CoT: definitely not going to bomb a plane

Letterman to O'Reilly

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
Permalink  
January 4th, 2006
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
Permalink Philo 
January 4th, 2006
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.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
The Colbert show is the best indictment of O'Reilly. It's existence *almost* gave him the humility to retire.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 4th, 2006
"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.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
Letterman could post to ?off.

I don't care to debate the points, but I think you're crap.
Permalink  
January 4th, 2006
JHC - good point that at least he's saying *something.* I just wish he'd had a bit more substance. :/

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 4th, 2006
"I just wish he'd had a bit more substance. :/"

As if any other talking heads actually say anything of substance...
Permalink sharkfish 
January 4th, 2006
" 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.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
...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.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
"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.
Permalink SomeBody 
January 4th, 2006
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.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
>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.
Permalink Google Investor 
January 4th, 2006
Ah, nice to see my "at least five minutes" point proven.
Permalink SomeBody 
January 4th, 2006
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.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
Wow, it couldn't have been any better if you just said "I'm stupid and have nothing intelligent to add."
Permalink SomeBody 
January 4th, 2006
you've added something intelligent to this conversation?
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
oh! sorry.

I mean:

"You're stupid and have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation"
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
no, that cannot be right.

hmm...

"Hi, Im Mark and Ive added something intelligent to this conversation."
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
no, wait.

"Hi, you're Mark and youve added nothing intelligent to this conversation"
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
...that is, thats what Id say if your name was Mark.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
...which its not of course...
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
...or, alternately, if *my* name was Mark.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
...which its not.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
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.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
oh! sorry...i remember now...its because you're not intelligent.

sorry, I had forgotten what youd said.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
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!
Permalink SomeBody 
January 4th, 2006
ho hum.


has anyone seen my pen?
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
""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?
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
That he's obviously not "mouthing every idea that the bush administration give him" or "repeating Republican talking points almost verbatim."
Permalink SomeBody 
January 4th, 2006
interesting. do you believe you succeeded?
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
Uh yeah, for anyone with a brain.
Permalink SomeBody 
January 4th, 2006
(Though I'm sure all of them have long left this thread if they even read it in the first place.)
Permalink SomeBody 
January 4th, 2006
<g> anyone with a brain would almost certainly have avoided insulting themselves in that fashion.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
<g> anyone with a brain would almost certainly have picked up on the tongue in cheek humor.
Permalink SomeBody 
January 4th, 2006
<g> anyone with a brain would almost certainly have picked up on the tongue in cheek humor.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 4th, 2006
>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.
Permalink Peter 
January 5th, 2006
Well, Kerry was apparently far right too, measuring on a global scale, rather than relative to contemporary US politics.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 5th, 2006
I can go stand at bus stops and hear less drivel than this.

Please improve the quality of your inanity.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 5th, 2006
Global warming is a left wing idea?
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 5th, 2006
Yes.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 5th, 2006
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.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 5th, 2006
Unlikely to happen. Too complex a concept to be adopted by the mass consciousness.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 5th, 2006
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.)
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 5th, 2006
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.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 5th, 2006
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
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 5th, 2006
"the Letterman/O'Reilly vid" ... is in the OP.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 5th, 2006
Whoa, media matters has clips. Sweet.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 5th, 2006
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.
Permalink Phil 
January 5th, 2006
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.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 5th, 2006
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.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 5th, 2006
>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.
Permalink Peter 
January 5th, 2006
"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.
Permalink Phil 
January 5th, 2006
"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
Permalink Philo 
January 5th, 2006
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.
Permalink Phil 
January 5th, 2006
>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!
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 5th, 2006
>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.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 5th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics