Moore vs. O'Reilly

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-08-07 12:26pm

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-07 12:34pm

In the best outcome, the two would kill each other.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-08-07 01:12pm

In the best outcome, Moore would eat O'LIEly alive, slaughter his army of supporters, and revel in the lamenting of their women

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-08-07 01:25pm

Yeah I watched that. It wasn't as interesting as I had hoped it would. It mostly consisted of moore saying that bush lied and O'Reilly saying that he was wrong, that he was just mininformed.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-07 01:37pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:In the best outcome, Moore would eat O'LIEly alive, slaughter his army of supporters, and revel in the lamenting of their women

No, because the liberal fucktard would still be around. We need both to go.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-08-07 01:42pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote:In the best outcome, Moore would eat O'LIEly alive, slaughter his army of supporters, and revel in the lamenting of their women
No, because the liberal fucktard would still be around. We need both to go.

I beg to differ. But as long as O'LIEly bites it and women are lamenting i can accept that outcome

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-07 02:01pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:In the best outcome, the two would kill each other.

Agreed. Although O'Reilly has the advantage due to his $60~ million
multimedia empire; he can afford to buy heavy weaponry while the
unshaved dirtbag moore can't

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-07 02:06pm

Moore is a multi-millionaire, though maybe not as rich as O'Reilly.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-07 02:11pm

MKSheppard wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:In the best outcome, the two would kill each other.
Agreed. Although O'Reilly has the advantage due to his $60~ million
multimedia empire; he can afford to buy heavy weaponry while the
unshaved dirtbag moore can't

Ah, but Moore is a card-carrying member of the NRA. No doubt he could get a hold of some heavy equipment quickly with connections.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-08-07 02:15pm

You know, i may be in a minority here but i actually like Moore. I think he's a good man, and i think a lot of people dont like him because he treats the conservitives the same way they treat liberals--with smear campaigns and mud slining! And you know what, it couldnt happen to a better bunch of folks

Well i say go Moore, God speed, i hope he makes another hundred million off his next movie, since twenty bucks of what his last one made were mine anyway.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-07 03:35pm

Oh yes, let's praise Moore because he uses dishonest tactics.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-07 03:38pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Ah, but Moore is a card-carrying member of the NRA. No doubt he could get a hold of some heavy equipment quickly with connections.

No one in their right midn would GIVE or LET moore even TOUCh their
weaponry, after Bowling for Columbine and that Bank shit he pulled; so
moore will be stuck improvizing molotov cocktails while O'Reilly pulls
up in a Stryker APC and hoses down Moore with 12.7mm MG fire,
thanks to his EVIL REPUBLICAN INSIDER CONNECTIONS WITH THE
DEFENSE INDUSTRY

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-08-07 04:23pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:You know, i may be in a minority here but i actually like Moore. I think he's a good man, and i think a lot of people dont like him because he treats the conservitives the same way they treat liberals--with smear campaigns and mud slining! And you know what, it couldnt happen to a better bunch of folks

Well i say go Moore, God speed, i hope he makes another hundred million off his next movie, since twenty bucks of what his last one made were mine anyway.

burp up any of his jizz yet?

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-08-07 05:26pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote:You know, i may be in a minority here but i actually like Moore. I think he's a good man, and i think a lot of people dont like him because he treats the conservitives the same way they treat liberals--with smear campaigns and mud slining! And you know what, it couldnt happen to a better bunch of folks

Well i say go Moore, God speed, i hope he makes another hundred million off his next movie, since twenty bucks of what his last one made were mine anyway.
burp up any of his jizz yet?

Oooh, a cum joke. Good thing i dont give a frick' and it doesnt change my opinion

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-07 05:29pm

Much as I dislike Billy O', I think I must grudgingly concede that he won the debate.

Actually, though, he's a GENUINELY frightening debater. He's ridiculously good at what he does, and he would easily destroy me in a debate. In fact, he would probably be able to destroy me even if I had a superior position. I'm kinda surprised Michael Moore stayed with him as well as he did, given O'Reilley's skills, but it still seems that Bill won that round (even if there will be others).

