Count Dooku

So changing your opinion makes you insane?

There are a lot of insane people in the United States right now, because a lot of people believed Bush's untruths about why we went to war in Iraq, and they supported it.
Now they know the truth about WMDs and "faulty" intelligence and the conflating of all anti-American Muslims into "terrorists" (a term which post 9/11 had a very specific meaning) and they don't support Bush or think going to war in Iraq was necessary or the right thing to do.

Evidence, please.
And, gee, I hope it's something where she said something about Israel. Becasue everybody knows that if you criticize Israel that makes you a Jew-hater, just like if you say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" that makes you a Jesus-hater.

dolphinboy

Back to the actual "catfight".

I highly doubt that Letterman pre-planned an "attack" on O'Reilly. Letterman has a long history of being self-depricating and calling himself too stupid to know anything, when actually I wouldn't be surprised if he knows more about most issues than O'Reilly does. Are you telling me O'Reilly doesn't, himself, get most of his "facts" from reading something or being told something? Letterman would be better served by not getting his news from reading, but rather watching the crap O'Reilly, CNN, and MSNBC serves up on a daily basis?

Letterman's actually an incredibly intelligent, thoughtful man and, I think, he simply very sympathetic to Cindy Sheehan (and all parents and soldiers, he's been to Iraq several times...O'Reilly has READ about it).

Now, I know this thread has gotten political, but I don't think that's what any of this was about. Personally, I agree with the poster that Sheehan mispoke, she's not someone who had done a lot of public speaking, and, to give the benefit of the doubt to the right, she's probably even made mistakes. Sorry, she's not actually the zombie, controlled by "people" on the left, that you want her to be.

Did anyone see the clip of Bush tonight when he bubbled through yet another speech and forgot the name of the leader of North Korea? The right is analyzing every word she says without context and if you did that with the PRESIDENT, you'd think you'd want him impeached too.

I have political feelings about Sheehan, but I don't think Letterman looked at it the way I do, O'Reilly does, or a lot of other posters do. He just views it as a woman who lost her son who's grieving and doing what she thinks is right and doesn't deserved to be attacked by boobs like Bill. If, as O'Reilly stated again, it's a waste of time to debate how we got into the war (pure garbage), then why do we still need to attack a woman who may or may not be right? Is it still the sad argument that she's aiding the enemy or demoralizing all of our brave men and women? Please.

To those who say Letterman should have responded with something solid after he claimed 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, you're probably right. But I'm sure it's not because he couldn't have come up with anything and I highly doubt Letterman has NEVER spent even a little time checking out his show, but Letterman did a long pause, kind of rolled his eyes, and I think he recognized that things could only get worse. He doesn't do a political debate show and he isn't political like Stewart, who would have gone back at Bill (not that it would have done him any good).

As a viewer, I would have liked to see it get nastier, but as a host, I don't think Letterman wanted that. I think the Sheehan thing set him off and he pulled it back as best he could despite being clearly bothered. I agree it did make him appear weak, but most people who are talking about it ignore the fact that Letterman tried several times to throw in a joke or two and even take himself down a peg, so that he could somewhat end things without the two ending up with a Franken-O'Reilly repeat. I applaud Letterman for letting O'Reilly off the hook and recognizing he does a late night variety show that sometimes touches on serious issues, but he doesn't do the angry, political show O'Reilly does.

Letterman was joking when he said he never watched the show and possibly tossing that out as part joke, part insult. Letterman was trying to be funny with the 60% crap and O'Reilly looked pissed at that point, while I can't stand him, I can't blame him for that because he wasn't in complete control and in a position to yell at Dave and have his mic turned off, so the interview never got back to being civil. I don't think anyone won, because there wasn't a competition.

I think the fact that O'Reilly spent 20 minutes of his show today, the first 20, on the Letterman show appearance and how it was a sign of a cultural war (now that we've moved on from the war on Christmas until we get to the war on Easter), shows exactly how insecure Bill is. He needed to use a segment on his show to get to say all the (incorrect) things he didn't get to say on Letterman's show. If he felt the Letterman interview spoke for itself in favor of himself, I don't think he would have spent 20 minutes on it the next day and bringing in 2 "analysts" to discuss his appearance on Dave's show. That was pretty pathetic.

