O'Reilly Gets Owned

Off Topic
21

[quote]optprime wrote:
It’s funny, to me you are the O’Reilly of the political boards. For the most part you throw out typical left wing fodder, and try and claim you are not a liberal because you aren’t totally on board with restrictive firearm policies. This is much like O’Reilly claiming he’s not a conservative because he found some minor issue to disagree with Republicans about, like the border.

For the record I am an atheist libertarian, but much like you I think it is important to point out that some people are all about an agenda, and you clearly are. You are an obnoxious know it all just like O’Reilly; you are the pot calling the kettle black.

And for the record, F U for stating that “I doubt many conservatives would let many Iraqi families even live with them if the opportunity arose but they will cheer on sending people to die for them”. As much as I am anti-war I acknowledge the fact that middle America and the South provide the lions share of troops, and the lions share of conservative voters. The craven idea that they would prefer their sons and daughters to die before housing Iraqi’s is absurd, and a ridiculous statement you should reconsider. What do you think the demographcis were of those folks who took in evacuees after Katrina? Hazard a guess? you’d be amazed what “Conservatives” can do when put to the test, they’re almost human.

To use one of your favorite defenses, they’re rubber and you are glue. You are as much of a hack as O’Reilly ever was, you just don’t have a platform.

BTW, the fact that someone has lost a loved one in battle does NOT grant them special consideration when determining the prosecution of war. In most wars, this one especially, the relatives of the fallen support the war. Why does Cindy Sheehan deserve more respect than those? Because she camped out in Bush’s neighborhood?
[/quote]

This was quite possibly the largest collection of shit in one post that I have ever read. You didn’t touch even one particular point made in that “interview”, but rather made an entire post as an attack on me. That was about as childish and mindless as they come. As far as why Sheehan “deserves respect”, she deserves no more respect than others. I said you can’t SPEAK for someone who lost someone over there. That is a huge difference between that and what you wrote. I could care less if you don’t like my post. Apparently that hasn’t stopped you from reading them.

By the way, good job on avoiding the topic of this thread. It even took you, what, 5 paragraphs to do it?

22

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I do give him credit for even admitting that the war in Iraq was a big screw up.

“Full of unintended consequences” was the exact quote, X. You apparently read the Cliff Notes and didn’t take the seven minutes to watch the actual interview.[/quote]

Actually, before you correct someone, make sure you get your facts straight. the quote was actually,

Therefore, he did say it was a screw up, but thanks for letting us know that YOU don’t pay attention.

23

[quote]edgecrusher wrote:
oh yea, owned big time…

When’s “The O’Letterman Factor” going to debut? [/quote]

November, 1981. It’s been running on NBC, then CBS since then.

24

“In most wars, this one especially, the relatives of the fallen support the war. Why does Cindy Sheehan deserve more respect than those? Because she camped out in Bush’s neighborhood?”

Dead on balls accurate!

25

[quote]jwdolaniii wrote:
“In most wars, this one especially, the relatives of the fallen support the war. Why does Cindy Sheehan deserve more respect than those? Because she camped out in Bush’s neighborhood?”

Dead on balls accurate!
[/quote]

It sure is…considering I hear more conservatives bring her name up than anyone else. I don’t even know what the woman is saying beyond a few quotes we have discussed on this forum and really don’t care. I do wonder why this bothers people so much that she doesn’t support the war. Who cares? Why does anyone feel the need to call her names and act as if she is the scum of the earth because of it? Why does anyone care so much regardless of where you stand on the issue?

26

[quote]brabbit wrote:
I think you’re way off on that one. Letterman said that O’Reilly is anything but “fair and balanced”, was incredibly rude to O’Reilly and then said that he has never watched the O’Reilly Factor and based his opinion on what he read and heard from others.

How the hell can you have opinion like that when you’ve never even listened to the show? It would be like me saying Charles Poliquin is a bad strength coach, because a few people on a message board said he was a bad strength coach, even though I had never tried any of his excercise programs or read his books and articles.

How the hell would that make for an informed opinion? I thought Leterman came off as a clueless first class a**hole.[/quote]

Isn’t it amazing how libs do this? One of my colleagues referred to Limbaugh as ‘an idiot’. I asked if he’d ever listened to him: “Well, no, I just heard he’s an idiot.” Guess its easier to accept someone else’s judgment than form one of his own.

Maybe the same thing that makes 'em libs prevents them from thinking for themselves.

27

Full disclosure: I can’t stand O’Reilly.

That being said: O’Reilly got owned? Nobody owned anyone in this clip. Dave was not prepared to talk policy - he was more interested in quips. Which is fine - that’s what he does.

O’Reilly didn’t look like an ass at all, which is rare for him - he specifically noted how Sheehan could grieve any way she wanted to and say whatever she wanted to, but he took issue with her opinions on the situation in Iraq. Perfectly fair game.

But this post is by Harris, and although Harris is technically an expert on ‘being owned’, I think it is a stretch to suggest that O’Reilly lost this bout.

