Bill O'Reilly on Bill Clinton - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sixate · 04-30-2003, 06:48 PM

LINKY

Quote:

Thursday, February 13, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly

O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. I believe we have a very explosive program for you this evening.

We'll begin with me and Bill Clinton. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

Mr. Clinton appeared on the Today show this morning, talking about why the Democratic Party has lost power. He blames much of that situation on a few of us in the media.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are five people in America with more than two hours on radio. Who are they? Howard Stern -- I can tell you old Howard's not political. If he is, he's done a great job of hiding it.

Don Imus, who's more Republican than Democrat. And the other three are Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. They're very outspoken and on the right wing of the Republican Party. That's fine.

But that makes the point I'm trying to make. We don't have that. So that means we have to be more disciplined, more clear, more focused and it's just harder to do. But our guys will do fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Well, with all due respect to the former president, who's a smart guy, this is pure spin and baloney on rye.

With almost than 700 radio stations, National Public Radio is the voice of the left. And so is Bill Moyers on PBS, Phil Donahue on cable and George Stephanopoulos on ABC.

The Dems have plenty of places to get their message out, including The Factor. Senators Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards and scores of other Democrats are frequent guests and are treated with respect, although as you know, everybody is challenged.

President Clinton and Vice President Gore have never accepted our invitations, preferring softer venues. I'd give Mr. Clinton the entire hour, just as Larry King did. But unlike Mr. King's deferential approach, the former president would be asked tough questions.

But if he wants to get the Democratic message out and change some minds, this is the place to do it. And the timing is right.

I believe Mr. Clinton handed the Bush Administration four enormous problems.

One: the growing menace of Al Qaeda, which grew in power and ferocity during the Clinton Administration.

Two: the nuclear cheating of North Korea, which happened on Mr. Clinton's watch.

Three: a stubborn recession, which began in Mr. Clinton's last year in office and has been exacerbated by the terrorism.

And four: a chaotic and demoralized American intelligence apparatus, which was clueless before 9/11.

I am very anxious to talk to Bill Clinton about those things because as always, I could be wrong.

Both the Left and the Right whine about the media. But it's bogus. There are so many outlets, especially with cable and the Internet, that every message is heard these days.

But it takes smarts and guts to persuade people that your message is worthy. That is the problem the Democrats are having.

If Mr. Clinton truly wants to define the positive aspects of his party, we are ready to welcome him to the No Spin Zone and give him a full hour in which to enjoy himself.

What say you, Mr. President?

And that's The Memo .

I wonder why Mr "lying asshole cheater" Clinton won't talk to O'reilly.....

splck · 04-30-2003, 07:11 PM

Quote:

I wonder why Mr "lying asshole cheater" Clinton won't talk to O'reilly.....

Maybe because O'Reilly is an idiot?..just a thought.

KillerYoda · 04-30-2003, 07:20 PM

From that thread title, I was expecting some kind of weird, once-in-a-lifetime event where O'Reilly and Clinton were having sex.

Such a let down.

The_Dude · 04-30-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

I believe Mr. Clinton handed the Bush Administration four enormous problems.

One: the growing menace of Al Qaeda, which grew in power and ferocity during the Clinton Administration.

Two: the nuclear cheating of North Korea, which happened on Mr. Clinton's watch.

Three: a stubborn recession, which began in Mr. Clinton's last year in office and has been exacerbated by the terrorism.

And four: a chaotic and demoralized American intelligence apparatus, which was clueless before 9/11.

Five: A budget w/ a surplus.

frenik · 04-30-2003, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
Clinton: There are five people in America with more than two hours on radio.

There are many syndicated radio shows that get 3-4 hours a day, not to mention the numerous local shows in each city. There are many "leftward" local shows around my area. On national radio, right-leaning shows do tend to dominate. But shows fail to be syndicated because they don't attract a large audience in their local markets, for a variety of reasons, and aren't making money for the station.

Some people attempt to turn this into a political issue. I'm glad to see that President Clinton is acknowledging that it's only a matter of finding on-air personalities that will attract an audience, as the Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's do. He's right, if they stick to it, eventually the liberal point of view will have a more prominent voice in nationally syndicated radio. Until then, there is the internet and TV, where everyone is represented equally.