Matthew Chmiel

As much as I like Letterman, he should've brought up specific points to rip O'Reilly's asshole a new one.

However, what he should've done was pull a Crispin Glover and just kick O'Reilly in his head.

dolphinboy

Much more important to dwell on the words of a grieving and angry mother or make inflammatory comments about Neo-Nazi groups than on things like the war will pay for itself and there was a direct connection between Saddam and Bin Laden...you know, all the boring, silly stuff we shouldn't talk about now because we've got a democracy in Iraq that we suddenly care about creating, at great expense.

dolphinboy

And I was just pointing out how completely unobjective you were showing yourself to be, therefore what you think about Letterman deciding to play the "Sheehan card" (which is a complete mischaracterization and oversimplification of what he did) doesn't really add much to the debate on the issue of the O'Reilly vs. Letterman catfight.

PS, congrats, though, on going for an Israel quote exactly as Count Dooku predicted you would.

dolphinboy

That's the point! It was on a nighly variety/talk show where O'Reilly held his own, according to you. Kudos, man, if that's how you see it. But Letterman's job is to be funny and make himself into the butt of the joke if need be and he did that by not letting himself get baited into an even angrier exchange that O'Reilly would have loved. The interview was never meant to go where it did and Letterman probably wishes that it didn't. Not because he gives a rat's ass about O'Reilly or his phoney issues, but because the kind of heated, political debate is really not what Letterman's show is about.

Would you really care if you were O'Reilly and you could put on your resume that you held your own in a political debate while on the Late Show with David Letterman? Letterman bit the bullet and stood down and you think that's worth some chest pounding?

dolphinboy

Your own words were that Bill held is own. Just a few posts back. Hardly a first round TKO or even majority decision.

Yes, I do think Dave showed restraint in not letting things get worse than they had. I don't blame Bill for how things got started, though.

If you remember, things started off on the phoney war on Christmas crap and both guys were just doing their thing. Dave said it wasn't real, that he didn't pay attention and Bill was joking back with him (as best he can). One could have hardly predicted where things were going after their first little exchange.

If Dave looked slighly foolish, it was probably for going only half the way. He did go after Bill after the Sheehan remark and then he sort of looked like he had second thoughts about even why he'd allowed himself to get involved with something so dumb with that blowhard. But I don't disagree that Dave was kind of over the line a bit from where a tough joke actually is mean spirited.

Even though you stated "held his own" so I didn't actually see that as evidence that you thought Bill won, I didn't engage you on that for the most part. I simply asked back what's the point of even thinking it's relevant to try and pick a winner and, furthermore, if Dave gave everything he had and Bill did too, which would have been fun to see, why should someone like Bill, who's sole purpose in life it seems is to know these issues inside and out, not mop the floor with some dopey comedian who hosts a variety/talk show?

It's wasn't like jeopardy where there are lots of varied topics...they were all issues Bill is an "expert" on. According to him.

I saw the title of the thread and I've read the posts, that doesn't mean to have a legitimate point I need to agree that there was a real fight, much less whether there was a winner or a loser.

wmansir

Did you notice before the interview even began Letterman mixed up O'Reilly's water with a pencil from his desk? Doesn't that show there was some premeditation to attack O'Reilly?

snoogins

Didnt letterman do something similar with Rush Limbaugh? I seem to remember him calling el rushbo a big ball of gas or something to that affect.

Count Dooku

Rockmjd23 posted this quote attributed to Cindy Sheehan
I know we're going off-topic here, and I apologize for that, so I will make this brief.

ONE: As predicted, Rockmjd23 has equated criticism of Israel with anti-semetism.

TWO: The Project for a New American Century is a conservative think-tank that in January of 1998 urged President Clinton to consider using military force to remove Sadaam Hussein from power in Iraq, in part because his Weapons of Mass Destruction would be a threat to our ally, Israel.
PNAC Statement of Principles (check out who signed it)
Jan 1998 PNAC letter to Pres Clinton

bboisvert

Did you actually watch/listen to that event on C-SPAN? Franken goes on first, talks 20 minutes, and O'Reilly lets him go off without saying a word. He sits there like a polite human being and lets the other guy give his speech.

Then, O'Reilly gets up to speak, and Franken is interrupting him constantly. The guy can't get a fucking word out without Franken heckling and commenting. So, yes, O'Reilly lost it a bit -- I would too.



