Michael Moore to enter the No Spin Zone

[Hulkein]

That's right, Moore is going to be on the O'Reilly factor tonite.

It only took Bill O'Reilly a few months of calling Moore out to get him on the show.

Should be very entertaining.

[Artha]

I'm going to watch this.

[Carl Spackler]

Moore will be embarassed on national TV... it will be O'reilly's facts vs. Moore's ultra left opinions.

[Parkbandit]

O'Reilly is as bad as Michael Moore.. just not as fat and ugly. They are both wackos.

[Chadj]

<<O'reilly's facts vs. Moore's ultra left opinions. >>

Michael Moore has and uses tons of facts. And he draws his opinions from those facts. Try reading one of his books before you make assumptions.

[Back]

This ought to be interesting. O'Reilly gets really heated most of the time, and so can Moore.

I don't think O'Reilly has half the talent Moore has though, and certainly no where near half the brains. Its an unfair fight. But since its O'Reilly's show, he will appear to win.

[Wezas]

O'Reilly won't be able to just "shut off his mic" like he does on the radio factor. Should be interesting.

He'll probably give Moore the "Last Word" and then after Moore leaves he'll respond to his "Last Word" for 5 minutes.

[Hulkein]

Bill O'Reilly is a much smarter man then Michael Moore. Michael Moore is a better propagandist though.

[DeV]

It will be good. Moore will not allow himself to be embarrased by O'Reilly though. The man has nothing to lose, literally.

[Drew]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
It will be good. Moore will not allow himself to be embarrased by O'Reilly though. The man has nothing to lose, literally.

Did you see the last time Moore was on the show? Believe it or not it was very civil with no yelling at all, I'd have to say that O'Reilly came out on top, even though I'm no big O'Reilly fan.

[Weedmage Princess]

I'll be tuning in.

[Nieninque]

I wanna watch :(

[Drew]

Coming on in about five minutes for those who want to watch...

[Back]

This interview is going to give him some big ratings. Good strategy to schedule it during the convention. He's been talking over Kennedy. While mildly inspiring, he gets windy anyway.

[Artha]

It's on now. Pretty amusing.

[Artha]

It's now off. Surprisingly civil.

[Edited on 7-28-2004 by Artha]

[Back]

Pretty equally matched. Ok, so O'Rielly isn't half as smart, and Mikey is just as emotional. Both got a little flustered, both made good points... but it was more like watching a spool of thread ravel and unravel quickly. Every time O'Reilly started droning the same bullshit the administration did, Mikey kicked him in the nuts with the facts to wake him up.

[Artha]

Then every time Michael started droning the overdone, cliched, falacitic (I hope that's a word) leftist spiel, O'Reilly set phasers to Pwn.

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by Backlash
Pretty equally matched. Ok, so O'Rielly isn't half as smart, and Mikey is just as emotional. Both got a little flustered, both made good points... but it was more like watching a spool of thread ravel and unravel quickly. Every time O'Reilly started droning the same bullshit the administration did, Mikey kicked him in the nuts with the facts to wake him up.


Are you retarded? Moore never once answered a question directly, he beat around the bush every time.

[Betheny]

...

When you make topics like this, put times, so dumbasses like me don't miss things. Here, I thought it wouldn't be on until at least ten.

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha
Then every time Michael started droning the overdone, cliched, falacitic (I hope that's a word) leftist spiel, O'Reilly set phasers to Pwn.

It could be a word because I understood what you meant though its not in any dictionary.

O'Reilly kept linking Iraq to terrorism when recent reports everyone on earth knows about found nothing about it, the WMDs from the same, and using that bullshit about liberating the Iraqis.

[Edited on 7-28-2004 by Backlash]

[Back]

Originally posted by Maimara
...

When you make topics like this, put times, so dumbasses like me don't miss things. Here, I thought it wouldn't be on until at least ten.

Blame Hulk for not posting it. I will thank him to the alert though. It was enjoyable. I even gave Bill some ratings. :D

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by Backlash
, and using that bullshit about liberating the Iraqis.

[Edited on 7-28-2004 by Backlash]

Are you saying we didn't do the Iraqi's a favor? Saddam had to go. If you can't admit that, you have a serious problem.

[Ilvane]

I think it was pretty interesting. I wonder why O'Reilly wouldn't answer the question about sending his child to Iraq. I mean, just answer the question! If you believe in this war so much, why wouldn't you be willing to send someones child to war for it?

That's a valid point, and good for Michael Moore.

Bush did lie about the information he was given when he gave his speech. He had been given information that it probably wasn't true by Richard Clarke.

