O'Reilly on Letterman

[46zilzal]

quote: :"I have the feeling that 60% of what you say is crap..." and with that Dave Letterman captured the essence of what is Bill O'Reilly.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I saw the show. I thought Letterman was an ass. O'Riely, well, he was O'Riley. But Letterman, most of his show is just him being a loveable jerk. He should stick to comedy. That whole Cindy Sheehan ploy. Sadness for her loss, yes. But when Cindy Sheehan and the forces who've empowered here wants to set U.S. Policy, no, no pity beyond the loss of her son. Casey Sheehan was the real hero, not Cindy.

[DRIVEWAY]

quote: :"I have the feeling that 60% of what you say is crap..." and with that Dave Letterman captured the essence of what is Bill O'Reilly.

A comedian and a talk show moderator. Each has an agenda and they have ratings in common, you grapped the fish hook.

Both are right, both are wrong, alas the oprah ratings are good!!!!

[DJofSD]

A good rule of thumb: 90% of everything is crap -- especially political opinions found on this board.

[PaceAdvantage]

Did you guys actually listen to what Letterman said. Read the actual transcript of his responses if you can, it's a riot. The guy (Letterman) came off like an uninformed idiot, grasping at emotional straws. I like Letterman alot, but he made me cringe with the way he came off. It seemed as though he was going to go after O'Reilly no matter WHAT, and it did NOT go smoothly for him....his staff is ill-equipped at preparing the host for a debate on serious topics.

Letterman: "60% of what you say is crap" (why 60%.....why not 90% Dave?)
O'Reilly: "Do you watch the show"
Letterman: "NO" (absolutely classic stuff)

'Nuff Said'

[DRIVEWAY]

Did you guys actually listen to what Letterman said. Read the actual transcript of his responses if you can, it's a riot. The guy (Letterman) came off like an uninformed idiot, grasping at emotional straws. I like Letterman alot, but he made me cringe with the way he came off. It seemed as though he was going to go after O'Reilly no matter WHAT, and it did NOT go smoothly for him....his staff is ill-equipped at preparing the host for a debate on serious topics.

Letterman: "60% of what you say is crap" (why 60%.....why not 90% Dave?)
O'Reilly: "Do you watch the show"
Letterman: "NO" (absolutely classic stuff)

'Nuff Said'
If there was a political debate and you were the moderator, do you actually think Letterman and O'Reilly would show up. One has cover as a comedian and the other has cover as "Fair and Balanced". Politician, Comedian. Entertainer or Handicapping Web Site Moderator.
Letterman is Philadelphia Park, O'Reilly is Lone Star Park and PaceAdvantage is
Churchill on The First Saturday In May. Who is number one?

[PaceAdvantage]

The actual transcript is here....I paraphrased a bit too liberally in my last post:

LETTERMAN: I'm not smart enough to debate your point to point on this, but I have the feeling -- I have the feeling -- I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. But I don't know that for a fact.

PAUL SHAFFER (Late Show music director): Sixty percent.

LETTERMAN: Sixty percent, that's just a -- I'm just spitballing here now.

O'REILLY: Listen, I respect your opinion, you should respect mine.

LETTERMAN: Well, I -- I -- OK.

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: You have to give me an example if you're going to make those statements.

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.

O'REILLY: You're going to take things that you've read? Do you know what they've said about you? Come on. Watch it for -- look, look, watch it for a half an hour, you'll get addicted, you'll be a Factor fan. We'll send you a hat.

LETTERMAN: They'll send me a hat. Yeah, well, send [anti-war protester] Cindy Sheehan a hat.

O'REILLY: I'd be happy to.

LETTERMAN: Bill, it's always a pleasure.

[Lefty]

Letterman also said he wasn't smart enough to go point by point with O'Reilly.

And 46zilly, do you watch O'Reilly?

[Light]

Sounds like O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine.He's downright rude with alot of the guests he disagrees with.

I think O'Reilly diminishes his own show the way he repeatedly interrupts his guests responses to his questions without letting them finish. One guest appropriately asked him why he had him on his show if he wouldn't let him speak without interuption. At least Letterman is a good listener whether or not he agrees with his guests.

[Tom]

Dave works for cBS.

He is nothing more that a has-been comic who has settled on being a flunky to the stars. His career can be summed up as follows: second fiddle to everyone who came along, from Carson to Leno, he was never good enough. and that was when he was in his prime. The Al Gore of late night.

