I'm not smart enough to debate you point by point on this, but I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040009

Not really a resounding victory for the left, was it?

"I think 60 percent of what you say is crap. I don't really watch your show - just based on stuff I've read"

Dave's done better.

Philo

watching it now. omi fucking god let others follow his lead. this stuff *must* be challenged.

mass liberal conspiracy to ban christmas my left testicle.

The Colbert show is the best indictment of O'Reilly. It's existence *almost* gave him the humility to retire.

"Not really a resounding victory for the left, was it? "

depends on how you look at it.

The mere fact that media people are actually starting to debate these things openly is a victory IMO.

Letterman could post to ?off.

I don't care to debate the points, but I think you're crap.

JHC - good point that at least he's saying *something.* I just wish he'd had a bit more substance. :/

Philo

"I just wish he'd had a bit more substance. :/"

As if any other talking heads actually say anything of substance...

" I just wish he'd had a bit more substance"

meh. oreilly on the banning of christmas had no substance either, he just managed to dress it up a bit. 4 factoids, utterly without context, do not make substance.

They make a strawman for dumber people to attack and defend, without the need to think through the actual issues.

Letterman was wise enough to avoid that trap entirely.

I actually thought he did very well.

...not least because he stole the anti-intellectual stance right out from under oreilly without even trying with his "I aint book-smart like you, but I know what I know" phrase.

"Not really a resounding victory for the left, was it?"

While I agree that Letterman's retort was pretty pathetic (keep in mind he's a comedian, it's not his job to say smart things), I'm kinda confused how it could be a resounding victory for the left. There's no way imaginable that anyone who's heard at least five minutes of O'Reilly can claim he's a right-winger.

right, hes not so much a right winger as he is a brainless twat mouthing every idea that the bush administration give him.

he doesn't so much have a brain, as a drain, down which people pour any old toxic crap that they want him to say.

>There's no way imaginable that anyone who's heard at least
>five minutes of O'Reilly can claim he's a right-winger.

Yeah, apart from the whole repeating Republican talking points almost verbatim.

Ah, nice to see my "at least five minutes" point proven.

yeah. you sure showed us. nothing like piledriving your own nose into a concrete wall to impress anyone who might be wanting to beat you up.

Wow, it couldn't have been any better if you just said "I'm stupid and have nothing intelligent to add."

you've added something intelligent to this conversation?

oh! sorry.

I mean:

"You're stupid and have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation"

no, that cannot be right.

hmm...

"Hi, Im Mark and Ive added something intelligent to this conversation."

no, wait.

"Hi, you're Mark and youve added nothing intelligent to this conversation"

...that is, thats what Id say if your name was Mark.

...which its not of course...

...or, alternately, if *my* name was Mark.

...which its not.

In fact, just scanning back, mark has had so little to do with this thread that I dont understand why you've brought him up.

oh! sorry...i remember now...its because you're not intelligent.

sorry, I had forgotten what youd said.

Hey, look at some O'Reilly quotes I found with a whole 10 seconds of google:

"Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous."

"I'm open to be persuaded right away. I've known Kerry for 25 years. He's a patriot. I'm listening to what he has to say."

You know he's also for gun control and civil unions? Wow, really far right!

ho hum.


has anyone seen my pen?

""Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous." "

even bush and his weirdos have said something similar.

...they just dont agree that its (a) manmade or (b) worth doing anything about.

"I'm open to be persuaded right away. I've known Kerry for 25 years. He's a patriot. I'm listening to what he has to say."

commonsense is now only the prerogrative of the far left?

"You know he's also for gun control and civil unions? Wow, really far right!"

woohoo. and you believed that you have proven *what* exactly?

That he's obviously not "mouthing every idea that the bush administration give him" or "repeating Republican talking points almost verbatim."

interesting. do you believe you succeeded?

Uh yeah, for anyone with a brain.

(Though I'm sure all of them have long left this thread if they even read it in the first place.)

<g> anyone with a brain would almost certainly have avoided insulting themselves in that fashion.

<g> anyone with a brain would almost certainly have picked up on the tongue in cheek humor.

<g> anyone with a brain would almost certainly have picked up on the tongue in cheek humor.

>have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap.
Saying that only 60% of what OReilly says is crap, is being very generous to OReilly: I'd put the percentage between 99% and 100% pure BS.

Well, Kerry was apparently far right too, measuring on a global scale, rather than relative to contemporary US politics.

I can go stand at bus stops and hear less drivel than this.

Please improve the quality of your inanity.

Global warming is a left wing idea?

