Letterman Moments

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 4, 2006, 10:00 pm

Definitely one of my favourites:

http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/01/04/let ... y-is-crap/

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 4, 2006, 10:10 pm

You have to respect O'reilly for trying though. He is plucky. He keeps going on shows and getting absolutely taken apart by anyone he speaks to. He continues to go on these interviews.

At least Limbaugh, Coulter and other chickenhawks know to stay on their own crappy shows and keep preaching to their personal choirs.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 4, 2006, 10:28 pm

Well, he did ask for it; he's on Letterman and he opens the interview with his "Christmas is under attack" shtick, and it was all downhill from there.

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » January 5, 2006, 2:32 am

Here is the 12 minute interview with Bill via Letterman..

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Letterman-OReilly.wmv

and the quick 2 minute segment..

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cbs_le ... 60103a.wmv

I personally liked it when they started talking about the iraq war and letterman says that what Bill is saying has got to be "60%" crap.

As Bill once said..

"Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down."

Sendarie · Post by **Sendarie** » January 5, 2006, 9:13 am

I'm a big Letterman fan but that was kind of a let down for Dave.

Letterman: “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don’t know that for a fact. [more audience applause]

O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”

Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”

O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.”

Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”

O’Reilly: “Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?”

Letterman: “Because of things that I’ve read, things that I know.”

How do you say "60% of what you say is crap" in reference to a show that you've never watched or seen?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 5, 2006, 9:46 am

I like how Jon Stewart is showing Letterman a way to remain relevant when he actually stopped being cool in the 80's.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 5, 2006, 11:18 am

Sendarie wrote:I'm a big Letterman fan but that was kind of a let down for Dave.
Letterman: “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don’t know that for a fact. [more audience applause]

O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”

Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”

O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.”

Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”

O’Reilly: “Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?”

Letterman: “Because of things that I’ve read, things that I know.”

How do you say "60% of what you say is crap" in reference to a show that you've never watched or seen?

The previous 10 minutes of his interview with O'Reilly was more than enough to form that opinion. Besides which, Bill has plenty of exposure outside his own show be it appearances on other shows, or other media reporting on his "journalism".

You're just deluded into thinking that Bill is "on your side" when in reality he's just looking out for his own interests and couldn't give a shit about "the troops".

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » January 5, 2006, 12:23 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Sendarie wrote:I'm a big Letterman fan but that was kind of a let down for Dave.
Letterman: “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don’t know that for a fact. [more audience applause]

O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”

Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”

O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.”

Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”

O’Reilly: “Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?”

Letterman: “Because of things that I’ve read, things that I know.”

How do you say "60% of what you say is crap" in reference to a show that you've never watched or seen?
The previous 10 minutes of his interview with O'Reilly was more than enough to form that opinion. Besides which, Bill has plenty of exposure outside his own show be it appearances on other shows, or other media reporting on his "journalism".

You're just deluded into thinking that Bill is "on your side" when in reality he's just looking out for his own interests and couldn't give a shit about "the troops".

I call bullshit on that statement. As a fan of Dave...and also someone who thinks Bill does try to remain unobjective (but everyone is influenced by their own beliefs and experiences)...Dave was off base. Dave is very good friends with people like Al Franken...who have nothing but contempt for Bill.

If you saw the interview...you heard Dave say that he bases his opinion on what he reads and what he hears. Yeah, getting second hand information from your cronies that dislike someone...yeah...that's good and accurate information.

I still like Dave...but it was a low moment for him. Bill is not a good interview subject on any show. He really seems like someone who needs to be in the driver's seat. In Dave's defense, he likes to get laughs...it's his thing. In Bill's defense, he does keep it civil and will eat his words if someone has an example that contradicts what he states.

Oh, and Bill was spot on about Cindy Sheehan. He has always contended that she has the right to say what she wants and grieve how she wants. He defends her freedom of speech and dissent about the war. Dave, never having listened to or watched Bill's shows...accused Bill of attacking Ms. Sheehan. Dave was speaking out of his ass without knowing anything other than what he was being fed.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 5, 2006, 3:30 pm

Personally I thought it was funny and that neither got owned. Last time he was on it was similar (it was only about 6 months ago I think) and they were having a blast talking about Dave being friends with Al Franken.