[Lefty]

light, O'Reilly keeps his guests on point when they want to wander off the subject or evade the question. That's not rude, it's good hosting when you have limited time.

Letterman admitted he wasn't smart enough to debate with O'Reilly. Kinda says it all, doesn't it mr lightunderabushel?

[kingfin66]

Dave works for cBS.

He is nothing more that a has-been comic who has settled on being a flunky to the stars. His career can be summed up as follows: second fiddle to everyone who came along, from Carson to Leno, he was never good enough. and that was when he was in his prime. The Al Gore of late night.

Yikes. What does that make Jimmy Kimmel?

[Light]

Lefty

If the reason O'Reilly never lets his more liberal guests finish what they are saying is due to them wandering off the subject(as you suggested),then there must be an epidemic.

IMO he stops them from fully expressing their thoughts cause he's afraid of the points and issues they bring up.He doesn't want to hear it and that is clear from the annoyed look on his face as he talks over his guests. When he gets people on like Micheal Moore or George Galloway,it's mostly for TV ratings. The substance is lost due to his antics and so is this viewer's interest. He needs to calm down.

[Lefty]

Well, don't know what you think you see, but O'reilly is respectfult to his guests but does stop them from going on a rant; does the same to conservative guests.

suff, Steve is right, Letterman was an ass, then when he said he thght 60% of what O'Reilly said was crap he had to back down and say he didn't watch O'Reilly's show. Typical of libs. Especially the ones in the media.

[lsbets]

I hadn't seen the show, but I just heard a replay of it. The audio is so much different than just reading the transcript. Letterman started off strong, and then O'Reilly bitch slapped him. I am not a big O'Reilly fan, and if the two were on at the same time, I would rather watch Letterman. But once O'Reilly got the upper hand, Dave backed down as quickly as he could. He lost control on his own show. He had to admit he wasn't capable of debating O'Reilly - a debate that he started thinking he could win - and then he ahd to admit that while he was quick to criticize O'Reilly's show he had no clue what he was talking about because he doesn't watch the show. I like Dave, I always have, but he got his ass kicked all over the studio on his own show, and that has to be one of the most embarassing things that can happen to a host.

[46zilzal]

"bitch slap" is a disgusting phrase akin to what one might hear in the hallowed halls of San Quentin of Levenworth. REAL CLASSY

[Lefty]

Yeah, you libs do nothing but classy repartee'
Bitchslapped may not be classy but it's strong visual imagery. Mark Twain once said using the almost right word is as close as a lightning bug is to lightning.
I hasten to say I am paraphrasing the great author, but you get the idea. Don't you?

[46zilzal]

NAME calling yet again...Did you bust?

[lsbets]

"bitch slap" is a disgusting phrase akin to what one might hear in the hallowed halls of San Quentin of Levenworth. REAL CLASSY

Now that doesn't sound very open minded Dr. 6'3. I'm sorry if your ever sensitive sensibilities were offended by my use of that phrase, no matter how apt it may be. Given your choice of words and phrases on an almost daily basis, I am surprised that you would be so lacking in tolerance towards others choices of words or phrases. Actually, I'm not surprised.

[toetoe]

Ew, Zilz, your imagery makes me think of a NO-HANDS bitch slap. My naive brain always thought it was just a back-and-forth, open hand-back hand, take zat, and zat, and zat, etc. affair.

Suff, your pithy contribution describes the affliction I found myself saddled with upon waking this morning --- urine ass. Too much coffee last night? :eek:

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'm a long-time Letterman fan. But he was interupting O'Riley and even trying to shame him for his views ("in God's name, how can you not support what Cindy Sheehan is doing?"). And then couldn't stop interupting his answers.

By the way, I no longer have the extended cable, but I can't stand both Hanity and Colms because of the way they run roughshod over their guests, barely letting them get their words in, let alone their points. In which case, why bother having guests?

