The best beat down of a FOX neocon I've seen in a while

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hapless

Newbie
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
646
Reaction score
0
Where's the beef? Each of them spouted talking points for 8 minutes. Not much to see there.
 

Lemonking

Newbie
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
2,021
Reaction score
0
I saw it yesterday


"YOU DONT KNOW HOW TO FIGHT TERROR ARRRRRRRR"

LOL Oreily is a funny guy I disagree with him mostly but when that whole "race" thing came up after Katharina I agreed with him on that issue
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
40 seconds into it and I already want to reach over stuff my fist down Oreilly's throat and rip his lungs out (to dream the impossible dream) ....he's such a condescending ass


edit: donahue gets +1000 points for respect


"oh ya we'll cover it" - Oreilly on the anti-war demonstrations this weekend

later on he says "I'm not going to be at your rally"



"I'll boot you off the set" - what a jackass

edit: donahue gets +10,000 points for respect - just blasted him for his treatment of Jeremy glick


Oreilly - "the iraq war is not something I embrace" - what a lying ass



edit: donahue did a pretty good job of skewering Oreilly but as per usual he wasnt listening
 

No Limit

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Messages
9,018
Reaction score
1
Hapless said:
Where's the beef? Each of them spouted talking points for 8 minutes. Not much to see there.
I don't consider it talking points, I consider it giving O'reilly what he deserves. When Donahue pointed out she lost a son O'Reilly said "oh, okay"; what a dick. He would not address if he wants to send more troops. He would not address what winning is. He shut up when Donahue pointed out Saddam was not a terrorist. Then 3 minutes in to it O'reilly showed his usual self; when he can't get the upper hand in a debate he screams as loud as he can thinking that would work. I wish I watched Donahue when he had his show on MSNBC before they cut him off because they were too scared to not support the war.
 

gick

Newbie
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
0
No offence to any Americans, but how the hell do you get by with media as blatently biased and opinionated as that? (and before any neocons start bitching, if it had a left wing bias i'd be just as dismayed). That was just two guys yelling at each other. If that twat O'Reilly had any skill as an interviewer he'd be actually trying to debate as opposed to just shouting down the other dude.

If you really want to see a politican getting owned, I suggest you try and find some video of Jeremy Paxman doing an interview. He's like a pitbull, he just tears Politicians apart, its great :D (his post election interview with George Galloway was quite a low point in his career, please ignore that one.) A good interviewer is hostile to both sides, eg before the general election Paxman interviewed Blair and did the usual 'Its a failed war, you are sending troops to their deaths etc etc' and later in the programme he interviewed Charles Kennedy (leader of the Liberal Democrats, the only one of the 3 major parties to oppose the war) and was saying things like 'so you would have left the Iraqis to life under Saddam Hussein?'

Impartiality, thank **** for the BBC!!
 

No Limit

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Messages
9,018
Reaction score
1
gick said:
No offence to any Americans, but how the hell do you get by with media as blatently biased and opinionated as that? (and before any neocons start bitching, if it had a left wing bias i'd be just as dismayed). That was just two guys yelling at each other. If that twat O'Reilly had any skill as an interviewer he'd be actually trying to debate as opposed to just shouting down the other dude.

If you really want to see a politican getting owned, I suggest you try and find some video of Jeremy Paxman doing an interview. He's like a pitbull, he just tears Politicians apart, its great :D (his post election interview with George Galloway was quite a low point in his career, please ignore that one.) A good interviewer is hostile to both sides, eg before the general election Paxman interviewed Blair and did the usual 'Its a failed war, you are sending troops to their deaths etc etc' and later in the programme he interviewed Charles Kennedy (leader of the Liberal Democrats, the only one of the 3 major parties to oppose the war) and was saying things like 'so you would have left the Iraqis to life under Saddam Hussein?'

Impartiality, thank **** for the BBC!!
The media here is total chicken shit. Fox news is a right wing organization; because they get the highest ratings every other media outlet tries to be like them. It is destroying this country.
 

The Monkey

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
16,317
Reaction score
14
That link doesn't work on FF it seems.

