NationStates Jolt Archive

Bill O'Reilly was just on David Letterman. A couple of excerpts -

Bill: Do you want the United States to win in Iraq? (Dave starts to answer) It's an easy question.
Dave: It's not an easy question for me because I'm thoughtful.

Later...

Bill: You're oversimplifying, Dave.
Dave: (Sarcastic) Oh, I'm oversimplifying.

Amusingly this is within a minute of asking Dave if we want to win in Iraq and saying it's an easy question.

Bill also talks about you can't simplify people as good or evil or the US as good or evil, while he promotes a book saying that people who don't agree with him are trying to destroy America. Meanwhile, Dave clearly says that he is not calling anyone evil, but simply misguided.

He also claimed the death rate in Iraq is the same as it was before the war began.
Dave: I don't think Bush is evil, I think he's misguided.

Later...
Bill: It isn't Bush is an evil liar.

Dave: I didn't say he's an evil person. You're putting words in my mouth just the way you put artificial facts in your head.

He eventually got Bill stuttering. Bill did make some points on terrorism, but essentially he got ripped up by David Letterman of all people. He was Oprah earlier today (just happened to catch it) and basically no one really make a good argument against him (even though he was sitting next to a black woman talking about how much better the US used to be in the 50's).

Dave: A reasonable person can't believe what you're saying.

That pretty much wraps it up. It was great. Bill got so flustered and Dave basically treated him exactly in the fashion that Bill O'Reilly advocates.

Dave: Once again, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I don't think you do either.

I'm amazed O'reilly didn't order his producer to cut Letterman's mic.


Who did he do that to again?

I still find Leno funnier.

Fucking awesome, I have to listen to the radio tomorrow so I can hear the local radio hosts' heads implode. Their noses are so far up O'Reilly's and Hannity's asses, I can't even think of a good analogy. Then after that, they think David Letterman is the greatest person ever. I hope their heads implode on air.

It was a classic Letterman episode. (wish I had recorded it)
Letterman lied though............ he DOES know what he is talking about. ;)

I'm amazed O'reilly didn't order his producer to cut Letterman's mic.


Who did he do that to again?

Well, it was on Letterman's show, but considering what a thoughtless bully O'Reilly is, I can just see him forgetting and ordering mic's turned off while arguing with the cabbie about the quickest route to his destination.

It was a classic Letterman episode. (wish I had recorded it)
Letterman lied though............ he DOES know what he is talking about. ;)

Yes. Honestly, it was funnier to me because I find O'Reilly to be an excellent wolf in sheep's clothing (pretending to be more reasonable than he is). He's actually a bit hard to nail, but David Letterman had him on the ropes. And David was A) very prepared and B) completely willing to use the exact same tactics Bill uses on his own show.

I still find Leno funnier.

As much as I love it when he taunts O'Reilly, and that he was the only guy on the regular networks criticizing Bush, it pains me to admit that Letterman just isn't a funny guy. He's got a sparodicly few funny bits (like the top 10) but his jokes have all the appeal of white bread dunked in lukewarm water.

Norm McDonald did a great impression of him on SnL doing stupid bits like "Dave buys a Hot Dog," in which he did normal boring stuff and punctuated it with "ha haaaah!" to indicate that the punchline had arrived. Even if it were not a parody, it was still funnier than anything Letterman has ever done.

But the OP called him a King among men, not a Jester, and so I have no problem with his thesis.

Amusingly this is within a minute of asking Dave if we want to win in Iraq and saying it's an easy question.
Well, it is an easy question: Yes or no, just flip a coin.
See, I'll demonstrate

...

Well, God damn: it just landed on its side.

Well, it is an easy question: Yes or no, just flip a coin.
See, I'll demonstrate

...

Well, God damn: it just landed on its side.

Proved you wrong.

Bill O'Reilly was just on David Letterman. A couple of excerpts -

Bill: Do you want the United States to win in Iraq? (Dave starts to answer) It's an easy question.
Dave: It's not an easy question for me because I'm thoughtful.

Later...

