O'Reilly - Letterman shootout

http://farleft.blogspot.com/2006/01/david-lettermans-heated-discussion_04.html

 

So you don't have to go to that crappy Blog site, here is the direct link to the CBS FULL video of the show.

http://video.cgi.cbs.com/video/vide...ights/2006/01/20060103.rm&plugin=1&proto=rtsp

 

Wow! Letterman really tore into him!

 

In my defense, I just did what Tigermission should have done in the first place: I googled.

And happy birthday Louis Braille, btw.

 

I wasn't attacking you, I was directing my distaste to the site. Not you.

Oh, and I saw that Braille thing on google. I love how they change their name for holidays/important dates.

 

link doesnt work holmes.

 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/04.html#a6571

I love Letterman too, but he admits that he isn't smart enough to debate it... or to even prove Bill wrong. I'm not a huge fan of Bill either, but I'll take his word on the situation a lot faster then I'd take Dave's and his stupid pet tricks.

 

Also, if you watch the entire interview rather then the little clips O'Reilly does more then hold his own.

 

O'Reilly is a hypocrite, racist and sexual assaulter who should not have a show.

He never lets his guests give their opinions UNLESS they are in complete agreement with his views. If you debate him, he talks over you and tries to put words in your mouth and doesn't let you speak.

Dude protested Ludacris being used by Pepsi to promote their product because of his "gangsta" background and his music's lyrical content. CODE for Racist. It was all because he is black. Why didn't he protest that doped up loser Ozzy? Dude allows his children to abuse drugs while he is dopped up all the time. Also, Oreilly, before you talk, try not to sexually abuse women, because last I checked that wasn't a good thing.

Why do people support shows hosted by moronic people like oreilly?

Oh well...I didn't catch Letterman but props to him to sticking up.

 

I agree. <a href="http://www.onlinepokercenter.com/blogs/poker_addict/#stewart">Jon Stewart's interview of O'Reilly</a> was much better:

 

At the end they were really two ships passing in the night. Neither really responded to the other's position, which is pretty common in a spontaneous argument like that one. What sticks in my craw is that people like O'Reilly refuse to ever admit that the other side might have some kind of argument. Simply painting the insurgents as brutal terrorists is turning the situation into a childish morality play in which we are necessarily the protagonsits and they are the antagonists.

The truth is, neither side is what the other claims it to be. The insurgents aren't just terrorists who hate American freedom, they're individuals fighting to remove a foreign threat from their land the only way they are capable of. And the Americans aren't just infidel occupiers, they want to improve the quality of the Iraqi's lives and not simply destroy the Muslim faith. As long as politicians refuse to acknowledge that their are legitimate motivations behind both parties' actions then the solutions that are offered will always be half-baked.

Here's where I think O'Reilly misses the boat. He says "no one who blows up women and children will ever be called a freedom fighter on my show." Well, then I hope he never calls George Bush, the American army, or its soldiers freedom fighters either because they have done the same damn thing. Bush authorized the war and the American army deployed knowing that many many innocent people would be killed in the war. However, they felt the greater good that would come from the war justified that sacrifice. This is the same exact thing that the insurgents are doing. They are launching attacks where they know innocents will be killed because they think the greater good justifies it. It's really sad to see how neither side is willing to admit that the other might have some legitimacy. In the end, they both just look like monkeys flinging crap at each other.

 

This is highly offensive and incredibly wrong.

So you are equating Bush and the soldiers to a terrorist? Absurd. Here is the difference: The terrorists *intentionally* target civilians, while the Americans bend over backwards to avoid collateral damage (use of smart bombs, strategic planning, reluctance to attack mosques, etc). The terrorists target civilians, hoping to get their story in the news and allow the anti-war left to create a groundswell of support to erode the mission. This is a strategy pioneered by Kerry/Fonda during Vietnam. The enemy knows that we can not be beat militarily. The only hope is to break the voters' will. This is only accomplished through grass roots efforts by liberals and the media to publicize the bad and downplay the good in hopes that politicians will end the war. Frankly, it's disgusting.

 

TJ, you are dead wrong. You used the intentionally. O'Reilly did not. O'Reilly said anyone who blows up women and children. There was no intentionally in it.

Both terrorists and the U.S. military blow up women and children. You are correct that there is a difference, and a distinction to be made, but Bill didn't make it.

 

So instead of addressing the point I make you simply replace it with a strawman? Absurd.

 

Kerry and Fonda pioneered the targeting of civilians as a military strategy?

 

If only O'Reilly was that smart, but alas ...

 

It's a shame that so many people watch this guy on television, though few seem keen on admitting it. Turns out that the "60%" figure from Letterman may have been a bit generous.

 

this is why letterman is SOOOO much better than any other late night tv show host.

 

You must be new here... This classic Jorge.