And, seriously, if you're going to put someone on the cover of your book about "Lying liars", shouldn't you have more ammunition than him mistaking a Polk award for a Peabody award? That's pretty damn trivial.

ryuryu2949

I am in the pro-O'Reilly camp. I confess that I am a conservative (used to be a liberal but I saw the light), but I think that any way you look at it, O'Reilly's show is indeed "fair and balanced" and in any event, is highly entertaining and informative. There are almost always both a left and right person on a given issue, and Bill makes sure each gets a chance to speak their mind. He does not tolerate either person talking over the other one or himself (although imho, it usually is the lefty who wants to interrupt, i.e. the Franken comment above). He has agreed with the left several times (most notably by defending Dan Rather as an excellent journalist and by attacking that African-American journalist/talking head who used his media position to advocate a Bush policy while simultaneously being paid by the admininstration).

I hate to ask the obvious, but I wonder if most of the people bashing O'Reilly here are making the same mistake Letterman did, i.e. attacking him based on word of mouth rather than personal observation. For instance, I think Anderson Cooper "looks" like a jackass, but I would never attack him as actually being one because my only real exposure to him is that recurring SNL sketch. And O'Reilly is no less a blowhard than Bill Maher (who I vehemently disagree with on most issues but still respect as a person and enjoy his show [even if it is fiction, lol]). But noone is so hateful of Mr. Maher.

As for O'Reilly's points, I don't think you can rationally "fully" support Cindy Sheehan if you knew the facts. It is a given that she has a "right" to speak her mind, but also a given that people like myself and Bill can criticize both her message and her methods. I don't think that Bill has ever said that what Sheehan is doing is illegal or should be illegal, but rather that it is unwise. Additionally, there is a War on Christmas (and I am not even Christian). I think Bill's point is that political correctness has run amok in this country. And he is right.

Last point: I don't know if this is because I am at work, but the original link to the clip in the first post is not working. anywhere else I can see the clip?

cornflakeguy

On the Saturday Night Live skits where they parody the "O'Reilly Factor" the running gag is that O'Reilly doesn't know what he's talking about, and that he makes stuff up.

I wonder why they based the skits on that, rather than the way he talks, like the HardBall skits, or just plain acting weird, like the Prince Show?

Is it because that they base the skits on a shred of....oh, I don't know.....TRUTH? MMmmmm??

cfg

PS, if there is a "War on Christmas" these past few years, then you have to agree that before now there was a War on Hindus, Muslums, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.

ryuryu2949

Oh, so I guess I should just put all my trust in Tina Fey. Now it all makes sense.



Um, why do I have to do that? Jeez man, make a case for something like that. Where is this War on Hindus? And War on (non-terrorist) Muslims? I think not!!! We go out of our way (as we should) to acknowledge that fundamentalist terrorist muslims are bastardizing the Koran and that the muslim faith is a beautiful religion.

As for atheists, well since that small minority of the population seeks to have the majority submit to their beliefs (i.e. Michael Newdow), then disagreeing with atheists and trying to prevent them from influencing the law can ONLY be considered a "war on atheists." But that war is inevitable, and indeed, necessary.

In any case, I am tired of the many liberals who just spout blanket statements as if they were facts, and their opinions as if they were the gospel (pun intended). If you even just try to back up some of your arguments, then maybe we can have an intelligent discourse.

P.S. - Using SNL to support your argument? Dumbest thing I have heard or seen in 2006. Congratulations.

dolphinboy

Wow, you must agree with me, that O'Reilly is a lying liar. After all, you state you saw the book expo event on CSPAN (so did I) and Franken spoke for 20 minutes. Well, one of the first comments, in his crazy tirade against Franken was how Bill had sat there while Al took 35 minutes giving his speech. That was a lie and he was off by 75%. Not bad by the Factor standards, but still. There was a ton of ammunition in his book and it's not surprising that Al didn't go into all them (he only spoke for 20 minutes after all, or was it 35?) and only chose one that he could best tell in a story (about an award for writing) to a bunch of people who workin the book business.

This is the no spin zone, sir. I can't go on debating with you. Once you cross the line, you can't go back. You said Al spoke for 20 minutes while you were defending Bill, who said/lied that Al had been speaking for 35 minutes. That was incorrect and I'm not going to give any more of time to you here on the factor to spew your propaganda. Click...