Bill: You're oversimplifying, Dave.
Dave: (Sarcastic) Oh, I'm oversimplifying.

Amusingly this is within a minute of asking Dave if we want to win in Iraq and saying it's an easy question.

Bill also talks about you can't simplify people as good or evil or the US as good or evil, while he promotes a book saying that people who don't agree with him are trying to destroy America. Meanwhile, Dave clearly says that he is not calling anyone evil, but simply misguided.

He also claimed the death rate in Iraq is the same as it was before the war began.
Dave: I don't think Bush is evil, I think he's misguided.

Later...
Bill: It isn't Bush is an evil liar.

Dave: I didn't say he's an evil person. You're putting words in my mouth just the way you put artificial facts in your head.

He eventually got Bill stuttering. Bill did make some points on terrorism, but essentially he got ripped up by David Letterman of all people. He was Oprah earlier today (just happened to catch it) and basically no one really make a good argument against him (even though he was sitting next to a black woman talking about how much better the US used to be in the 50's).

Dave: A reasonable person can't believe what you're saying.

That pretty much wraps it up. It was great. Bill got so flustered and Dave basically treated him exactly in the fashion that Bill O'Reilly advocates.

Dave: Once again, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I don't think you do either.
I imagine Crooks and Liars will have the video up sometime tomorrow, so I'll get to see it then, or maybe it'll wind up on the youtube--I hear the kids talking about the youtube all the time these days.

But it sounds like what generally happens whenever one of these right-wing blowhards gets out of his comfort zone and finds himself up against someone smarter than he is. Letterman's no dummy, and he's been in the business longer than O'Reilly. I'm not surprised he made a fool of the idiot.

Well, it is an easy question: Yes or no, just flip a coin.
See, I'll demonstrate

...

Well, God damn: it just landed on its side.

Why is it you people never remember Zabokarownsoroski's Fundamental Theorem of the Cussedness of the Universe Pertaining to Simple Questions?

It isn't that hard:

If any question has only two possible answers, then, by logic, only a third, and technically impossible, result will be the outcome.

In other words

If: A = Either one or two; Then: A = three

I imagine Crooks and Liars will have the video up sometime tomorrow, so I'll get to see it then, or maybe it'll wind up on the youtube--I hear the kids talking about the youtube all the time these days.

But it sounds like what generally happens whenever one of these right-wing blowhards gets out of his comfort zone and finds himself up against someone smarter than he is. Letterman's no dummy, and he's been in the business longer than O'Reilly. I'm not surprised he made a fool of the idiot.
This internet thing is crazy... (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cbs_letterman_oreilly_060103a.mov)

I honestly don't know this, but I thought it was MI6 not M one 6. That's really just middling...I love how this clip ends...they also have a downloadable full version.

This internet thing is crazy... (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cbs_letterman_oreilly_060103a.mov)

I honestly don't know this, but I thought it was MI6 not M one 6. That's really just middling...I love how this clip ends...they also have a downloadable full version.

It's not there...

It's not there...

Bitch, I told it waz crazy. Try here. (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/01/letterman_1_ore_1.html)

Normally I'd say Letterman is a very un-funny man, who is entirely too pleased with himself to offer anything insightful. Looks like I'm wrong in this instance.

Bitch, I told it waz crazy. Try here. (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/01/letterman_1_ore_1.html)

That was the first one. It does demonstrate how much Bill O'Reilly is trying to oversimplify everything with his "with us or against us" idiocy.

This was what led up to last night's hillarity.

To people who think Dave isn't funny. I tend to agree. Even here he wasn't really riding on how funny he is. He was riding on, shockingly, debate and just pounding Bill into the ground, and that it was David Letterman made me laugh like I was watching a Japanese gameshow.