Yes.

The "60% of what you say is crap" was nice, but what really took the wind out of O'Reilly's sails was "You take a little bit from here and a little bit from there and try to make us thing it's a big thing."

That's what undermined just about everything he'd said up until that point, and everything he was planning on saying after.

If Letterman succeeds in adding "these are isolated incidents that are being blown way out of proportion" to the public consciousness, it's a tremendous victory for whatever side you think would benefit.

Unlikely to happen. Too complex a concept to be adopted by the mass consciousness.

According to Ross Gelbspan, the scientists who are saying it isn't a big deal or that humans can't influence it are in the minority and can trace their funds back to the big business.

http://www.pbs.org/now/
http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatemediaint.html
(Click the video link. Gebspan's segment starts about halfway through the video.)

You know, I've probably never really seen good culture jamming before.

I think you have to come down pretty blunt. Like show a hedonistic McD's clown who wants to seduce your child into consuming non-nutritious food, pushing you to prove you love the child, for his profit.

Nothing more extreme than many commercials.

Incidentally, the Letterman/O'Reilly vid is here... I don't think it was mentioned on this thread.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002750.html#002750

"the Letterman/O'Reilly vid" ... is in the OP.

Whoa, media matters has clips. Sweet.

I think OReilly handled his own pretty well considering he was in an unfavorable environment.  Dave's "60% of what you say is crap" vs OReillys "You've never watched my show?" once again makes the complainers against the right look like name calling babies. If the left wants to win the next election they need to get past the name calling and the conspiracies and move on to actual debate. All the name calling and disparanging from hollywood did absolutely nothing last time around, and if anything galvanized more conservatives to go to the polls. If the left wants to win, the trick will be to once again make the election about something boring that no one cares about, so most people will stay home.

Numerically, its almost impossible for Democrats to take back the White House without converting conservatives to their side. Therefore they will not get anywhere by mocking the most popular conservative in cable news. They won't get anywhere by calling the President a liar. All accusations may be true, but thats just not a winning strategy, because it just gets the republican base riled up. And for the love of god, don't nominate hillary.

I think bored ridicule is a reasonable response to people like O'Reilly, its the taking of him seriously which is the problem not the overt lies and manipulations that he comes out with.

Yes, I wasn't thrilled with Letterman's response. But it's the typical pattern of the conservative being "smarter", while the liberal having more of a "heart." So it's not much of a surprise.

But it's the best liberals can manage.

I disagree on tactics; I think if you read arch-rightwingers like Richard Viguerie, they explained how they seized power since the 70's counterrevolution... not all can be adapted, but he has useful points.

>And for the love of god, don't nominate hillary.
So far, every single "hillary for president" campaign has been run for and by republicans, solely for the purpose of scaring republicans into giving more money to The Party.

The Abramoff scandal is what is more likely to piss off enough republicans to switch sides. Although listening to Gingrich's complaints about the scandal, it strikes me as Newt whining that he didn't get a cut of the bribery.

"The Abramoff scandal is what is more likely to piss off enough republicans to switch sides."

Right Peter.... ask 10 people today who Abramoff is or what he did, and tell me how many even know? Then ask those same ten twelve months from now. The majority of the electorate needs something more crunchy.

"So far, every single "hillary for president" campaign has been run for and by republicans, solely for the purpose of scaring republicans into giving more money to The Party."

I know this is mostly true, but *every* one? I know a number of liberals who think it's a pretty good idea...

Philo

I still say its coming from Hillary herself. Do you really think she moved all the way to New York just to get into the Senate, and work a long happy career in the Senate? Is she speaking out against the violent video games issue and making other public appearances just because they means a lot to her?  Maybe, but all signs point to president.

>Numerically, its almost impossible for Democrats to take
>back the White House without converting conservatives to
>their side.

How do you figure? If it were a fight between the "conservatives", "liberals" and the "neithers" the neithers would win by a landslide.

Hell, a poll I saw recently stated that Americans were as likely to think "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" was part of the constitution as they were something that *was* part of the constitution. Half of America don't even know whether they're communist or not! Or what that even means!

>They won't get anywhere by calling the President a liar.

That's just downright false. Attack politics not only work, they're the MOST effective tactic.

>All accusations may be true, but thats just not a winning
>strategy, because it just gets the republican base riled up.

Yeah, they got riled up because of a small white stain. I don't anything will calm them down.

>And for the love of god, don't nominate hillary.

The way things are going I think that the Democrats could nominate somebody even more inept than Bush and still have him or her elected president.