The_Dude · 04-30-2003, 07:47 PM

and btw, somebody tell orielly that donahue's gonna be off the air.

frenik · 04-30-2003, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
and btw, somebody tell orielly that donahue's gonna be off the air.

Back on Feb 13, 2003, nobody knew (except maybe MSNBC execs) that Donahue was going to be canceled.

boatin · 04-30-2003, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate

One: the growing menace of Al Qaeda, which grew in power and ferocity during the Clinton Administration.

Two: the nuclear cheating of North Korea, which happened on Mr. Clinton's watch.

Three: a stubborn recession, which began in Mr. Clinton's last year in office and has been exacerbated by the terrorism.

And four: a chaotic and demoralized American intelligence apparatus, which was clueless before 9/11.

Everybody is 'entilted' (to coin a phrase) to his or her opinion. Here is mine:

One: I would like to see this documented, and demonstrated that the Clinton administration is culpable through policies or lack thereof. My take is that Al Qaeda grew in power and ferocity during the 90's. There is a difference.

Two: Same question. How is that the administration's fault? If we had a Republican administration in the 90's, both One and Two are likely to be the same. There are whiny Democrats who would blame that Republican administration (in that scenario). Doesn't make it right.

Three: I would have said - "A recession that was made into a 'stubborn recession' by big tax cuts and lack of good reactive administration. The big airlines blame 9/11, too, instead of crappy management. Scapegoating is easy. Taking resonsibility is hard.

Four: This is ludicrous. Blaming the Intelligence Apparatus for 9/11 is easy and satisfying. It's also puerile and vindictive. Check out this link for a balanced, and different, take on the US Intelligence services.

http://gladwell.com/2003/2003_03_10_a_dots.html

It's a long article, but Malcolm Gladwell is the best writer working today. IMHO. It's an easy read, and worth it.

But, hey, I could be wrong.

Kadath · 04-30-2003, 09:34 PM

Bill O'Reilly is a fucking jackoff.

And I know Tom Tomorrow isn't exactly objective, but this is ostensibly a transcript.

smooth · 04-30-2003, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Bill O'Reilly is a fucking jackoff.

And I know Tom Tomorrow isn't exactly objective, but this is ostensibly a transcript.

I would really like to find an official transcript of this:

Quote:

I caught a bit of the O'Reilly Factor during dinner last night, during which Bill berated Jeremy Glick, a signatory of the Not in Our Name ad whose father died in the 9/11 attacks. I couldn't find a transcript on the Fox site, but happily, one came in over the transom (probably pulled off Lexis, so no link available).

This is how Bill O'Reilly behaves when faced with genuine disagreement:
O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even --I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up!

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.

We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

The last few seconds of that exchange were really something to watch. I don't think I've ever seen a shouting head actually tell his guest to "Shut up! Shut up!" or to tell his producer to "cut his mic."

The_Dude · 05-01-2003, 04:34 AM

oh my gosh, what a freaking asshole he is.

he cut him off at everything the poor guy said and took him off the air.

he's far bigger asshole than i thought he was.

i dont think oreilly was smart enough to debate w/ this dude about anything except what was pre-planned (and i bet he got briefed on that).

what an ass

Daval · 05-01-2003, 06:20 AM

I think that this shows the irrelevance of Bill O'Reilly and his opinions. If he is not willing to debate other views then he's not worth our time.

magic_hat · 05-01-2003, 06:28 AM

O'Reilly is a moron. He can't debate in an equal manner. They need to replace him with someone that is neither left or right, let that pos be a guest, if he wants. Ive seen him do that same thing many times...if he doesnt like where the debate is going-he tries to end it. I just hope he doesnt have kids.

BoCo · 05-01-2003, 06:32 AM

Bill O'Reilly rocks!

Thanks for the article, sixate.

The sole reason Clinton won't ever appear on O'Reilly's show is because he knows he doesn't stand a chance against him. No one but O'Reilly would ever ask Clinton the questions he needs to give us answers to, and since Clinton doesn't think he should have to answer to anyone, he'll never allow O'Reilly to confront him.

The_Dude · 05-01-2003, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BoCo
Bill O'Reilly rocks!

Thanks for the article, sixate.