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-08-07 07:44pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:In the best outcome, the two would kill each other.

I'd say in the best case scenario, they'd be like matter and antimatter and we could use them as a new energy source. They're gone, and we have lots of cheap power. Everyone wins!

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-08-07 08:49pm

Mayabird wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:In the best outcome, the two would kill each other.
I'd say in the best case scenario, they'd be like matter and antimatter and we could use them as a new energy source. They're gone, and we have lots of cheap power. Everyone wins!

yes, but the resulting loss of hot air would set back the wind turbine industry decades.

seanrobertson · Post by **seanrobertson** » 2004-08-11 01:29pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Much as I dislike Billy O', I think I must grudgingly concede that he won the debate.

Actually, though, he's a GENUINELY frightening debater. He's ridiculously good at what he does, and he would easily destroy me in a debate. In fact, he would probably be able to destroy me even if I had a superior position. I'm kinda surprised Michael Moore stayed with him as well as he did, given O'Reilley's skills, but it still seems that Bill won that round (even if there will be others).

I don't think you give yourself enough credit, man

I think Bill's a bit like Mike Tyson circa the mid-80's. He's definitely tough, a hard-hitter in his own right, but at least in part, his "wins" seem so decisive because his opponents are mostly glass-jaws.

Take Moore, for instance. He's no fool. Thus, as inept as Bush's policies have been, and as dumb as the Iraq war was from the beginning, Moore should've held the superior position vs. O'Reilly, no problem.

Yet, when Moore appears on talk shows, he's painfully illogical. His "debate" with O'Reilly was no exception. Truly, almost everything that came out of MM's mouth was fallacious. A few examples:

No more than 10 seconds into the exchange, Moore threw out a weak analogy/suppressed evidence combo, saying Bush's intelligence about WMDs in Iraq was a lie comparable to the [easily falsifiable] claim that the DNC, plainly quite busy in the broadcast's background, was vacant.

When reminded that Bush was acting on, or claimed to be acting on, several intelligence sources (U.S., British and Russian), Moore whipped out a childish false dilemma, noting that if one does not tell what we now know to be the truth, then they must have told a lie. "He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?", he asked. I literally winced at how stupid that sounded.

Then, when Tenet's "[WMDs are a] slam-dunk" quotes was mentioned, Moore remarks that the guy was partly responsible for "screwing up Sept. 11th", reasoning, "Why would you listen to him?" In other words, if Tenet fucked up once, all of his intelligence is untrustworthy? And Moore was ignoring what the other intelligence agencies claimed again...why?

That somehow lead to an appeal to ridicule. Guffawing, he likened the WMD situation to a seven year-old telling his parents, "Mom, dad, it was just bad information!" (It was kinda funny, though.

)

Finally, he whipped out his trusty and now very tired complex question: "Would you sacrifice your child to die in Iraq?"

Just, ugh. O'Reilly just had to stand in the ring mugging for the camera; it was clear Moore was going to knock himself out. Some of MM's people have got to tell him, if he's gonna appear on these kinds of shows and not come across as a blithering idiot, it's time to dispense with the Bill Maher-esque "argumentation," STAT!

You would not approach O'Reilly with that kind of flimsy nonsense, Master. By virtue of superior logic alone, you'd go the distance with BO, minimum. And I'm quite confident that, in the written medium, if you took Bill to task about any number of his less-defensible contentions, you could win decisively.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-08-11 02:14pm

You know, I have to say, O'Reily handed Moore his large bulbous ass on a silver platter

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-11 02:15pm

seanrobertson wrote:[snip]

Yeah, MM kind of embarrassed himself with that one, but the thing is, A LOT of O'Reilley's guests come across like that--even ones that are normally too smart to seem that way. They must get flustered, or something, or he must have some sort of weird mind-technique that he uses on them.

You would not approach O'Reilly with that kind of flimsy nonsense, Master.

True. That would be my advantage over him.

By virtue of superior logic alone, you'd go the distance with BO, minimum. And I'm quite confident that, in the written medium, if you took Bill to task about any number of his less-defensible contentions, you could win decisively.

