[Hansky]

I didn't see the Letterman show, but THAT is the tact i would take with O'Reilly. I would say, "Bill how much of this crap do you say for publicity? How much of it do you say just to get the extreme right riled up?"

I finally watched it, and that is about what Dave did. Bill may or may not be correct on the subject matter, but I do not believe Dave came back with a single response or counter-argument. All he did was sit back and come up with meaningless quips like "I don't believe you," "That is 60% crap," etc. No substance at all.

That, and the responses you propose, play well with people who don't actually know, or want to know, the real facts and only want to see a good spat.

The tactic I would use is actually learning the issue and facts, and challenging the other person on that basis.

 

[Hansky]

actually, i don't think o'reilly got the best of the exchange. even when he called letterman out on the 60 percent crap thing, i knew he would respond with the you can't believe everything you read in the media. i don't think he had a solid argument to back him up.

Letterman had nothing but meaningless, non-factual comebacks. He didn't even try. Is that what you look for in a debate?

one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.

... when dave asked him if he had a child who had been killed in war and o'reilly responded no, it drove the anger in me. ask yourselves, of all the members of congress who voted for this war, would send their child? that should tell you how two-faced most of these politicos (including our president) are.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. At what point in the history of this country were members of Congress (or any branch, for that matter) restricted to acting on matters that only affect their family? How do you think that form of government would turn out?

For someone who claims to have served, you fall for the ridiculous lines normally reserved for people who don't have a clue. Those are the lines reserved for people who have much more emotion that common sense.

Let us know, as a former soldier, how you'd feel if the country were attacked and the only people who could vote on the war were families of killed soldiers. Yeah... great common sense and grasp of government and history.

 

[Hansky]

How many times must you say you're not an O'Reilly fan for you to believe it? I don't.

You missed his point and I'm sure it was because you wanted to. Keep drinking that Kool Aide.

Did someone mention meaningless, non-factual comebacks? Great examples of Dave-type lines on the show. Thanks

 

[Hansky]

The "real facts" as YOU see them or as I see them? I feel I am well versed in current events, but like you I have a point of view and I see "the facts" differently. TO say that I don't want to know the real facts is insulting.

Try reading again. The comebacks I pointed out are often used by people who have no desire to debate the facts, and are often targets to people who think such comebacks do in fact constitute an actual debate of the facts (whatever they may be). The point is that NO facts are being debated. So, if you want to read what is not there and be insulted, so be it.

The Letterman show is all about entertainment. It's not about "the facts".

Oh, okay, so at least one person (and quite possibly two) of the participants had no desire to use it as a true discussion of facts. I don't disagree at all, as it is the basis for what I posted above.