The sole reason Clinton won't ever appear on O'Reilly's show is because he knows he doesn't stand a chance against him. No one but O'Reilly would ever ask Clinton the questions he needs to give us answers to, and since Clinton doesn't think he should have to answer to anyone, he'll never allow O'Reilly to confront him.

you read teh 2nd transcript posted here right?

boatin · 05-01-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
you read teh 2nd transcript posted here right?

Selective vision is a useful thing.

JoeyB · 05-01-2003, 08:52 AM

O'Reilly shows signs of intelligence, but when he refuses to listen to the other side, as he apparently did in the conversation with Glick, he looks ridiculous. It's amazing how he corrects Glick on something about his own family! Who would know Glick's father better??? O'Reilly? Or Glick??

Stay strong to your beliefs, but if you become so inflexible that you refuse to listen, you tend to look much less intelligent than you actually are. O'Reilly is not dumb, just stubborn...and sometimes it's very easy to confuse the two.

Why must he take a dissenting opinion as a personal affront to him??? A difference of opinion need not be an attack on someone else's beliefs. We're different people. What's wrong with that?

O'Reilly claims to be the home of the "No Spin Zone" and many times that is true, but if you refuse to listen to a reasonable argument by someone who doesn't always agree with you, how can that be considered anything but a spin?

I am constantly amazed at the anger associated with political debate. Don't let rage enter in....or the facts will soon go out.

magic_hat · 05-01-2003, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BoCo
Bill O'Reilly rocks!

Thanks for the article, sixate.

The sole reason Clinton won't ever appear on O'Reilly's show is because he knows he doesn't stand a chance against him. No one but O'Reilly would ever ask Clinton the questions he needs to give us answers to, and since Clinton doesn't think he should have to answer to anyone, he'll never allow O'Reilly to confront him.

OK...but when you think about it. No one stands a chance against him! OH YA HE ROCKS!!! If you have an opposing stance againts Bill Reilly, going on his show serves one purpose: to further outline his one sided point of view.

its not that all of his issues are terrible, he may have some good points, but when he blatantly twists his guests words around(while obviously doing so) to make them seem stupid, it pisses me off. You know he does that too because half of the time the guest goes "thats not what im saying"..then he ends the discussion with a commercial, or some lame tactic along those lines. Thats when i change the channel and wonder why i was even watching fox in the first place...it just draws you in man.

Someone that is an O'Reilly supporter please agree with me when i say HE IS NOT fair sometimes. (well most of the time) You know it. Just say it.

HarmlessRabbit · 05-01-2003, 09:36 AM

How can people both support Bill O'Reilly and whine about Michael Moore? They are the same thing, really.

sixate · 05-01-2003, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
you read teh 2nd transcript posted here right?

I read it and I would have said the exact same thing as O'Reilly. That dickless moron that was on his show was so liberal he didn't even care that he lost a loved one by some Taliban asshole. Then he wants to blame it on the American government? What the fuck did I miss?

Liquor Dealer · 05-01-2003, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
How can people both support Bill O'Reilly and whine about Michael Moore? They are the same thing, really.

I perhaps would have agreed with this if you used anyone other than Moore - O'Reilly sometimes becomes thrilled with the sound of his own voice but doesn't even approach getting as far out there as does Moore.

The_Dude · 05-01-2003, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
I read it and I would have said the exact same thing as O'Reilly. That dickless moron that was on his show was so liberal he didn't even care that he lost a loved one by some Taliban asshole. Then he wants to blame it on the American government? What the fuck did I miss?

what do you mean he didnt care he lost a loved one?

of course he cared, but he didnt place the blame solely on the al queda.

you have to admit, it was the US govt that supported al queda and trained them in the beginning.

Phaenx · 05-01-2003, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by magic_hat
OK...but when you think about it. No one stands a chance against him! OH YA HE ROCKS!!! If you have an opposing stance againts Bill Reilly, going on his show serves one purpose: to further outline his one sided point of view.

its not that all of his issues are terrible, he may have some good points, but when he blatantly twists his guests words around(while obviously doing so) to make them seem stupid, it pisses me off. You know he does that too because half of the time the guest goes "thats not what im saying"..then he ends the discussion with a commercial, or some lame tactic along those lines. Thats when i change the channel and wonder why i was even watching fox in the first place...it just draws you in man.