So, anyway..it was interesting.

-A

[GSTamral]

Bill O Reilly is a hawk, no doubt. But he's no opposite end of Michael Moore. Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. That's a far cry from a lying propagandistic idiot.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Maimara
...

When you make topics like this, put times, so dumbasses like me don't miss things. Here, I thought it wouldn't be on until at least ten.

Blame Hulk for not posting it. I will thank him to the alert though. It was enjoyable. I even gave Bill some ratings. :D

I'll blame the guy with the big sword and the martini glass, instead.

:wow:

[Ilvane]

He's a typical Bush/Republican Hawk. Like President Bush and Dick Cheney, they are more than willing to put other people's children in a war, but aren't so sure about serving themselves.;)

-A

[Artha]

It was funny when Moore said he didn't support moving in and changing governments, then said he did if he were president during Hitler's rise to power, then said he did when asked if he'd have removed Saddam.


He's a typical Bush/Republican Hawk. Like President Bush and Dick Cheney, they are more than willing to put other people's children in a war, but aren't so sure about serving themselves.

He said multiple times he'd sacrifice himself. Asking someone whether or not they'd sacrifice their children is unfair. You don't sign up in the army (or shouldn't) thinking that there's no chance you'll actually have to fight.

[Edited on 7-28-2004 by Artha]

[Ilvane]

It's not a question really about whether people wanted Saddam out. It's really about Bush saying we were going in for different reasons than we were told about. It's also about not going after Osama as much as we are going at Iraq.

It was Osama who went after us on 9/11, not Iraq. Bush I think sometimes likes to blur the lines.

-A

[Ilvane]

Artha, think about it. Bush is asking someones child to go to war as we speak.

That is why it's so imperative to take care in going to war. Bush made a mistake, and is unwilling to admit that he has done so.

Over 900 lives have been lost in Iraq. That is 900 families being affected by a war that maybe could have been avoided.

-A

[Jenisi]

I liked how O'Reilly personally attacked Moore several times and Moore didn't return the favor. <3 Micheal Moore

[Artha]

Artha, think about it. Bush is asking someones child to go to war as we speak.

Ilvane, think about it. It was a risk they knew they were taking. It's not like he's knocking on your door and ordering your kids out to Iraq.

[Blazing247]

Who are these children we're sending to war? If you're old enough to enlist, you aren't a child- you're an adult. And if you've enlisted, hopefully you realize there is a strong probability that you will see war in your lifetime. Asking O'Reilly if he'd send his own child to war is a ridiculous question. Nobody sends any child to war, they enlist of their own free will. I am quite sure many politicians have a son or daughter that are in the Armed Forces.

[GSTamral]

Ilvane, while a very emotional point, we can say the same thing regarding the tens of thousands of lives lost in the first world war, a war that America had even less interest in.

We can say the same thing about the Korean war. We can say the same thing about the Spanish American war.

[Jenisi]

I believe only one member of congress has children in Iraq.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Artha, think about it. Bush is asking someones child to go to war as we speak.

That is why it's so imperative to take care in going to war. Bush made a mistake, and is unwilling to admit that he has done so.

Over 900 lives have been lost in Iraq. That is 900 families being affected by a war that maybe could have been avoided.

-A

No one forces anyone to join the armed forces. And Bush 'admitting' that he made a mistake (which is your opinion.. not mine) won't bring them back.

And let's not forget that there was OVERWHELMING support for this war. Bush asked the Congress and they fully supported the decision.

[Jenisi]

Of course they did, they benefited from the war.

[Weedmage Princess]

Let's not forget one of the MAIN reasons there was overwhelming support for the war here, too.

"IRAQ HAS WMD'S! THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM TO TERRORISTS TO USE AGAINST AMERICANS AND THEIR INTERESTS ABROAD AND ON US SOIL."

That was the war mantra and most people, myself included--felt that such a situation warranted our going to Iraq and getting rid of him.

I'm sure many Iraqis are happy, I'm sure the media doesn't show all of that, however I also know that the men and women who join the military, though they do it voluntarily, they do it to PROTECT the United States and it's people, not for alterior motives. If Iraq had no WMDs, we had no business there, plain and simple.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Jenisi
Of course they did, they benefited from the war.

Yes.. I hear Bush made an extra $50 million for taking us to war.

LOVE the conspiracy theories... even the stupid ones.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess
Let's not forget one of the MAIN reasons there was overwhelming support for the war here, too.

"IRAQ HAS WMD'S! THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM TO TERRORISTS TO USE AGAINST AMERICANS AND THEIR INTERESTS ABROAD AND ON US SOIL."