Marb

Sendarie · Post by **Sendarie** » January 5, 2006, 3:52 pm

Zaelath wrote: The previous 10 minutes of his interview with O'Reilly was more than enough to form that opinion.

That speaks volumes for your "views" on things.

deluded = diluted

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » January 5, 2006, 4:49 pm

Lets be honest here: the reason O'Reilly, whether you disagree with him or not, gets invited to Letterman, the Daily Show, etc. is that he can maintain a civil discourse. Limbaugh might be capable of it but seems to be afraid of it; Coulter openly talks about wanting to shoot anyone who doesn't agree with her; and somebody like Tucker "bowtie" Carlson is incapable of rising above teenage insults to participate in a serious discourse.

As Kyou mentioned, I respect O'Reilly for sticking to his beliefs and being ready to defend them, even though they are flawed and in some cases, flat out wrong.

As for this, I enjoyed the exchange.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 5, 2006, 8:07 pm

Sendarie wrote:
Zaelath wrote: The previous 10 minutes of his interview with O'Reilly was more than enough to form that opinion.
That speaks volumes for your "views" on things.

deluded = diluted

The previous 10 minutes was Bill waffling on about how saying "Happy Holidays" is stealing Christmas and calling a distraught mother a traitor expressing dissent, then turning around and defending her right to speak.

I think Dave's 60% call was conservative based on the rest of the interview. Not that I don't agree with O'Reilly at times, since I have watched his show in the past, but that's usually when he's making "water is wet" statements which attempt to bolster his erudition in the minds of his audience. ie, when you know someone that you generally agree with, if they drop in a view you are diametrically opposed to you give it more thought rather than dismiss it out of hand, or if your the weak minded masses you just take it on board and realise how foolish you've been.

I guess you really think that how strangers greet each other for a month a year changes the reality that you're a predominately Christian nation and still celebrate Christmas every bit as much, or more, now as at any time in your history. Of course, you haven't had much interesting in the Christ part for a long while, but that's got nothing to do with Wal*Mart's greeting policy.

edit: typo

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 5, 2006, 8:13 pm

Moonwynd wrote: I call bullshit on that statement. As a fan of Dave...and also someone who thinks Bill does try to remain unobjective (but everyone is influenced by their own beliefs and experiences)

He's one of the most openly opinionated and biased interviewers on the planet; how you can think he's objective I have no idea.

I've never seen him have anyone on his show, whom he doesn't agree with, that he didn't continually shut down in the middle of sentences then complete them by totally skewing the meaning of what they were trying to say, then offer them the last word in a few seconds after totally riding roughshod over the rest of the interview.

Oh wait, nevermind, your Freudian slip is showing; I totally agree with you that "Bill tries to remain unobjective"

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » January 5, 2006, 11:17 pm

Oh wait, nevermind, your Freudian slip is showing; I totally agree with you that "Bill tries to remain unobjective"

Haha...good one!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 6, 2006, 6:01 pm

Wulfran wrote:As Kyou mentioned, I respect O'Reilly for sticking to his beliefs and being ready to defend them, even though they are flawed and in some cases, flat out wrong.

As for this, I enjoyed the exchange.

Ditto. I can see this exchange as a complete dead heat. Bill explained his convictions (albeit being incorrect and trying to adjust the way someone should approach the obvious misgivings of this admins decisions in order to fit a personal opinion) but was easily able to counter any of Dave's claims that, technically, are based upon reputation as opposed to direct quotation. If you're going to make an insinuation about someone, you better be prepared to back it up. Dave obviously wasn't.

Christ, a bit of that sounds like a Jesse Jackson speech

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 7, 2006, 1:59 pm

Bill O Reilly is a fucking retard as is anyone who agrees with pretty much anything that comes out of his mouth.