Someone that is an O'Reilly supporter please agree with me when i say HE IS NOT fair sometimes. (well most of the time) You know it. Just say it.

I watch him often, and he gives his guests more than a fair chance to intelligently put forth their arguments. If you time how long the guest speaks compared to how long he does, and factor in that 90% of the time he gives his guest the last word, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that they look stupid because they are stupid.

sixate · 05-01-2003, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
what do you mean he didnt care he lost a loved one?

of course he cared, but he didnt place the blame solely on the al queda.

you have to admit, it was the US govt that supported al queda and trained them in the beginning.

You're just as bad as that guy. What your saying is it's our own governments fault that 9/11 happened.

Thanks for the input, but I disagree with you as usual and stand by my opinion.

The_Dude · 05-01-2003, 04:39 PM

i'm not directly blaming the US govt.

i dont think they knew this was going to happen when they helped al queda.

i'm blaming a small part of it on the US govt, if it wasnt for the govt support of al queda, i doubt this would have happened.

sixate · 05-01-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i'm not directly blaming the US govt.

i dont think they knew this was going to happen when they helped al queda.

i'm blaming a small part of it on the US govt, if it wasnt for the govt support of al queda, i doubt this would have happened.

And what exactly did your idol Bill Clinton do to help get rid of Al Queda? Kinda funny how nobody will say Clinton didn't do anything about it, but the Bush gets all the blame. Seems kinda fucked up to me.

The_Dude · 05-01-2003, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
And what exactly did your idol Bill Clinton do to help get rid of Al Queda? Kinda funny how nobody will say Clinton didn't do anything about it, but the Bush gets all the blame. Seems kinda fucked up to me.

i dont entirely agree w/ clinton's approach on this, but he did fire off cruise missles that barely missed bin laden.

clinton's govt did NOT fund al queda. it was previous administrations that funded it.

sixate · 05-01-2003, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
clinton's govt did NOT fund al queda. it was previous administrations that funded it.

LINKY

Quote:

Was Clinton pro-Taliban?
Congressman charges Afghan extremists were coddled, oversight efforts 'belittled'

President Clinton incubated the Taliban regime in Afghanistan for at least three years, despite the fact that it was harboring Osama bin Laden, was responsible for growing 60 percent of the world's heroin and denied basic human rights to the nation, a U.S. congressman charges.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., says he was belittled, stonewalled and ridiculed for three years for asserting the congressional oversight role in the formulation of foreign policy toward Afghanistan during the last term of the Clinton administration.

Using his seat on the House International Affairs Committee, Rohrabacher attempted, he says, for several years to secure communiqués, cables and other State Department documents that would reveal what was behind U.S. policy toward Kabul. He says he and his committee were "stonewalled" and "belittled" in all their attempts.

Rohrabacher renewed his requests for those documents in a committee hearing with Secretary of State Colin Powell last week. Powell pledged to look into the matter.

The congressman has some first-hand experience with Afghanistan, having traveled there during the Mujahedin's war with the Soviet Union invaders just prior to entering the House.

He blames Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for sponsoring the brutal Taliban regime, and U.S. neglect of Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal for its rise to power.

"The U.S. spent $1 billion a year aiding the Mujahedin during the war with the Russians," Rohrabacher says. "When the war was over, the U.S. walked away, leaving Afghanistan to its own fate after years of death and destruction. We didn't even help them clear the land mines we gave them to plant. Afghan children by the hundreds were still getting their arms and legs blown off by American land mines long after the war was over, because we did nothing to help them."

Rohrabacher blames the first Bush administration for this policy of neglect.

But he reserves more passion for criticism of the Clinton administration, which, he says, bailed out the Taliban in its most fateful days.

"In 1997, the Taliban overextended themselves," he says. "Thousands of troops were captured in the north. Much of their equipment was destroyed by the Northern Alliance. Nothing prevented the opposition from taking Kabul. The Taliban was more vulnerable than it ever was before."

But instead of seizing the opportunity to support the Northern Alliance, Rohrabacher says the Clinton administration imposed a ceasefire and arms embargo that was supposed to apply to both sides. Instead, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia took the opportunity to resupply and rebuild the Taliban army.

President Clinton, Rohrabacher maintains, knew about this but withheld information from Congress and the Northern Alliance.