[46zilzal]

By the way, I no longer have the extended cable, but I can't stand both Hanity and Colms because of the way they run roughshod over their guests, barely letting them get their words in, let alone their points. In which case, why bother having guests?
NO MATTER what side of the coin one is on, if you are going to have debate, let the other side talk....you may not listen, but let 'em talk.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I wondered how PA had found the transcript so fast. It's on the Fox News website under the O'Riley Factor. I may have paraphrased a bit too much, but the spirit of what was said was intact. The partial transcript link is below:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180673,00.html

The whole segement from Letterman's show can be seen via a link on Bill O'Reilly's website.

www.billoreilly.com

[toetoe]

46z,

How can you say that? :lol:

Also, any pictures of O'Reilly on Letterman? Ew, ew! :eek:

[46zilzal]

here it is

[boxcar]

"bitch slap" is a disgusting phrase akin to what one might hear in the hallowed halls of San Quentin of Levenworth. REAL CLASSY

Your sudden concern about class or the lack thereof has me wonderin' if you have made several character-related New Year's resolutions. (If so, care to share any of them with us?) :D

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

never understood how ANYONE would want to emulate anything to do with the idiocy of gang culture that's all.

[JustRalph]

Bitch-slap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

(Redirected from Bitch slap (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitch_slap&redirect=no))
Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitch_slap#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitch_slap#searchInput)
Bitch-slap (sometimes bitchslap or bitch slap) is a slang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slang) term often meaning the same as a box on the ear (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Box_on_the_ear&action=edit).

It is usually used in a threatening sense, rather than a practical one (e.g. "Don't make me bitch-slap you!"). The term can have several meanings, of which the first one is perhaps the original:


A bitch-slap can be an overpowering backhanded slap (i.e. a box on the ear) delivered by a supposedly docile female to a dominant male.
A bitch-slap can also be a slap given, particularly but not necessarily to a female, who is being rude or hysterical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterical) to calm or subdue her (or him).
A bitch-slap could also be the act of literally slapping a prostitute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitute), the slap usually being delivered by her pimp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimp), usually when the prostitute is behaving out of line (sometimes pimp slap).
A bitch slap can be an open handed slap with the non-dominant hand given to a lady (usually a wife or girl friend) most often when the lady is "talking back". This wisdom comes from "Gotcheye" and "Easy Money" of the "Last Chance Bar and Grill" in Louisiana, and is referred to as the "Cajun Bitch slap".
The phrase "bitch slap" is frequently used by teenagers, when a girl is threatening to slap a boy until he cries.
This practical definiton has evolved in its figurative sense to mean a slap given to one person by another in order for the administer of the slap to assert dominance over the receiver of it.

One variation in the computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer) industry is 'bit slap', which is a play on words of bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit) and bitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitch).

[toetoe]

Ralph,

I always thought boxing ears meant giving a cupped forehand, as opposed to a "cuff." Imagine Moe cupping his meat hooks and giving the simultaneous one-two to Curly. NG-NG-YAAAAAA. :eek:

[Light]

I just listened to the audio.The tone of the conversation was kept light by Letterman . 6 rounds of applause from what Letterman said to O'Reilly in the political part and 2 for what O'Reilly said to Letterman. If that's bitch slapping then there has been a revised meaning to the phrase.

[lsbets]

I just listened to the audio.The tone of the conversation was kept light by Letterman . 6 rounds of applause from what Letterman said to O'Reilly in the political part and 2 for what O'Reilly said to Letterman. If that's bitch slapping then there has been a revised meaning to the phrase.

So when O'Reilly made his point about not tolerating people referring to terrorists as freedom fighters, you did not see Dave as backing down as quickly as he could? I know its a matter of perception, and I know you think they are closer to freedom fighters than terrorists and you seem to have an odd little admiration for them, so maybe its because you didn't like Bill's comment, but to me it was pretty clear that once Bill made that comment Dave decided he wanted to get off the topic as quickly as possible.

[boxcar]

I just listened to the audio.The tone of the conversation was kept light by Letterman . 6 rounds of applause from what Letterman said to O'Reilly in the political part and 2 for what O'Reilly said to Letterman. If that's bitch slapping then there has been a revised meaning to the phrase.

Letterman's show is from the Left Coast, isn't it? Need I say more about the number of "rounds of applause" and for whom they were targeted?

Boxcar

[Bobby]

nam·by-pam·by Audio pronunciation of "namby-pamby" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nmb-pmb)
adj.

1. Insipid and sentimental.
2. Lacking vigor or decisiveness; spineless.


n. pl. nam·by-pam·bies

One that is insipid, sentimental, or weak.

[Light]

So when O'Reilly made his point about not tolerating people referring to terrorists as freedom fighters, you did not see Dave as backing down as quickly as he could? I know its a matter of perception, and I know you think they are closer to freedom fighters than terrorists and you seem to have an odd little admiration for them, so maybe its because you didn't like Bill's comment, but to me it was pretty clear that once Bill made that comment Dave decided he wanted to get off the topic as quickly as possible.