EDIT: Good debate, although both of them seemed to think that the American constitutiuon is always good. Why do yanks always have to refer to a 200 year old document to prove their points?
 

Gunner

Tank
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
7,753
Reaction score
0
Wow Billy is clinically insane, he needs psychiatric help. There's no sign of reason or rationale in him, he's just completely mad.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2003
Messages
2,875
Reaction score
2
This is the first time I've seen a Bill O'Reilly segment. Rather pompous isn't he?


And you gotta love the follow up segment about Katrin being a twisted plot against blacks. Whacky south of the border news. :p
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
6,356
Reaction score
0
We should get these guys in a wrestling ring, it should be pretty damn entertaining.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
6,975
Reaction score
0
The_Monkey said:
Why do yanks always have to refer to a 200 year old document to prove their points?
Not to mention that 3000+ year old document.

For all the emphasis on the consitution though, some of their worst cultural ****-ups in the history times have been a direct result of ignoring the most logical points it makes, while keeping a death grip on the obsolete parts.

Equality? Nope, sorry homosexuals.
Christianity gets special government treatment? Obviously!
 

Tr0n

Newbie
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
9,934
Reaction score
0
The_Monkey said:
That link doesn't work on FF it seems.

EDIT: Good debate, although both of them seemed to think that the American constitutiuon is always good. Why do yanks always have to refer to a 200 year old document to prove their points?
I don't know, maybe because our country is founded on it...?
 

dream431ca

Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
3,386
Reaction score
0
Haha. O'Reilly sound like the dark side on starwars. Very ertertaining.

EDIT: Wow...I never expected it to get so heated. Call the fire department to wash these two down!! :D
 

Kebean PFC

Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
588
Reaction score
0
chicken shit Democrats that voted for the Iraq war.
For the love of god man, quit with this. I am a Dem and voted Kerry, so how bout you quit profiing all of us into one catagory, as you seem pissed when anyone else does. I am getting sick of your god damn personal attacks on me. How bout you take a break and cool down.
 

Korgoth

Newbie
Joined
Jul 4, 2003
Messages
3,233
Reaction score
0
dude you're taking things a little to personal, i didn't see a single mention of your user name in this thread kebean, unless i grossly over read it somewhere, in which case i apologize. But i see no personal attack here.
 

skarrob

Newbie
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
Im glad Kerry didnt get elected,people in louisiana would have gotten free heinz catsup
 

Absinthe

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
14,040
Reaction score
26
It would have been so awesome if Kerry won. Kerry riding around New Orleans in a swiftboat would have been gold photo op material.
 

falconwind

Newbie
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Messages
561
Reaction score
0
The problem isn't so much that neocons can't be argued effectively against, its that it doesn't seem to do any good. Everyone's already made up their mind, nothing short of divine intervention would make these right-wing extremists see differently. All the reasoning and facts in the world seems to just roll off their backs.
 

Hapless

Newbie
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
646
Reaction score
0
Absinthe said:
It would have been so awesome if Kerry won. Kerry riding around New Orleans in a swiftboat would have been gold photo op material.
He wouldn't have had the opportunity. As everyone knows, there would have been no catastrophe if Kerry had won.:E :E :devil: :naughty:
 

Kebean PFC

Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
588
Reaction score
0
So then who were we supposed to vote for?? Bush = Bad, Kerry = Bad, dont even go into Nader. So who should we have elected?

BTW: Personal Attack was calling Dems chicken shit and i am a Dem.
 

Absinthe

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
14,040
Reaction score
26
Kebean PFC said:
BTW: Personal Attack was calling Dems chicken shit and i am a Dem.
Ehh... my interpretation of that post was that he was targetting a specific group of Democrats (as in the ones who approved the Iraq war), not the entire political party.
 