Two years ago, Rohrabacher says, a friend very knowledgeable about Afghanistan called him to say he knew exactly where Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan. If the U.S. wanted to take him out, this was the opportunity.

Rohrabacher contacted the Central Intelligence Agency and asked officials to talk to his friend. A week went by and nothing happened, he says. He called again. Another week went by with no contact. Rohrabacher got in touch with Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who set up a meeting with the Bin Laden Task Force, a group comprised of members of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency. Rohrabacher met with the task force, which assured him it would get right on the matter.

"It took a month before anyone from the task force ever got in touch with my friend," he says. By then, bin Laden had moved.

Rohrabacher accuses the U.S. intelligence establishment of gross negligence and incompetence over what he calls the "biggest intelligence failure in the history of the country."

"Here we were paying hundreds of people to conduct a secret war against bin Laden for years, yet they allowed this attack against these buildings in New York," he says. "They were evidently more concerned about their own little turf wars than they were about protecting the lives of thousands of Americans."

Rohrabacher says people should be fired over this failure or Americans will pay an even bigger price in the future.

"I think this is evidence that our CIA and our intelligence apparatus are run by nincompoops and incompetents," he says. "People should lose their jobs over this."

Rohrabacher, a major supporter of the Afghan resistance during the Soviet invasion, says, contrary to popular opinion, the U.S. did not support bin Laden and his allies during the war. Bin Laden got his support from Saudi Arabia and the Taliban, which arose "seemingly from nowhere in 1996." It was a creation of the Pakistan ISI, that nation's equivalent of the CIA.

He says Pakistan wanted a regime it could control, while Saudi Arabia, which also supported the Taliban, wanted to block the development of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan that would drive down the price of oil. In addition, he says, the Pakistan ISI siphoned off money from the Afghan heroin trade, controlled by the Taliban.

Rohrabacher organized several humanitarian relief efforts on behalf of the Northern Alliance, but, he says, he could never interest the Clinton administration in helping. In fact, he says, the administration threw up roadblocks to his efforts on more than one occasion.

During the Clinton administration, the congressman says, Voice of America became known in Afghanistan as the "Voice of the Taliban."

"When I tell people that President Clinton supported the Taliban, they go berserk," he said. "But that is the truth."

The_Dude · 05-01-2003, 07:35 PM

i said al queda, not taliban.

they're 2 different entities that had different starting points.

al queda started off in the 80's or so as offensive against soviet occupation, when the US funded it.

Kadath · 05-01-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
And what exactly did your idol Bill Clinton do to help get rid of Al Queda? Kinda funny how nobody will say Clinton didn't do anything about it, but the Bush gets all the blame. Seems kinda fucked up to me.

I was thinking about this today, unrelated to any discussion. Friend of mine and I were debating the war. He kept bringing up how much France sucks. I finally said "Fine, France sucks. Can we get back to what we're doing wrong?" I'm tired of people (and not just Republicans or right-wingers or talk show hosts or any group in particular) changing the subject and attacking what they perceive to be the other side's hero instead of staying on topic. Clinton was not a perfect president. He did many things wrong. That makes him human. I don't see much of a point in debating him any more. We can't affect his presidency; it's over. I would say likewise for the first Bush, though many of his advisors filtered down to his son, so there is precedent for the wrongs to continue (and, ostensibly, the rights as well). I apply this, to a certain degree, to the discussion of the US training future terrorists as well. If people would just admit that we did wrong in that situation and we shouldn't be so casual about labeling them evil and ourselves good, then it doesn't matter which administration was responsible. It is the hope that the current administration will work to correct those problems, not exacerbate them.

And sixate, as for your comment on O'Reilly's treatment of Glick, pretty weak. I actually have come (in the past few days, you're quite prolific) to expect more thoughtful discussion that "Fuck that guy, he didn't even care about his father's death." O'Reilly literally shouted him down and kicked him off the air. Irrespective of Glick's position, no one deserves to be treated like that. If O'Reilly truly wishes to portray himself as a thoughtful, wordly host, he needs to keep his temper and consider other viewpoints than his own.