Anyway, I gots me a war to get back to. and some reindeer to kill.

dolphinboy

Umm..no.

O'Reilly spent 20 minutes of his own show to attack Letterman (not a bad attack by Factor standards) the next day and I think he might have mentioned the attempt to kill Bill by lead poisoning if he thought there was some malice involved.

Giles

yeah, I caught this... O'Reilly is such a whiny little shit.

dolphinboy

Limbaugh on the Late Show

Here's a link to the transcript and it's not all butchered up factor style.

Proof that Letterman is a liberal celebrity with an axe to grind against conservative blowhards. Not.

Limbaugh actually had a sense of humor about himself. And this interview was from a time when Letterman was considered mean by many liberal Hollywood celebrity A-listers as well.

IG80Nate

Amusing.

Many thanks for the link, I wanted to catch this.

dolphinboy

How exactly do we go out of our way? You're not seeing that on the Factor are you?


So because you (or the "large" majority) want to keep atheists from influencing the law, you believe it's necessary to have a "war on atheists?" So is that your way of calling for a jihad? How very not fundamentalist of you


Isn't it a blanket statement to say that many liberals are just spouting blanket statements as if they were facts with nothing to back it up, while not presenting many examples of this, yourself, to actually back that up, so that we could could have an intelligent discourse? Just asking.

bboisvert

Such as? I'm really curious about this.

I've never read Franken's book, but the only example I ever hear is this absurd Peabody/Polk business. What other "lies" does Franken accuse him of?

Even in this thread, people seem to be saying that O'Reilly "makes stuff up" or is full of crap, but I don't see many specifics.

wmansir

Funny, I downloaded Bill's entire radio show yesterday to hear his reaction to the appearance and he didn't spend any time "attacking" Letterman. He spent almost the entire show on the topic but he was very respectful towards Letterman. He basically said they have a difference of opinion and it was obvious Letterman lost his composure at the mention of Sheehan, but he would go back on the show if asked. A caller mentioned the pencil incident, but Bill didn't address the issue at all, one way or the other. Perhaps he has too much class to descend to Letterman's level and chose to ignore David's infantile behavior.

Also, the pencil move was meant to show ill will towards O'Reilly. Not in a physical way, but it was Dave's way of letting the audience know that he doesn't like they guy before Bill even takes the stage. But then I'm not a regular view, is it normal for Letterman to foul his guests beverage before they come out?

dolphinboy

This is a standard ploy of O"Reilly. A guest comes on, O'reilly asks him or her for facts that most anyone wouldn't have on them at that moment and then implies or actually states that the said guest is a moron. Meanwhile, it's his show, he has people do his research for him and he still gets the facts wrong.

I'm sorry if I don't want to summarize the book for you or if I don't keep a crib sheet on O'Reilly's lies to post here in case someone asks.

Buy the book, check it out of a library and read it if you want to see the other side. If you're a conservative, don't even bother reading about Hannity because it will probably just become partisan with you. Franken doesn't go after O'Reilly for being a partisan hack, although he believes he is a republican and lies about being independent, he goes after him for being a liar, a bully, a jackass, and a blowhard.

If you really want to find info on O'Reilly, there are many websites that keep track of the ever growing list of lies that he tells. Maybe you can find one of them that you don't believe is controlled by those "people" who control Cindy Sheehan.

dolphinboy

Yeah, that would be just like Bill. He always keeps himself above the fray.

Funny, I was talking about his tv show. Not surprised he spent almost an entire radio show about the Letterman incident. Must have been a slow news day for the war against Christmas.

I see you're now getting pretty deep into analyzing Dave's psyche. I'm sure the thousand people in the audience all had their eyes glued to Bill's cup to see if Letterman would stir it with his pencil, because that's exactly how he let's them know whether he likes the guest or not. You would know this if you were a regular viewer.

nodeerforamonth

I thought it was so funny! Letterman would say "Well I don't know anything about this, but you're wrong!". Or "I've never seen your show, but it's horrible and unfair." He really exposed himself as someone who really just doesn't know anything!

Everything he brought up, he admitted he knew nothing about! Well they why bring it up!??!?!?!?