I agree with most of O'Reilly's <i>opinions</i>, his show is not, nor has ever been, a true "no-spin" zone. He's got his own spin. It seems like, whenever he runs out of immediate arguments (even though conceivably more could be made), he decides to tell the guest that they're "out of time". He interrupts a lot. And, of course, we know the size of his ego. While he has a lot of good ideas, these are some of his limitations (shared unfortunately by many talking heads). My husband turns that thing on every night. *sigh* Not always what I want to see or hear after a long day of work... people arguing and trying to be louder than each other.