Not of much as a King among men as Albert Félix Humbert Théodore Chrétien Eugène Marie.

i happened to see oreilly on both oprah AND letterman yesterday. i dont normally watch either show. the letterman interview couldnt have been "live" yesterday because i saw a clip of it on oprah yesterday. (which is why i tuned into letterman when i saw oreilly was on)

anyway

letterman was good. it was as if he was saying the kind of thing *I* might say if i had the opportunity to nail oreilly to the wall. it wasnt perfect by any means but it sure did express the frustration of the "average man" at the running of the war and the government spin.

but

the AUDIENCE on oprah did just as good a job. i dont have much respect for a talk show audience but these women just got up and asked the tough questions and didnt take shit from oreilly. some in the audience agreed with him so it wasnt stacked against him.

im beginning to think that this war thing isnt as popular as the president thinks it is.

i happened to see oreilly on both oprah AND letterman yesterday. i dont normally watch either show. the letterman interview couldnt have been "live" yesterday because i saw a clip of it on oprah yesterday. (which is why i tuned into letterman when i saw oreilly was on)

anyway

letterman was good. it was as if he was saying the kind of thing *I* might say if i had the opportunity to nail oreilly to the wall. it wasnt perfect by any means but it sure did express the frustration of the "average man" at the running of the war and the government spin.

but

the AUDIENCE on oprah did just as good a job. i dont have much respect for a talk show audience but these women just got up and asked the tough questions and didnt take shit from oreilly. some in the audience agreed with him so it wasnt stacked against him.

im beginning to think that this war thing isnt as popular as the president thinks it is.


I saw both as well (I can't tell you the last time I watched either show). The Letterman clip on Oprah was from the first interview that someone linked here. Last night's show was from yesterday.

And I don't agree about the audience. I kept seeing these people talking about moral relativity and how it's ruining our country (talking about NAMBLA) while simultaneously claiming that torture is good if it's the right situation and denying freedom of speech is good if it's the right situation.

As an aside: Moral relativity is a problem. Liberals are arguing that Free Speech should always be defended. Torture is always bad. That's not moral relativism. That's an absolute view on the morality of an action.

I saw both as well (I can't tell you the last time I watched either show). The Letterman clip on Oprah was from the first interview that someone linked here. Last night's show was from yesterday.

And I don't agree about the audience. I kept seeing these people talking about moral relativity and how it's ruining our country (talking about NAMBLA) while simultaneously claiming that torture is good if it's the right situation and denying freedom of speech is good if it's the right situation.

As an aside: Moral relativity is a problem. Liberals are arguing that Free Speech should always be defended. Torture is always bad. That's not moral relativism. That's an absolute view on the morality of an action.

you mean oreilly got owned by letterman once then went back to get owned AGAIN? wow. i never occurred to me that he would be such a glutton for punishment.

you mean oreilly got owned by letterman once then went back to get owned AGAIN? wow. i never occurred to me that he would be such a glutton for punishment.

He needs fodder for his "Liberal media" whining bit.

you mean oreilly got owned by letterman once then went back to get owned AGAIN? wow. i never occurred to me that he would be such a glutton for punishment.

In all fairness, the first time doesn't even compare to the second time. The first time Bill got caught off-guard and Dave wasn't particularly impressive. Bill more than likely thought he would better prepare himself and go and nail Letterman. That's not what happened.

Yes. Honestly, it was funnier to me because I find O'Reilly to be an excellent wolf in sheep's clothing (pretending to be more reasonable than he is). He's actually a bit hard to nail, but David Letterman had him on the ropes. And David was A) very prepared and B) completely willing to use the exact same tactics Bill uses on his own show.

Amazing how two different people can watch the same show and reach two different conclusions. Obviously, I disagree with your conclusions.

Amazing how two different people can watch the same show and reach two different conclusions. Obviously, I disagree with your conclusions.

Even when I was a conservative I didn't like O'Reilly and his ilk. He's irrational. You can't promote a with us or against us mentality and then accuse people of oversimplifying. You can't use words like 'evil' and then accuse people of being too black and white. David says he doesn't think Bush is evil but instead misguided and Bill just goes right ahead and accuses him of saying Bush is evil. David Letterman forced Bill O'Reilly to get caught directly lying. I'd say that's as against the ropes. Perhaps you don't mind that pundits say things counter to reason and have to alter the arguments of others in order to make their arguments, but it makes me have no respect for them.