Clearly Dave doesn’t care for O’Reilly, and I would actually like to see Dave get boned up on a few facts and discuss, as Letterman is a very sharp guy. But this segment was no great shakes - just a couple of guys who disagree and don’t have the time to debate it out.

Swing and a miss, Harris - but whatever makes you feel better.

28

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Clearly Dave doesn’t care for O’Reilly, and I would actually like to see Dave get boned up on a few facts and discuss, as Letterman is a very sharp guy. But this segment was no great shakes - just a couple of guys who disagree and don’t have the time to debate it out.[/quote]

I agree with this. It would have been much more interesting to see someone who actually researched O’Reilly debate with him. I would actually like to see what someone like Oprah would come up with in an actual interview.

29

A couple of points:

  1. O’Reilly is certainly not a conservative. He is a populist. There is a huge difference between the two.

  2. I think the sum total of Letterman’s points can be characterized thusly: “I don’t need to point out where you’re wrong, nor to explain why you’re wrong - I can just label it all as wrong, and the audience will clap and whistle.”

30

From an objective point of view (I am not a fan/hater of either Letterman or O’Reilly, as a matter of fact, I know nothing about O’Reilly and prefer Leno to Letterman) and sticking to the subject and doing no extrapolation/speculation; O’Reilly did not get “owned”.

David acted totally rude, made invalid points, had no base for his arguments, and was basically a jackass. On that note, I thought O’Reilly acted rather composed for someone having to sit through this nonsense with this type of “host”. Props to O’Reilly for keeping his composure.

31

[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Clearly Dave doesn’t care for O’Reilly, and I would actually like to see Dave get boned up on a few facts and discuss, as Letterman is a very sharp guy. But this segment was no great shakes - just a couple of guys who disagree and don’t have the time to debate it out.

I agree with this. It would have been much more interesting to see someone who actually researched O’Reilly debate with him. I would actually like to see what someone like Oprah would come up with in an actual interview.[/quote]

Or Jon Stewart, man… that bit with Crossfire was AWESOME.

32

www.mediamatters.org

Keeps up with O’Reily and his distortions of the facts.

Yes it is a liberal/left site, however anyone can recognize misrepresentation of a fact. MM points out what was said and what the facts actually are. I am not saying they are always right but give it a read on O’Reily and if you have the time to verify what they are saying doing so will be quite revealing as to O’ Reily’s tendecies to distort the facts.

He bashes them all the time but rarely challenges them on the facts and thats what its all about. O’Reily doesnt appear to be big on getting the facts right. Hey you and I can have different oppinions about a war but facts like the death toll is not subjective and its not ok to misrepresent it.

Another example is to say such and such country allowes gay marriage and now straight marriage is on the decline would be an interesting fact except the country mentioned doesnt allow gay marriage. Just some examples.

33

i don’t see o’reilly getting owned. i see oil and water. dave’s show is humor and entertainment and he was trying to keep it there. it’s not a debate show. what was uncomfortable and innappropriate was how o’reilly, a guest in dave’s house, was trying to force his will into dave’s format. he showed himself to be a self-centered ass who can’t just sit down, be a human, and shoot the shit w/ someone for 5 minutes.

34

[quote]IronHell wrote:
From an objective point of view (I am not a fan/hater of either Letterman or O’Reilly, as a matter of fact, I know nothing about O’Reilly and prefer Leno to Letterman) and sticking to the subject and doing no extrapolation/speculation; O’Reilly did not get “owned”.

David acted totally rude, made invalid points, had no base for his arguments, and was basically a jackass. On that note, I thought O’Reilly acted rather composed for someone having to sit through this nonsense with this type of “host”. Props to O’Reilly for keeping his composure.[/quote]

“host” ?? o’reilly took it there. he’s entirely close-minded and one dimensional. you think he was acting like a guest ? i have a friend who worships rush and lives his whole life vicariously through him. all he ever wants to do at night is ambush people who just want to chill w/ the points he ripped off limbaugh’s show that day. now i’ll go out drinking with the guy sure, or throw the football or whatever. but no way i’m ever having him to my house or out to dinner w/ family/ mixed company. he’d just ruin the evening 'cause all he can do is spout that stuff. that’s o’reilly.

letterman has all kinds of people on his show and they all get along. he’s incredibly versatile. o’reilly is an inept oaf if he can’t go on a milk and cookies show like that and figure a way to make a good impression.

35

[quote]swivel wrote:
IronHell wrote:
From an objective point of view (I am not a fan/hater of either Letterman or O’Reilly, as a matter of fact, I know nothing about O’Reilly and prefer Leno to Letterman) and sticking to the subject and doing no extrapolation/speculation; O’Reilly did not get “owned”.

David acted totally rude, made invalid points, had no base for his arguments, and was basically a jackass. On that note, I thought O’Reilly acted rather composed for someone having to sit through this nonsense with this type of “host”. Props to O’Reilly for keeping his composure.