That got long. I hope it isn't a thread killer.

sixate · 05-01-2003, 08:56 PM

Kadath, I can almost agree with you on the first part. It is time to stop worrying about the French, but at least we know who our friends are now. I'm glad to hear you can say that Clinton did do things wrong cause there are some dudes who belive he did no wrong. All presidents screw up. I've said many times that we've made bad decisions, but I believe that in time our governmet will change the things that we did wrong. No system is perfect, but ours is a close as it gets.

On O'Reilly. Sorry, but sometimes all I have in me is a "Fuck that." That's sometimes the easiest way for me to say whats on my mind cause I completely disagree with Glick. I don't even understand how he could think like that. If I was talking to him I would reach a level of frustration that would cause me to want slap some sense into the man, but whose to say I'm right? It's just my opinion.

It's not a thread killer. I like discussing these things with people who have different views than me.

Kadath · 05-01-2003, 10:36 PM

Holy fucking shit! Actual agreement. I respect the fact that all you can give an opinion is a "Fuck that," because I feel the same way about things sometimes. And there goes my theory about the flame of a thread dying over half a day. Look at you be all reasonable and calm half an hour later. In a sense it was a thread killer, at least between you and I, because we have reached the point where we have agreed on what we will and let the other go his way on what we don't. And you get respect for continuing to be in Ohio. I left that state at 5 and every time I go back I thank my father for getting transferred

.

Phaenx · 05-01-2003, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Holy fucking shit! Actual agreement. I respect the fact that all you can give an opinion is a "Fuck that," because I feel the same way about things sometimes. And there goes my theory about the flame of a thread dying over half a day. Look at you be all reasonable and calm half an hour later. In a sense it was a thread killer, at least between you and I, because we have reached the point where we have agreed on what we will and let the other go his way on what we don't. And you get respect for continuing to be in Ohio. I left that state at 5 and every time I go back I thank my father for getting transferred .

Heey, watchit

Kadath · 05-01-2003, 10:47 PM

Dude, I was born in Cleveland, the town where the river caught fire. You defend that and I'm calling the men in the white coats

Phaenx · 05-01-2003, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Dude, I was born in Cleveland, the town where the river caught fire. You defend that and I'm calling the men in the white coats

Go south more. Say, in Columbus. Where wine flows like water, and beautiful women flock to your penis by the van full. Also, everyone here looks like golden sun gods.

pangavan · 05-01-2003, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Five: A budget w/ a surplus.

Quote:

i said al queda, not taliban.

There never was a budget surplus, it was enron accounting

al queda was formed in the early 1990's because Osama BinLaden could not stand the presence of non muslims in Saudi Arabia. He ran around all the arab and muslim nations, screaming that we were going to suppress the muslim faith like the Russians did in Afghanistan. Supposedly because America is a friend of Zion.

Iraqi link to terrorists: If Iraq had not invaded kuwait, we would not have troops in Saudi Arabia, al queda would not have a reason to form.

The_Dude · 05-02-2003, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pangavan
There never was a budget surplus, it was enron accounting

al queda was formed in the early 1990's because Osama BinLaden could not stand the presence of non muslims in Saudi Arabia. He ran around all the arab and muslim nations, screaming that we were going to suppress the muslim faith like the Russians did in Afghanistan. Supposedly because America is a friend of Zion.

Iraqi link to terrorists: If Iraq had not invaded kuwait, we would not have troops in Saudi Arabia, al queda would not have a reason to form.

al queda was formed as a resistence against the soviet troops in afghanistan when they invaded it.

04-30-2003, 07:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
KillerYoda The Original Emo Gangsta Location: Sixth Floor, Texas School Book Depository	From that thread title, I was expecting some kind of weird, once-in-a-lifetime event where O'Reilly and Clinton were having sex. Such a let down. __________________ "So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

04-30-2003, 07:47 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	and btw, somebody tell orielly that donahue's gonna be off the air. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

04-30-2003, 09:34 PM	#9 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Bill O'Reilly is a fucking jackoff. And I know Tom Tomorrow isn't exactly objective, but this is ostensibly a transcript. __________________ it's quiet in here

05-01-2003, 04:34 AM	#11 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	oh my gosh, what a freaking asshole he is. he cut him off at everything the poor guy said and took him off the air. he's far bigger asshole than i thought he was. i dont think oreilly was smart enough to debate w/ this dude about anything except what was pre-planned (and i bet he got briefed on that). what an ass __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-01-2003, 06:20 AM	#12 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I think that this shows the irrelevance of Bill O'Reilly and his opinions. If he is not willing to debate other views then he's not worth our time. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

05-01-2003, 06:28 AM	#13 (permalink)
magic_hat Tilted Location: The Altered State of Drugachusetts	O'Reilly is a moron. He can't debate in an equal manner. They need to replace him with someone that is neither left or right, let that pos be a guest, if he wants. Ive seen him do that same thing many times...if he doesnt like where the debate is going-he tries to end it. I just hope he doesnt have kids.