Bill O'Reilly talks about a culture war and talks about how anyone who believes certain things hate America and then accuses OTHER people of oversimplifying the issues and pretending like things are black and white. On Oprah:

Bill: Do you support parental notification?
Guy: Yes.
Bill: Then you're a T Warrior.
Guy: No, I'm not. I disagree with you on a number of points. We just happen to agree here.
Bill: We can disagree but if you support parental notification, you're a T Warrior.

Talk about a gross oversimplification. He pretends what decides whether one hates America or not is one single issue. It's simply ridiculous.

Meanwhile, you're disagreement is based on so much reason, that you failed to list even one. I can see how you might agree with Mr. O'Reilly.

Amazing how two different people can watch the same show and reach two different conclusions. Obviously, I disagree with your conclusions.

Wait--are you saying that O'Reilly came off as the winner in that exchange? Man, quit bogarting the good shit and pass it around!

Meanwhile, you're disagreement is based on so much reason, that you failed to list even one. I can see how you might agree with Mr. O'Reilly.

Wait--are you saying that O'Reilly came off as the winner in that exchange? Man, quit bogarting the good shit and pass it around!

I disagreed that O'Reilly was on the ropes. He did get flustered a couple of times and Letterman got some licks in. By the same token, Letterman evaded some questions and O'Rielly got in some licks. No winner or loser in this one, it was a tie. IMHO.

I disagreed that O'Reilly was on the ropes. He did get flustered a couple of times and Letterman got some licks in. By the same token, Letterman evaded some questions and O'Rielly got in some licks. No winner or loser in this one, it was a tie. IMHO.

Again, not a lick of evidence, just claims.

I disagreed that O'Reilly was on the ropes. He did get flustered a couple of times and Letterman got some licks in. By the same token, Letterman evaded some questions and O'Rielly got in some licks. No winner or loser in this one, it was a tie. IMHO.

Are you sure that that is an "honest" opinion?

Again, not a lick of evidence, just claims.

True no evidence. It is an opinion. It is my opinion. It is based on my preception of what I saw and my life experiences. Your opinion is based on your perception of what you saw based on your life experiences. If we disagree in our opinion that's OK because we don't have the same experiences. Neither of us is right, and neither of us is wrong.

Amazing how two different people can watch the same show and reach two different conclusions. Obviously, I disagree with your conclusions.

Oh, for the love of Bob...

As a hardcore liberal, I certainly went in with a huge bias against O'Reilly, who stands for many things I despise.

However...

I don't see how people think Letterman 'owned' O'Reilly. O'Reilly tried to make points, to talk, to be logical, while Letterman cut him off every single time with comments that tended to be rather silly. It wasn't so much a debate as Letterman trying to harass O'Reilly. O'Reilly wouldn't give straight answers; Letterman was much worse. Plus I found O'Reilly funnier.

As for evidence, all I can say is this: watch it again and count how many times Letterman cuts off or tries to talk over O'Reilly. It's... alot.

I know this is REALLY going against what everyone is saying here... maybe there's something I'm missing. All I saw was someone trying to have a serious debate and being met with clowning and silliness.

However... that sword and shield thing was just plain stupid.

As a hardcore liberal, I certainly went in with a huge bias against O'Reilly, who stands for many things I despise.

However...

I don't see how people think Letterman 'owned' O'Reilly. O'Reilly tried to make points, to talk, to be logical, while Letterman cut him off every single time with comments that tended to be rather silly. It wasn't so much a debate as Letterman trying to harass O'Reilly. O'Reilly wouldn't give straight answers; Letterman was much worse. Plus I found O'Reilly funnier.

As for evidence, all I can say is this: watch it again and count how many times Letterman cuts off or tries to talk over O'Reilly. It's... alot.

I know this is REALLY going against what everyone is saying here... maybe there's something I'm missing. All I saw was someone trying to have a serious debate and being met with clowning and silliness.

However... that sword and shield thing was just plain stupid.

Basically Letterman gave O'Reilly a taste of what it's like being a "guest" on the Factor. Put the shoe on the other foot and start stomping mudholes.