That's just one point made in the discussion you are clinging to. I could point out valid points Letterman made but I am looking at the discussion as a whole and clearly Letterman was favored by the audience in the overall discussion.

[lsbets]

That's just one point made in the discussion you are clinging to. I could point out valid points Letterman made but I am looking at the discussion as a whole and clearly Letterman was favored by the audience in the overall discussion.

I wasn't talking about the points either one made, I was talking about Dave obviously backing away from the topic - he could have been doing it for any number of reasons, but he clearly did not want to get into a debate with O'Reilly.

[Light]

He didn't want to go into debate cause the points were made and O'Reilly's time was up. Within 1 minute of your perception of him backing down,he told O'Reilly goodbye and went to a commercial break.

Letterman is a shrewd dude. He didn't want to get all hot and heavy.He backed down rather than ruin his show. That's why he did it.He conceeded that he was not as skilled a debator as O'Reilly in a cordial sense that worked good for a wrap. But he did not take back anything he said.

[Lefty]

light, of course the audience favored Letterman, it's HIS audience. Please point out any good points he made. I guess I missed em.

[Light]

Lefty

Listen to the link yourself. The good points that Letterman made were in the context of the conversation. The applause by the audience should tell you what the good points were. But I'm sure you'll disagree.

[Lefty]

O'Reilly played the interview on his show. The applause meant nothing; it was Letterman's audience. You don't seem to be able to grasp that. It's a simple little qustion: What were the good points? All I heard from Letterman was the usual liberal crap. At the top was his arrogance in telling Bill everything he said was 60% crap. And then when Bill askjed for examples, letterman had to admit he didn't watch the show. Typical, so typical.

[JustRalph]

you gotta love the Google ads.............

Letterman Jackets? :D

[Lemon_Drop_Kid]

Exactly. Letterman gave us a lesson in contradiction. He'd first admit he knew nothing, then he'd render judgement.

I think he's losing it, wasting time on some woman's ridiculous restraining order.

I also think he has been sending me coded signals via his show every night. Something about Oprah Winney.

[Tom]

Top 10 People Letterman could beat in a debate:


10. Paul Shaffer
9. Boy George
8. Uncle Festus
7. Cletus
6. Bobcat Goldwaith (probably 60% of the time)
5. Kevin Ubanks
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.

[Lefty]

6. Mortimer Snerd
5. Jethro(Beverly Hillbillys)

[GeTydOn]

O'Reilly, Hannity, Colms are all full of themselves. But they are paid to be opinionated. It is frustrating to watch them on their shows the way they interrupt their guests who sometimes never even get through an opening sentence.

That Letterman-O'Reilly episode had to be the most uncomfortable I've seen Letterman ever.

The best difference I've ever seen between Letterman & Leno was the way they handled Toby McQuire when Seabiscuit was being released. Letterman got Toby to talk. Leno struggled to get Toby to say anything.

[Bobby]

That Hannity w/o his teleprompter he's Napolean Dynomite. He can't stop talking. HE'll ask his guest a question and then start talking again about 5 seconds later. Just ridicolous. Plus, they always have some no-name their going against -- the director of the illegimate child fund or some shit like that. Really pathetic.

[DJofSD]

4. Tiny Tim

[Light]

What were the good points?......

Well the audience did applaud when Letterman said 60% of what O'Reilly said is crap. Doesn't matter if Letterman can't debate or is washed up. Point is the audienced agreed. Doesn't matter that it's his show.Look what happened to Bill Maher.It is now politically correct to criticize the president where 2 years ago,it was not.The tide has turned.

[Lefty]

Yes, they did applaud, so what? Then he said he didn't watch the show. Most of audience didn't watch show either, i'd guess. Shows they applauded letterman cause they're letterman fans; not because he said anything cogent.
I'm still asking YOU, light, what good points did letterman make?
And, are you kidding me? This Pres been criticized for every move he makes ever since he took office.

[Lefty]

bobby, don't know why you're taking shots at Hannity when we're talking about O'Reilly. Guess you got the ADD, but Hannity has had some Dem heavywghts on too. He's even had Ted Kennedy on the radio show. On TV he constantly has Beckley on.

[Steve 'StatMan']

3. Patrick Star from Sponge Bob Square Pants

[Bobby]

bobby, don't know why you're taking shots at Hannity .

The preceding post b4 mine.