That was the war mantra and most people, myself included--felt that such a situation warranted our going to Iraq and getting rid of him.

I'm sure many Iraqis are happy, I'm sure the media doesn't show all of that, however I also know that the men and women who join the military, though they do it voluntarily, they do it to PROTECT the United States and it's people, not for alterior motives. If Iraq had no WMDs, we had no business there, plain and simple.

And to blame Bush for something that everyone thought.. including Clinton/Gore and the rest of the world.. is simply ignorant.

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
And to blame Bush for something that everyone thought.. including Clinton/Gore and the rest of the world.. is simply ignorant.

The difference here being the Clinton administration did not act on false information. Yeah, they bombed Iraq after the failed Bush Sr. assassination attempt, but not the innocents.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
Yeah, they bombed Iraq after the failed Bush Sr. assassination attempt, but not the innocents.Damn Clinton, he even had bombs that could tell innocent from guilty. :shakes fist: Why does he have to make Bush look dumb, with his dumb "kill everyone" bombs?

[Edaarin]

O'Reilly in a room with Michael Moore.

God damn I've never wanted to commit a hate crime more.

Yes it is a hate crime to kill retards (fine, mentally handicapped for you Politically Correct people).

[Back]

Originally posted by Edaarin
O'Reilly in a room with Michael Moore.

God damn I've never wanted to commit a hate crime more.

Yes it is a hate crime to kill retards (fine, mentally handicapped for you Politically Correct people).

That wasn't lost on me and I see your point. Still, Mikey did at one point throw out the olive branch to Billy, "Isn't there something we can agree on?" Billy didn't grasp it. Pride is not a virtue.

[Artha]

O'Reilly ended with an olive branch. Or maybe you missed the "Well, this just goes to show that I see things my way and you see things your way, and we'll let our viewers decide who's right." at the end, right before they shook hands.

[Geoff]

Full transcript of the show Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html) for those interested.

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha
O'Reilly ended with an olive branch. Or maybe you missed the "Well, this just goes to show that I see things my way and you see things your way, and we'll let our viewers decide who's right." at the end, right before they shook hands.

No, I caught that, but Mikey beat him to it way earlier. I thought it was very evenly matched, because Mikey did avoid things, and got as emotional about it. Still, it seemed to me like a spool of thread being unraveled and raveled very quickly.

And O'Reilly, as Weez predicted, got his 5 minutes of last words after Mikey was let go.

It was all pre-taped which in itself is very revealing. O'Reilly couldn't go head to head LIVE? Of course not. Its Fox and his show.

Still though, I was pleased by both. While there were accusations, there were as well admonitions.

[Blazing247]

BTW, the video is up for those of us who missed it.

[Faent]

>>I believe only one member of congress has children in Iraq. -Jenisi

So? Were you trying to make some kind of point here?

-Scott

[Faent]

Heh, I just watched the video. Michael Moore was SERVED. OWNED. Fox News needs to send him some aloe vera, gratis, for that fat, red ass O'Reilly gave him.

-Scott

[Scott]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Artha, think about it. Bush is asking someones child to go to war as we speak.

-A

Huh? He's asking people who signed up for the military to do the job they were trained for. They aren't children, they are US. Soldiers. They are doing what they ENLISTED to do. People need to get over this "Stop sending our children to war!" Wake up, this isn't Vietnam where we are drafting kids out of high school.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Backlash

It was all pre-taped which in itself is very revealing. O'Reilly couldn't go head to head LIVE? Of course not. Its Fox and his show.


Oh gee.... telling only one half of the story and leaving stuff out. Who does that remind me of? :rolleyes:

[Ilvane]

It's not about whether they were enlisted, but they were sent to war on false information...How about that?

There was support for Bush and the war because he said there were weapons of mass destruction there, and that they had proof they were trying to get nuclear materials. Of course people would vote for that. When it turns out most of the intelligence isn't true, what exactly are our servicepeople dying for?

Michael Moore had a good point too. There are a number of crazy dictators around the world, why are we going there too, if that was the reason we are going after Saddam, if not for the weapons?

Hmm.

-A

[Nieninque]

I like Michael Moore

Almost as good as Mark Thomas (http://www.mtcp.co.uk)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit
And to blame Bush for something that everyone thought.. including Clinton/Gore and the rest of the world.. is simply ignorant.

The difference here being the Clinton administration did not act on false information. Yeah, they bombed Iraq after the failed Bush Sr. assassination attempt, but not the innocents.

Really? Tell that to the Sudan factory.