True no evidence. It is an opinion. It is my opinion. It is based on my preception of what I saw and my life experiences. Your opinion is based on your perception of what you saw based on your life experiences. If we disagree in our opinion that's OK because we don't have the same experiences. Neither of us is right, and neither of us is wrong.

See, here's the point. Everyone else is giving specific examples of why they believe what they believe. Your reply is more or less "nuh-uh". Are you saying you can't give one specific example of where O'Reilly got over on Letterman or are we just supposed to accept that your opinion has any value?

As a hardcore liberal, I certainly went in with a huge bias against O'Reilly, who stands for many things I despise.

However...

I don't see how people think Letterman 'owned' O'Reilly. O'Reilly tried to make points, to talk, to be logical, while Letterman cut him off every single time with comments that tended to be rather silly. It wasn't so much a debate as Letterman trying to harass O'Reilly. O'Reilly wouldn't give straight answers; Letterman was much worse. Plus I found O'Reilly funnier.

As for evidence, all I can say is this: watch it again and count how many times Letterman cuts off or tries to talk over O'Reilly. It's... alot.

I know this is REALLY going against what everyone is saying here... maybe there's something I'm missing. All I saw was someone trying to have a serious debate and being met with clowning and silliness.

However... that sword and shield thing was just plain stupid.

Um, have you seen O'Reilly's show? David Letterman got his gameplan from the O'Reilly playbook. It was clear that he watched O'Reilly's show, knew what he was going to say and did to O'Reilly what O'Reilly does to others. If interrupting invalidates a point then O'Reilly has never, ever made a valid point. You'll notice he actually started interrupting Dave first, when he told him it was an easy question.

I am not asking anyone to accept or reject my opinion on this subject. I have stated my opinion, you may do with it as you wish. I just don't feel like debating the issue.

Alright, what part of "Bitch I said this internet thing waz crazy" don't you guys understand....I totally didn't know they met once.

Here's round two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWO5ub-c6R8)

Did someone already link this and I miss it?

As a hardcore liberal, I certainly went in with a huge bias against O'Reilly, who stands for many things I despise.

However...

I don't see how people think Letterman 'owned' O'Reilly. O'Reilly tried to make points, to talk, to be logical, while Letterman cut him off every single time with comments that tended to be rather silly. It wasn't so much a debate as Letterman trying to harass O'Reilly. O'Reilly wouldn't give straight answers; Letterman was much worse. Plus I found O'Reilly funnier.

As for evidence, all I can say is this: watch it again and count how many times Letterman cuts off or tries to talk over O'Reilly. It's... alot.

I know this is REALLY going against what everyone is saying here... maybe there's something I'm missing. All I saw was someone trying to have a serious debate and being met with clowning and silliness.

However... that sword and shield thing was just plain stupid.

Did you hear any of the last time O'Reilly was on Letterman? Letterman let him get his point across, and it turned out to be complete bullshit. Letterman said he had a feeling that it was, but didn't know for certain.

Well, afterwards it was made certain. One of the things O'Reilly said was that a piece of evidence that liberals are waging a war on Christmas was a school somewhere in which "they won't allow the real lyrics to 'Silent Night." Then he read lyrics to a song that he said was sung to the tune of Silent Night. Turns out that the school was putting on a school Christmas play, written by a minister, in which one of the songs is sung to the tune of Silent Night, but wasn't Silent Night.

It's like saying that playing Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby," shows opposition to the "Homosexual Agenda," because it changes Freddy Mercury's and David Bowie's original lyrics.

Alright, what part of "Bitch I said this internet thing waz crazy" don't you guys understand....I totally didn't know they met once.

Here's round two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWO5ub-c6R8)

Did someone already link this and I miss it?

Yeah, that's the one. Nice.

I am not asking anyone to accept or reject my opinion on this subject. I have stated my opinion, you may do with it as you wish. I just don't feel like debating the issue.

Then one might point out that it was pretty silly to put that opinion on a debate forum without citing a single specific example of what you claimed happened. One wonders if you know that it makes it seem like there is not an example that actually supports your claim.