Oreilly not anything special. Just talking time for him. "The most ridicolous item of the Day is . . . . HIS GUESTS." PAthetic. They F N suck. Grab GAry coleman off the streets and interview him.

[Lefty]

Bobby, and yet this guy with nothing special, as you say, has the most watched show on cable tv. As guests he's had everybody who is somebody that have had the guts to go on the show. He's had authors, politicians and military people, as well as movie stars. Who are ya waiting for?

[boxcar]

Bobby, and yet this guy with nothing special, as you say, has the most watched show on cable tv. As guests he's had everybody who is somebody that have had the guts to go on the show. He's had authors, politicians and military people, as well as movie stars. Who are ya waiting for?

Probably Elvis.

Boxcar

[Light]

I'm still asking YOU, light, what good points did letterman make?
And, are you kidding me? This Pres been criticized for every move he makes ever since he took office.

I know what you are trying to do Lefty. I do not wish to debate the points Letterman brought up.That's why I won't point them out. You know what they are.

As far as criticism of the prez,yes he has been criticized since day one of his Iraq policy.But before people in the spotlight such as the Dixie chicks were punished.Today similar comments are applauded. There is a change happening and you ain't watching.Even O'Reilly now has criticism of the war.

[toetoe]

Light,

The little I know about Billy M. is that he said he was tired of hearing that the mad bomber kamikaze shitbags were "gutless." He's absolutely right that those bastids had bigger balls than the average American. But what kind of fragile egos have to make up adjectives that are SO wrong, and bring down the sword of doom upon someone who calls them on it? I absolutely want to defend my country, but the rhetoric, especially when so emotional and inaccurate, helps not one bit.

[Lefty]

light, you won't point them out cause you can't think of any. Who ya kidding?
People have been criticizing the war ever since it began. Where ya been?
The Dixie Chicks weren't punished by American people for criticizing Bush, they were punished(their popularity dropped)because they denigrated him without giving cogent reasons.
BTW, if you want to criticize Bush's war strategy, you damn well better have a better one. The Dem party has failed miserably in this context and that's why they lose to him.

[boxcar]

I know what you are trying to do Lefty. I do not wish to debate the points Letterman brought up.That's why I won't point them out. You know what they are.

As far as criticism of the prez,yes he has been criticized since day one of his Iraq policy.But before people in the spotlight such as the Dixie chicks were punished.Today similar comments are applauded. There is a change happening and you ain't watching.Even O'Reilly now has criticism of the war.

O'Reilly for the longest time has had criticisms of the war. But constructively criticizing specific aspects of the war and engaging in personal attacks on the president, sec of defense, etc. are two entirely different things.

Boxcar

[Light]

Lefty

If you cant locate the issues Letterman made to O'Reilly,how can you locate any I would bring to you?Tsk,Tsk.

[Bobby]

Tonight on THE FACTOR (per website)

NEVER SAID WHO WAS ON . . .EXCEPT FOR

PLus, a swingers group's New Year's Eve celebration at a Florida hotel gives a girls soccer team, and their parents, quite a scare. We'll talk with the father of one of the girls who wants the hotel to apologize.

================

Who cares. Your kids are looking at internet porn RIGHT NOW while you are asleep. U guys are loons.

[Bobby]

Oh the MOST RIDICOLOUS item of day (per website):

And now comes word that a British woman has married a dolphin in Israel. Forty-one-year-old Sharon Tendler has tied the knot with a 35- year-old mammal, so age is no problem there.

================

A dude marries a dolphin . . . :D :D :D

Hey Spears is thinking about a 2nd child to save her marriage with Kevin?

[Light]

ToeToe

Bill Maher's comments were tantamount to those who are now criticized for calling "terrorists"or "insurgents":Freedom Fighters. No they can't be cause they kill Americans. But Americans are liberators cause they kill Iraqi "insurgents".You see they have to label certain Iraqi's to justify killing some and liberating others at the same time.Something Einstein would take exception to.

[Lefty]

light, letterman made no good points. That's why you're not gloating about them, except to generally say he made some, but you can't give me a specific. Prettyu pathetic lib strategy.

[Lefty]

bobby, your last post points out who the loon is. Maybe you don't care but if I took my kids and others kids to a hotel and they didn't tell me that this nonsense going on, well, I would have been as outraged(prob more so)as this parent.
O'Reilly one of the few out there who is really trying to look out for the kids and i appreciate him for that even if I don't agree with everything he says.