The Monkey

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
16,317
Reaction score
14
Tr0n said:
I don't know, maybe because our country is founded on it...?
Doesn't matter. Your country was founded 230 years ago. The world changes. Your constitution need to change too, if your politics are to remain up-to-date. What makes that constitution so perfect that it will be suitable to lead a country's politics 230 years after it was written? It's not perfect, far from it.
 

gick

Newbie
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
0
The thing that confuses me about the US and its attitude towards its constitution is that it sees fit to change it whenever it likes in some circumstances (eg negroes are only 3/5ths human) but treats it as though its a Holy document that cannot be altered the rest of the time.
 

mortiz

Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2003
Messages
4,074
Reaction score
0
Iraq would never have become a terror state (to America anyway, Saddam was a terrorist himself to his own people) because Saddam would never have allowed it. He was so afraid of being assassinated or blown up himself, or even having terrorist activity anywhere near him that he would have stopped it immediately. His people were so afraid of him after the genocide that he committed when they tried to kill him the first time that they would have turned in any potential terrorists.

It's about a 1000 * more likely that a terrorist cell can organize in Iraq now.
 

Tr0n

Newbie
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
9,934
Reaction score
0
The_Monkey said:
Doesn't matter. Your country was founded 230 years ago. The world changes. Your constitution need to change too, if your politics are to remain up-to-date. What makes that constitution so perfect that it will be suitable to lead a country's politics 230 years after it was written? It's not perfect, far from it.
...and you think the founding fathers or any other person(s) starting a goverment wouldn't plan for the future? Of course it ain't perfect noob.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Although the Constitution has been amended several times since it was first adopted, its basic principles remain the same now as in 1789.
See it does change, but the basic ideals like...the right to own a gun or free speech stays the same. The constitution also changes because congress can add amendments. I forgot to mention the bill of rights change constantly also.

So remember, it's the principles that don't change, but the amendments and laws within the bill of rights that do.
 

The Monkey

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
16,317
Reaction score
14
Lemonking said:
name me an amendment excepth the 2nd one and without googling it,Im sure you cant.
I know that most of the about 30 were written few years after the independace, aiming to further improve the rights of all free men. Some came in the 1920s to inprove the rights of women, and some of the latest came in the 60s to improve the rights of black people. I bet that's more than you know about the Swedish constitution. Besides, you don't need to know perfectly to understand that a 230 year old document is not up to date. The 2nd amendment, for example, was written when "firearms" meant muskets.
 

Lemonking

Newbie
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
2,021
Reaction score
0
well Im not the one criticizing the Swedish constitutiuon am I?



you loose
 

The Monkey

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
16,317
Reaction score
14
Lemonking said:
well Im not the one criticizing the Swedish constitutiuon am I?



you loose
What I'm saying is that any document that old can't be used to rule a country.

You wouldn't trust a 230 year old telling you about our solar system, would you?
 

Lemonking

Newbie
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
2,021
Reaction score
0
why are you criticizing it only because its old? that doesnt make sence to me,like
Tr0n said they didnt just right nonsense they did think for the future,and yes it not perfect.
 

Hapless

Newbie
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
646
Reaction score
0
The_Monkey said:
I know that most of the about 30 were written few years after the independace, aiming to further improve the rights of all free men. Some came in the 1920s to inprove the rights of women, and some of the latest came in the 60s to improve the rights of black people. I bet that's more than you know about the Swedish constitution. Besides, you don't need to know perfectly to understand that a 230 year old document is not up to date. The 2nd amendment, for example, was written when "firearms" meant muskets.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed.


Where does it say firearms in there anywhere? It says simply arms, meaning ANY weapons. Firearms could also mean cannons and mortars back then. As for the age and relevance of the Constitution, that's why we have a Supreme Court.
 

Lemonking

Newbie
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
2,021
Reaction score
0
If you dont know jack then dont critecize it :p
thats what I ment
 

The Monkey

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
16,317
Reaction score
14
Hapless said:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed.


Where does it say firearms in there anywhere? It says simply arms, meaning ANY weapons. Firearms could also mean cannons and mortars back then. As for the age and relevance of the Constitution, that's why we have a Supreme Court.
Arms, firearms, whatever.

Today's society doesn't require a milita, and yet the reason for people to bear was because they were gonna form a milita to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top