In a written medium I might be able to beat him, but I don't think there's any way I could defeat him in a speaking one. For all of his flaws, he's really well-practiced, and he knows how to use the home-court advantage of it being his show to great effect.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-08-11 02:21pm

Mo, part of his great debating tactics and abilties is my suspoicion that he really does prepare in advance for these interviews. He seems to bone up on all these issues and draws up a battle plan on how to attack the most common counters or pro the other side arguments. There are a few times when the discussions strays off course and you can see him floundering.

Recently he was pushing an assertion that was just factually wrong about a person's position and when it was pointed out to him there was stunned silence on his aprt and you could see his brain rebooting. He was so on script that once off of it, he was floundering and simply let the person talk the rest of the interview.

So what we may be seeing is a man who actually preps and preps hard for his interviews before hand unlike most other pundits who are reading off cue cards or who read up on the topic during a commercial break.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-11 02:37pm

Stravo wrote:Mo, part of his great debating tactics and abilties is my suspoicion that he really does prepare in advance for these interviews. He seems to bone up on all these issues and draws up a battle plan on how to attack the most common counters or pro the other side arguments.

I'm sure that that's a huge part of his success. However, that can't be all of it. I saw part of a show where he was at Harvard (or one of the Ivy League schools), taking questions from the audience. Virtually everyone in the room was against one of his positions or another, and that came out in the questions, but he killed them, anyway.

That being said, I'm sure he preps like hell for the discussions--it's impossible to go up against an expert on ANYTHING if you don't know at least something about the subject yourself. However, a lot of his success is also due to practice in general debating tactics, a natural talent for debates, and (much as I hate to say this) a certain amount of intelligence on his part. While his cognitive dissonance is at times disturbing, the fact of the matter is that he often takes really smart people and turns them into blubbering fools, while appearing at least somewhat reasonable himself.

There are a few times when the discussions strays off course and you can see him floundering.

Yeah. He definitely doesn't win every interview. I saw one episode, in particular, where he was up against one of the Crossfire liberals and didn't do well at all. However, he wins a hell of a lot more than anyone with his positions has any right to do.

Recently he was pushing an assertion that was just factually wrong about a person's position and when it was pointed out to him there was stunned silence on his aprt and you could see his brain rebooting. He was so on script that once off of it, he was floundering and simply let the person talk the rest of the interview.

That's usually what he does when he's losing. Another thing he'll do is promise someone the last word, then trash the person's position once they're gone. Those tactics are dishonest, and he uses them a LOT, but he also has a lot of other things he does to people. He loves to seize the offensive immediately, and when he notes a weakness he just keeps going after it.

So what we may be seeing is a man who actually preps and preps hard for his interviews before hand unlike most other pundits who are reading off cue cards or who read up on the topic during a commercial break.

I'm sure he spends hours researching things, but against the people he interviews that would only serve to lesten THEIR advantages over HIM. After all, if I spend a few hours researching the history of a certain internment camp, would I really know anywhere near as much as someone who spent a significant portion of their professional life researching that subject? O'Reilley often goes up against experts in a particular field, and though he doesn't always win he frequently does. That takes more than what someone can do in a few hours of research.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2004-08-11 03:22pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:You know, I have to say, O'Reily handed Moore his large bulbous ass on a silver platter

and that was great to see., although Moore probably thinks he won the round.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-08-11 03:56pm

Death from the Sea wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:You know, I have to say, O'Reily handed Moore his large bulbous ass on a silver platter
and that was great to see., although Moore probably thinks he won the round.

But thhen again, Moore has the IQ of a trout

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2004-08-11 05:23pm

Oh, I don't think O'Reilly really won, this kinda stands out:

MOORE: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?

O'REILLY: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say: “We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.”

MOORE: But what were they killed for?

O'REILLY: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people.

MOORE: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war: to remove a brutal dictator.

O'REILLY: Well, we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction.

MOORE: But that was the reason…

O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction…

MOORE: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat…

O'REILLY: That’s right.

MOORE: And there was no threat, was there?

O'REILLY: It was a mistake.

MOORE: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.” I don’t think that is good enough.