[Light]

light, letterman made no good points.....

Apparently most of America now disagrees with you.

[Bobby]

bobby, your last post points out who the loon is. Maybe you don't care but if I took my kids and others kids to a hotel and they didn't tell me that this nonsense going on, well, I would have been as outraged(prob more so)as this parent.
O'Reilly one of the few out there who is really trying to look out for the kids and i appreciate him for that even if I don't agree with everything he says.


"Nonsense"
Do you ever go to bars? Girls flash all the time. Whats wrong with it? NOTHING. They having fun. Im having fun. So whats the big deal?

So whats up with OREILLY having a guest whose kids saw some leg? It happens everyday. Nothing

Get out. Rent you a porno.

[Lefty]

bobby says: Nonsense"
Do you ever go to bars? Girls flash all the time. Whats wrong with it? NOTHING. They having fun. Im having fun. So whats the big deal?

So whats up with OREILLY having a guest whose kids saw some leg? It happens everyday. Nothing

Get out. Rent you a porno.
________________

bobby, it's one thing for me to go to a bar and see some tits, it's quite another for kids to be exposed to swingers in a hotel lobby and'or lounge. If you don't get it then it's sad and you're a sad case.

[Lefty]

light says: Apparently most of America now disagrees with you
_______________________________
How do you arrive at that conclusion? Instead of dancing all around it c'mon tell me one cogent point that letterman made. Just one, light. Can you do it?
Hey get this, I can levitate myself 10 feet off the ground. I won't let anyone witness it, you'll just have to take my word.

[PaceAdvantage]

I wondered how PA had found the transcript so fast. It's on the Fox News website under the O'Riley Factor. I may have paraphrased a bit too much, but the spirit of what was said was intact. The partial transcript link is below:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180673,00.html

The whole segement from Letterman's show can be seen via a link on Bill O'Reilly's website.

www.billoreilly.com (http://www.billoreilly.com)

Quite honestly, I got the transcript from a left-leaning website.

[PaceAdvantage]

Boxcar, not sure if anyone corrected you, but the Letterman show originates from NYC.

It's shocking how differently some Americans see the world. And Bobby calls us loons...lol

I think some of you guys would be best served by going to Iraq and joining the Freedom Fighters...that would teach the rest of us loons a lesson.

[JustRalph]

Oh the MOST RIDICOLOUS item of day (per website):

And now comes word that a British woman has married a dolphin in Israel. Forty-one-year-old Sharon Tendler has tied the knot with a 35- year-old mammal, so age is no problem there.

================

A dude marries a dolphin . . . :D :D :D

Hey Spears is thinking about a 2nd child to save her marriage with Kevin?

That Item was carried by every major news site in the world. Which was the goal of the people who participated, i am sure.

[lsbets]

ToeToe

Bill Maher's comments were tantamount to those who are now criticized for calling "terrorists"or "insurgents":Freedom Fighters. No they can't be cause they kill Americans. But Americans are liberators cause they kill Iraqi "insurgents".You see they have to label certain Iraqi's to justify killing some and liberating others at the same time.Something Einstein would take exception to.

No Light, they are not freedom fighters not because they kill Americans, but because they kill the people who have shown true bravery and courage despite the terrorists actions - the Iraqis who are working to build and establish a democracy - those who walk miles to go and vote, those who join the police knowing that they become instant targets for the terrorists, etc ...... Those people are the real freedom fighters in Iraq, not those who wish to kill them.

Most of America does not see the insurgents as freedom fighters. You are in a very small, looney, really sickening minority there.

[Lefty]

bobby, last night O'Reilly also had some ACLU debunkers, one who used to work for them. And, he had Madelyn Albright, she big enough for ya?

[Light]

LS

Next time I'm in your neighborhood,how about I invade your home. I would appreciate it if you would show me the same hospitality you expect Iraqi's to show Americans for invading theirs.

[rastajenk]

Oh, they're freedom fighters all right. They are fighting freedom. Hard to believe anyone could see that as a good thing.

[lsbets]

LS

Next time I'm in your neighborhood,how about I invade your home. I would appreciate it if you would show me the same hospitality you expect Iraqi's to show Americans for invading theirs.

Light - I'd love it if you came to my neighborhood. I'd show you the same hospitality I've shown terrorists. Something tells me you wouldn't show .......

[Lefty]

light, so damned lib typical crap that is so
NON ANALAGOUS!
What good point did letterman make, light. Tell me, tell me.