“host” ?? o’reilly took it there. he’s entirely close-minded and one dimensional. you think he was acting like a guest ? i have a friend who worships rush and lives his whole life vicariously through him. all he ever wants to do at night is ambush people who just want to chill w/ the points he ripped off limbaugh’s show that day. now i’ll go out drinking with the guy sure, or throw the football or whatever. but no way i’m ever having him to my house or out to dinner w/ family/ mixed company. he’d just ruin the evening 'cause all he can do is spout that stuff. that’s o’reilly.

letterman has all kinds of people on his show and they all get along. he’s incredibly versatile. o’reilly is an inept oaf if he can’t go on a milk and cookies show like that and figure a way to make a good impression.

[/quote]

Good point. I hadn’t even thought of it that way. It actually wasn’t the time to talk “all business”.

36

[quote]swivel wrote:
“host” ?? o’reilly took it there. [/quote]

It is called Late Show with David Letterman and not Late Show with Bill O’Reilly correct? That would lend itself to be a show where LETTERMAN is the host agreed?

[quote]swivel wrote:
you think he was acting like a guest ? i have a friend who worships rush and lives his whole life vicariously through him. all he ever wants to do at night is ambush people who just want to chill w/ the points he ripped off limbaugh’s show that day. now i’ll go out drinking with the guy sure, or throw the football or whatever. but no way i’m ever having him to my house or out to dinner w/ family/ mixed company.
[/quote]

So what Letterman should have done is learn about his guest and identitfy if this is the type of person he would want to have as a GUEST on HIS show.

Letterman claims… what was it again? 60% of what O’Reilly says is crap and then also says he doesn’t even watch O’Reilly’s show. That would suggest O’Reilly wouldn’t be a favorable person to bring in as a GUEST to Letterman’s show just like how your friend who worships Rush would not be a favorable person for you to bring in as a guest to your home. Yet, Letterman had O’Reilly as a guest and then proceeded to act like a RUDE host.

37

Not to mention Letterman was the one who steered the discussion to the subject of “Bush administration”. That’s like inviting a wolf to your house, expect him to come in a tuxedo, and think you are going to have a nice civilized dinner…

38

[quote]swivel wrote:

letterman has all kinds of people on his show and they all get along. he’s incredibly versatile. o’reilly is an inept oaf if he can’t go on a milk and cookies show like that and figure a way to make a good impression.[/quote]

Foolishness. Talk show hosts have people on to be themselves - actors talk about their movies, political candidates talk up themselves, comedians do jokes.

No one - not even the host - is surprised to have O’Reilly on and have O’Reilly immediately start doing his routine from the Factor on whatever O’Reilly’s latest shtick is. That is why you bring on guests.

Go back and watch the video - Letterman specifically brings up O’Reilly’s ‘friends in the Bush administration’ and the war. Letterman didn’t have to, he could have asked about anything he wanted to. Letterman knows its good TV to get O’Reilly going on his material - after all, there isn’t a thread on T-Nation with clips of Letterman interviewing Sarah Jessica Parker about the ‘Family Stone’. We are all talking about it right now and we have all seen the video - you get it?

39

I HATE Bill and I am a Letterman fan but Dave did come off as an ass in that video. He was kinda’ doing what Bill does on his show, not letting people get a word in edge wise. Bill was actually the good guy there which is VERY hard to come by.

40

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
swivel wrote:

letterman has all kinds of people on his show and they all get along. he’s incredibly versatile. o’reilly is an inept oaf if he can’t go on a milk and cookies show like that and figure a way to make a good impression.

Foolishness. Talk show hosts have people on to be themselves - actors talk about their movies, political candidates talk up themselves, comedians do jokes.

No one - not even the host - is surprised to have O’Reilly on and have O’Reilly immediately start doing his routine from the Factor on whatever O’Reilly’s latest shtick is. That is why you bring on guests.

Go back and watch the video - Letterman specifically brings up O’Reilly’s ‘friends in the Bush administration’ and the war. Letterman didn’t have to, he could have asked about anything he wanted to. Letterman knows its good TV to get O’Reilly going on his material - after all, there isn’t a thread on T-Nation with clips of Letterman interviewing Sarah Jessica Parker about the ‘Family Stone’. We are all talking about it right now and we have all seen the video - you get it?[/quote]

granted that’s why you have guests on but it’s always a give and take and you take your cues from the host. the ball really got rolling the way bill wanted to roll it when he started off with his potty-pants winter soltice pout. from that point on it was clear whatever the producers had agreed they were going to discuss was out the window. and yeah sure dave wanted to let him go off because it’d be good tv but o’reilly’s such a frickn sourpuss he won’t play and let everyone be involved. he just want to dictate.

this was my first time seeing o’reilly. i went to parochial school where we used to mercilessly rip on all that vauge,inert crap like season’s greetings and happy holiday to you and yours etc. if anyone, he should have been able to get me on his side with that stuff, but he couldn’t even do that because he doesn’t even believe his own words. that’s why the audience hated him. and dave hated him because the audience did.