TiVo Community Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 92 Posts

· Phish Food
Joined
·
5,031 Posts
loubob57 said:
Not to get political here (hard not to with this subject!) but I don't understand Letterman's apparent stance that you have to agree with everything Cindy Sheehan says or you aren't showing her any compassion. Those are two very different things.
Me too!

I'm NO FAN WHATSOEVER of O'Reilly, but Dave seemed to be saying that it's appropriate to call terrorists who target civilians and go for maximum body counts "freedom fighters", as Sheehan does. We also all know that these "freedom fighters" would set up a Tahalaban-like uber-oppressive regime if they ever were to gain power.

One of O'Reilly's few comments that elicited applause from Dave's audience was that he would never allow such murderers to be called "freedom fighters" on his show.

Feeling Cindy Sheehan's pain and agreeing with her ultra-ultra-mega-uber-super liberal agenda are two completely different things.

There are plenty of other parents who have tragically lost children to the Iraq war who's political opinions run the full spectrum of those of the US population in general. Grieving for a loved one lost in Iraq would appear to have no correlation to one's political views on the subject of the war.

I do however agree that about 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap! ;)
 

· Boomer Sooner
Joined
·
119 Posts
iceturkee said:
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.

btw, i am a veteran, which should explain most of my anger on this subject.
The problem with that argument is that we have a volunteer military, which means it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to enlist. Parents don't "send their child" to the military.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,345 Posts
iceturkee said:
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.
 

· Member
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
You missed his point and I'm sure it was because you wanted to. Keep drinking that Kool Aide.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,345 Posts
stujac said:
How many times must you say you're not an O'Reilly fan for you to believe it? I don't.
stujac said:
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
 

· Evil Genius
Joined
·
8 Posts
iceturkee said:
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.
Actually, it went this way:

Dave: "Do you have children?"

Bill "Yes I do. I have a son the same age as yours."

Just needed to get that clarified

BTW, Got that from the clip off the link above.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
iceturkee said:
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.

btw, i am a veteran, which should explain most of my anger on this subject.
You should be careful of the "facts" you take away from Farenheit 911. There aren't very many accurate "facts" in it. 59 deceipts in Farenheit 911
Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."

Moore’s second statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to "sacrifice" his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty in the Judge Advocate General Corps; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to have children in the military.

How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.

Why not count Duncan Hunter's son? Note the phrasing: "only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." Although Hunter's son "enlisted" in the Marines, he is a Second Lieutenant, which means that he is above the rank of an "enlisted man." But why hide from the viewers how many Congressmen really have sons serving in the military in Iraq?

The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:
….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’"
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after viewing the interview in question.
 

· No intent to annoy
Joined
·
1,266 Posts
Hansky said:
The tactic I would use is actually learning the issue and facts, and challenging the other person on that basis.
Hopefully Letterman's agent will suggest this change of career path to him. With Nightline gone (replaced by Nightline Light), I can see Letterman reinventing himself as you suggest and establshing the Tonight show as Koppel's real.successor.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Michelle5150 said:
Dave was a little out of character last night.
Actually, that combativeness was far more in his character back in the old NBC days. He was much more irascible back then and willing to mix it up with his guests. Now he has to compete with ass kiss Leno and can't afford to piss guests off lest they refuse to come back again.

I agree with most of the posters that he stumbled in his debate with O'Reily (who, whatever you think about his politics, is a very good rhetorician), but look at buzz surrounding this. That was Old School Letterman! And despite stumbling through his arguments, I prefer that Letterman to the one who fawned all over Oprah. I hope he challenges more of his guests like he used to.
 

· Fanboi.. So what?
Joined
·
494 Posts
I think Letterman was on point with his Christmas arguments. This are really isolated incidents. And in the case of the Silent Night story - flat out wrong .. the song was changed as part of a Christmas play written in 1988 by the choirmaster at Ronald Reagan's church.. They were performing that play at that school. I doubt that Reagan's choirmaster is against Christmas or part of the Christmas-Jihad.

To take Sheehan's comment about freedom fighters out of context is absurd. She doesn't praise them. Quite the opposite. I've read the quote, I'd really like to hear it. Because I can almost hear sarcastic quotes around the words 'freedom fighters' when you read the rest of the paragraph.

And regardless.. she may just be referring to them as they refer to themselves. Freedom really is a matter of perspective. I don't agree that they're freedom fighters, but I assure you that they believe they are.
 