[lsbets]

Light, you have this perverse admiration for people who purposely kill women and children. That is just sick.

[DJofSD]

Using the expression freedom fighters is a large, steaming pile of so much horse pucky.

Those people getting that label are not trying to free any one. What they want is to re institute a rule of surpression and subjugation. Do you really think that they'd let the women hold jobs, attend school and vote if it was up to them? Will they allow religous freedom? Can citizens speak freely without fear of reprisal? Do they even have a David Letterman that has guests like O'Reilly on their TV program?

If you think they would I don't know who's fooling who.

[Light]

LS

True to your phony facade,you admit you would become hostile if I invaded your home. You are no different than the "freedom fighters" who have the same attitude to homeland invaders.You are only fooling yourself if you think you are any different from those you detest.

[46zilzal]

try it ONCE lefty without DEM or LIB

[toetoe]

Whoa, fellas. Of course, no one likes to see strangers coming in, waging war. The difference here would be that we would ALL be trying to expel them. Doesn't that say that we have a decent alternative, whereas the Iraqis don't know whether to sh#t, f@rt, or wind their watches? Your point is good, Light, but maybe a bit too fine? :)

[lsbets]

LS

True to your phony facade,you admit you would become hostile if I invaded your home. You are no different than the "freedom fighters" who have the same attitude to homeland invaders.You are only fooling yourself if you think you are any different from those you detest.

Phony facade? Light my friend, you invited yourself, I merely welcomed your self invitation and told you I would treat you in the same manner as those who you so admire. I still think only a sick man could admire those who purposly murder women and children, but that is only one man's opinion. You find them admirable. Oh well.

Answer this question Light (although you never seem to answer any questions anyone asks you). Do you also see the Taliban remnants in Afghanistan as freedom fighters?

[lsbets]

Toe - no need for the whoa. I like it when Light actually posts. He reveals himself and what he really believes. I want him to keep posting and showing himself for who he really is. If he stays true to form he will run away from this thread pretty soon, so please don't discourage him from posting.

[Light]

... only a sick man could admire those who purposly murder women and children....

Yes I agree.The U.S. has murdered countless Iraqi men women and children.What's your point?

[lsbets]

Yes I agree.The U.S. has murdered countless Iraqi men women and children.What's your point?

So Light are you saying that the US has purposely murdered women and children - or did you not see that word in my quote that you agreed with about how only a sick man could admire those who do so purposely?

Don't run away, answer the question - are you saying that the US has purposely murdered women and children, and as a follow up, are you saying that US soldiers are murderers (it certainly appears you are saying so from your comment)? If you truly believe so, please have the courage to outright say so.

And while you are answering questions (if you actually do), please answer the one about the Taliban.

[toetoe]

Light,

No one can deny that women and children die in war. I think some people still don't know that, or maybe they don't WANT to know. Your analogy of invading someone's house is imprecise, as police and firefighters invade houses all the time. Sometimes medics, also. I know you consider the consequences of war, but are you saying you would never advocate war, ever? That's not a trick question. I believe I can't say never, but I agree it's a horrible, horrible business. If you suspect the stated motives, fine. But this monolithic, rhetorical trench warfare gets us nowhere. Let's agree or refute, point by point.

LS,

Personal threats might go over on some other boards that shall remain nameless, but jeez, not here. We have such a good thing here. I mean, check out some of the "competition."

[lsbets]

LS,

Personal threats might go over on some other boards that shall remain nameless, but jeez, not here. We have such a good thing here. I mean, check out some of the "competition."

Toe - where was a personal threat? I responded to his post where he said next time he's in the neighborhood how bout he invade my home. Since stuff has been posted on the site with my full name and address, wouldn't his post be a lot more of a threat than my reply to a basically anonymous individual?

If PA - the moderator of the board - feels my response was out of line I will happily retract it.

Also toe, in your comment to Light about some people either not knowing or not wanting to know the consequences of war, should I assume that comment referenced me because I have been the one going back and forth with Light on the subject?

[toetoe]

LS,

Absolutely no implication there, and I'm glad you asked. That's the way to dispel doubts. I thought you went too far in response to Light's absolutely hypothetical proposition. Maybe I'm the one that overreacted. :)

[Light]

LS :So Light are you saying that the US has purposely murdered women and children

Our goverment says things like We regret the loss of life to civilians

If you believe that then you believe these deaths are incidental and not intentional.