[Kefka]

Moore got served? Were we watching the same thing? Even people in freeper land thought O'Lielly got his ass handed to him. Those people think Moore should be arrested and hung for treason.

Moore made alot of good points that O'Lielly couldn't answer. Our soldiers went to war because we were led to believe we were in imminent danger. We didn't go for sanctions and we didn't go because Sadaam is a ruthless dictator. WMD's is why we went. He pointed out that there's 30 other dictators in the world, but Lielly avoided that one.

O'Lielly: No. It's not Bush's fault. He was given bad intelligence information.

Moore: That's an excuse of a seven year old.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kefka
Moore: That's an excuse of a seven year old.

Then we have a congress full of 7 year olds. I'm CERTAIN that Michael Moore would have been able to do the intelligence work himself though.

Moore has really good 20/20 vision.. when he uses hindsite.

[DeV]

Yeah I'm sorry, Moore didn't get served. It was an okay debate.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Gemstone101

Originally posted by Ilvane
Artha, think about it. Bush is asking someones child to go to war as we speak.

-A

Huh? He's asking people who signed up for the military to do the job they were trained for. They aren't children, they are US. Soldiers. They are doing what they ENLISTED to do. People need to get over this "Stop sending our children to war!" Wake up, this isn't Vietnam where we are drafting kids out of high school.

Thank you! Moore stating the whole "sending our children" business just irritated the hell out of me. These are PEOPLE enlisting for service ON THEIR OWN. They know they could be sent out to war, they know they need to serve our country. No one forced anyone to do anything.

[DeV]

Moore was obviously stuck in "draft mode". Hello, there is no draft. That was a pretty weak argument he used.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Backlash
It was all pre-taped which in itself is very revealing. O'Reilly couldn't go head to head LIVE? Of course not. Its Fox and his show.


They didn't go live because Moore never wanted to go on his show live.

O'Reilly said he got him to come on because he saw him on a Boston street and the only way to do the interview was to get him to do it right then and there. Obviously that wasn't the time the Factor comes on. Moore said he'd only do it if the tape was unedited, and O'Reilly agreed. It was as good as live.


PS. Sorry for not posting times Maimara.. It was on again at 11 I believe. You can also find the video at foxnews.com

[Edited on 7-28-2004 by Hulkein]

[Faent]

>>Yeah I'm sorry, Moore didn't get served. It was an okay debate.
-DarkElf

You're right, it was an OK debate. It might have been better if Moore wasn't such a fool. Instead, O'Reilly just chewed him to pieces. Moore is simply incapable of drawing fine-grained distinctions. He just doesn't have the brainpower to handle O'Reilly.

>>Moore made alot of good points that O'Lielly couldn't answer. Our soldiers went to war because we were led to believe we were in imminent danger. We didn't go for sanctions and we didn't go because Sadaam is a ruthless dictator. WMD's is why we went. -Kefka

You're clueless, kid. O'Reilly *did* respond to this. In fact, he granted it all. None of this, however, makes Bush a liar. Of course, after the debate we all know that Moore is unfamiliar with the English word "liar." Someone needs to donate a dictionary to that guy. Oh yes, and a class on rhetoric, specifically for the purpose of drawing good analogies, might help him out. Other than this, he just needs a brain transplant.

>>He pointed out that there's 30 other dictators in the world, but Lielly avoided that one. -Kefka

I suspect that, given your spelling problems, you don't know the meaning of the word "liar" either. The fact that there are other dictators in the world just was not relevant to this discussion. If you really think it is, you can try to spell out how, but I suspect you'll find you run into difficulty somewhere in the earlier stages of your syllogistic reasoning.

>>O'Lielly: No. It's not Bush's fault. He was given bad intelligence information. Moore: That's an excuse of a seven year old.

Great comeback! Moore didn't have any helpful facts at his disposal, so he starts calling people seven year olds? And you thought this was good? Do you use your head at all, Kefka?

-Scott

[Hulkein]

Just watched the rest of it (had to leave during the commercial break, had a holdem tournament) and I have to say it was pretty even. It actually reminded me of what we see here during the same discussion topics. Pretty much the same exact points are made, it's just a lot more entertaining to see them two go at it.

Personally I agree with O'Reilly. The whole 'is it a lie' part mainly.

I also thought Moore looked kind of foolish during the whole 'there is no one on the stage' bit because he had to turn around and see. That was just a horrible example/analogy to compare with Iraq.

[Edited on 7-28-2004 by Hulkein]

[Blazing247]

Someone needs to learn the difference between lying, and saying something that while at the moment is believed to be true, turns out to be false.