· Seasoned gas passer
Joined
·
12,207 Posts
barrettd said:
The problem with that argument is that we have a volunteer military, which means it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to enlist. Parents don't "send their child" to the military.
EXACTLY.
 

· Seasoned gas passer
Joined
·
12,207 Posts
lajohn27 said:
...I don't agree that they're freedom fighters, but I assure you that they believe they are.
..and since I BELIEVE I'm handsome, I guess that means I am? :eek:
 

· Boomer Sooner
Joined
·
119 Posts
stujac said:
How many times must you say you're not an O'Reilly fan for you to believe it? I don't.
Well, I said it once, so I guess that would be the number of times? The fact that I think Dave came across poorly doesn't make me an O'Reilly fan.

Keep drinking that Kool Aide.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
I do not want to get into a politcal debate here. But the fact is... Dave was great. When he's engaged like that, he's just terrific. He's not trying to get into a political debate, he's just taking his shots and playing with him. I give O'Reilly credit for not getting all worked up.

Basically, Dave put O'Reilly in the Dr. Phil role. And since O'Reilly stayed with him, it made great TV.

But let's face it.... one of the two people in that interview has their 15 minutes just about up at this point. :)

And regardless of your political beliefs... that interview was yet another reason why Dave is the man as compared to Leno.
 

· Beardy
Joined
·
38,991 Posts
Hansky said:
Letterman had nothing but meaningless, non-factual comebacks. He didn't even try. Is that what you look for in a debate?
Yeah, it must be annoying for O'Reilly when someone uses his own tactics against him.

I couldn't even watch the thing all the way through.
 

· Happily Vaccinated!
Joined
·
63,532 Posts
Hansky said:
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.
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.

The Letterman show is all about entertainment. It's not about "the facts". It would have been really boring if Letterman agreed with everything he said. He had to get O'Reilly riled up because it made for good entertainment. Those who want the news or politcal talk could go to MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. This wasn't about the news or political talk.

I look at it this way...back in the early 90s to me was the zenith of conservative radio, Rush, O'Reilly, Savage, Bob Grant here in NYC were all at the top of their game. Why? Because the country leaned left, Congress had a Democratic majority, we had a Democratic President, etc. So, the arguments between the conservative talk show hosts and the liberal callers, was great. Even I listened and enjoyed. Now that these guys sit there and spout their agendas, and the majority of their guests and the majority of their callers agree with them, it's boring. I love arguing politics, but how do you argue with someone who agrees with you? It's boring. That's the whole dynamic that Letterman tried to build. That's why Bill Maher's show works, or John Stewart. It's entertaining to argue :)
 

· Fru Aficionado
Joined
·
321 Posts
I'm kind of at a loss as to why talk show hosts like Letterman even have political commentators as guests. If I watch Letterman, I want to be entertained with jokes, etc, not watch a political debate. I guess for some reason I don't really find an exchange between O'Reilly and Letterman amusing.

Maybe I'm not being clear (I have trouble sometimes articulating what I mean), but if I want to watch a debate or see talking heads go at each other on TV, I'd rather see one that was serious and where experience and backed-up comments prevailed.

Oh, and same goes for plain old celebs that are on a talk show like Letterman's. If you go on a show, don't talk about politics! I hate that. Just talk about what you do best and keep the rest out of it.

Why can't all talk show hosts be like Carson?!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,345 Posts
Steveknj said:
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.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
33,721 Posts
peacefield said:
I'm kind of at a loss as to why talk show hosts like Letterman even have political commentators as guests. If I watch Letterman, I want to be entertained with jokes, etc, not watch a political debate. I guess for some reason I don't really find an exchange between O'Reilly and Letterman amusing.
When Falafel Bill went on The Daily Show to plug his book, the interview was almost completely devoid of political content. It was a relaxed and groovy segment with some funny jokes (some even from O'Reilly) that almost made one forget that O'Reilly was evil incarnate. :)

You probably would have liked that one, peacefield.
 

· It Could Happen!
Joined
·
634 Posts
I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly in that I don't normally agree with him or watch his show regularly but I guess I am a fan as I make a point of watching a program when he is a guest. I do like to hear him speak and it is always better when it is not on his own show where he is in complete control.

I've always loved Letterman but this one was particularly interesting because it is so unusual to see Dave react to someone in a negative way. I don't think Dave was prepared to "debate" Bill. I just think he wanted to express himself. Too bad Al Franken wasn't on the show that night as well.

I wish he would have said something to President Bush when he was on after they came back from that commercial break where Bush cleaned his glasses on a producers jacket.
 
21 - 40 of 92 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top