05-01-2003, 06:32 AM	#14 (permalink)
BoCo Fear the bunny Location: Hanging off the tip of the Right Wing	*Bill O'Reilly rocks!* Thanks for the article, sixate. The sole reason Clinton won't ever appear on O'Reilly's show is because he knows he doesn't stand a chance against him. No one but O'Reilly would ever ask Clinton the questions he needs to give us answers to, and since Clinton doesn't think he should have to answer to anyone, he'll never allow O'Reilly to confront him. __________________ Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

05-01-2003, 08:52 AM	#17 (permalink)
JoeyB feeling tingly	O'Reilly shows signs of intelligence, but when he refuses to listen to the other side, as he apparently did in the conversation with Glick, he looks ridiculous. It's amazing how he corrects Glick on something about his own family! Who would know Glick's father better??? O'Reilly? Or Glick?? Stay strong to your beliefs, but if you become so inflexible that you refuse to listen, you tend to look much less intelligent than you actually are. O'Reilly is not dumb, just stubborn...and sometimes it's very easy to confuse the two. Why must he take a dissenting opinion as a personal affront to him??? A difference of opinion need not be an attack on someone else's beliefs. We're different people. What's wrong with that? O'Reilly claims to be the home of the "No Spin Zone" and many times that is true, but if you refuse to listen to a reasonable argument by someone who doesn't always agree with you, how can that be considered anything but a spin? I am constantly amazed at the anger associated with political debate. Don't let rage enter in....or the facts will soon go out. __________________ My mom is a Diamondbacks fan. She really likes the Big Unit

05-01-2003, 09:36 AM	#19 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	How can people both support Bill O'Reilly and whine about Michael Moore? They are the same thing, really.

05-01-2003, 04:39 PM	#25 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i'm not directly blaming the US govt. i dont think they knew this was going to happen when they helped al queda. i'm blaming a small part of it on the US govt, if it wasnt for the govt support of al queda, i doubt this would have happened. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-01-2003, 07:35 PM	#29 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i said al queda, not taliban. they're 2 different entities that had different starting points. al queda started off in the 80's or so as offensive against soviet occupation, when the US funded it. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-01-2003, 08:56 PM	#31 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	Kadath, I can almost agree with you on the first part. It is time to stop worrying about the French, but at least we know who our friends are now. I'm glad to hear you can say that Clinton did do things wrong cause there are some dudes who belive he did no wrong. All presidents screw up. I've said many times that we've made bad decisions, but I believe that in time our governmet will change the things that we did wrong. No system is perfect, but ours is a close as it gets. On O'Reilly. Sorry, but sometimes all I have in me is a "Fuck that." That's sometimes the easiest way for me to say whats on my mind cause I completely disagree with Glick. I don't even understand how he could think like that. If I was talking to him I would reach a level of frustration that would cause me to want slap some sense into the man, but whose to say I'm right? It's just my opinion. It's not a thread killer. I like discussing these things with people who have different views than me.

05-01-2003, 10:36 PM	#32 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Holy fucking shit! Actual agreement. I respect the fact that all you can give an opinion is a "Fuck that," because I feel the same way about things sometimes. And there goes my theory about the flame of a thread dying over half a day. Look at you be all reasonable and calm half an hour later. In a sense it was a thread killer, at least between you and I, because we have reached the point where we have agreed on what we will and let the other go his way on what we don't. And you get respect for continuing to be in Ohio. I left that state at 5 and every time I go back I thank my father for getting transferred . __________________ it's quiet in here

05-01-2003, 10:47 PM	#34 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Dude, I was born in Cleveland, the town where the river caught fire. You defend that and I'm calling the men in the white coats __________________ it's quiet in here