If you believe the war was premeditated, and that the government knew innocent people would die as a result of their actions,the term murder would apply because it is deliberate disregard and endangerment of other peoples lives

All excuses for such an action are null and void. The only valid excuse is stupidity.

[JustRalph]

All excuses for such an action are null and void. The only valid excuse is stupidity.

So, when Hitler was bombing the hell out of Europe and killing thousands of innocents, we were stupid for stopping him? You realize that we accidently killed innocents in stopping the 3rd Reich? It happens in every war..........

[Steve 'StatMan']

Lots of those innocent Iraqi women and children would have been safer if their insurgent husbands, brothers, uncles, and strangers wouldn't stay with these people while they're fighting a war, but instead the hide in homes amongst the innocent and then jumping out to attack is their only leverage, therefore they themselves bring the carnage on the women and children. Otherwise, every evildoer gets a free pass to hide, and then do their harm when they get their chance.

The armies of nations stay on bases, in baracks and camps. They don't bring their wives and children along. The insurgents sure as hell would try to kill our soldiers wives and children if they were brought in country. That's why they stay home!

The insurgents couldn't ball themselves at a 'base camp' because we'd find it and blow them all to smithereens. Therefore their style of fighting, using innocent and not so innocent civilians brings more disaster on them all. That they bring this on themselves and others, and that these others let them do it, are reasons alone not to be too remorseful - they've intentionally brought the worst situation on themselves, hoping enough people like 'Light' will be shamed enough into voluntarily giving up and losing, so they can establish their own, ruthless dictatorship and rule with an iron fist like Sadam, their idol.

I'm real glad you don't set national policy, Light. We'd all be speaking Arabic and Urdu (with a hint of a German accent) if you led our nation.

By the way, since these 'insurgents' are bombing innocent Iraqi civilians in the streets, and have had some success in killing dozens and now a hundred or more at a time, I'm seriously begining to wonder - who's killed more innocent Iraqi's, the Coalitions Forces, or the Insurgents (Iraqi citizen and foreign fighters)? If the insurgents haven't the highest total, they will soon - they're the only ones who've been intentionally trying, and still continuing, to kill and harm innocent Iraqi's.

[Lefty]

46zilly says: try it ONCE lefty without DEM or LIB
________________________________
Why should I sacrifice accuracy? Why do you object to Dem or lib?

[Lefty]

the handle, light, is truly a misnomer.

[toetoe]

Isn't war , by definition, premeditated? We're naive if we think lives are not considered part of the cost of doing business. This attitude is not REALLY justifiable, but let's not deny its existence. God, how many deaths are just people caught in the numbers game of our "civilized," "progressive" society? By your definition, Light, aren't millions the world over being murdered? Consumers, travelers in vehicles, hospitalized folk, drug recipients, etc.?
I guess I'm saying this war is no worse than any war, once started. I even have a problem with "war crimes" as a concept. It's war, for Pete's sake. Let's avoid it, as integral to our nature as it is. Let's overcome it. :(

[JustRalph]

Steve and Toe...........great posts.............

[Lefty]

In war, innocents die. This unfortunate circumstance can be justified when you know that by waging said war many more innocents will be saved.

[Bobby]

In war, innocents die. This unfortunate circumstance can be justified when you know that by waging said war many more innocents will be saved.


Yea lefty, use your fingers, we've been there, what, 15 years since Gulf War 1. And it's roadbombs . . .US citizens/troops die DAILY and there's no hope in sight.

BUSH IS BACKTRACKING. We only now need to train their forces to leave. I expect a major announcement in the next few months on a pullout. Elections coming up & THE POLLS SAY DEMOCRATS.

[Light]

ToeToe

In the end we'll all be dead.That is no excuse or justification for killing innocent people be it in a war or not.

Ralph

Your equating the Iraq war to Hitler and WW2 is absurd. Hitler would have ate Saddam for breakfast.

Steve

All the Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq by fellow Iraqi's are our responsibility. Bush opened Pandora's box in Iraq. I didn't see this kind of carnage before the invasion.

[46zilzal]

All the Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq by fellow Iraqi's are our responsibility. Bush opened Pandora's box in Iraq. I didn't see this kind of carnage before the invasion.
got a strong point there

[46zilzal]

Bremer says US did not expect insurgency in Iraq

Jan 6, 2006 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday.

Bremer, interviewed by the network in connection with release of his book on Iraq, recounted the decision to disband the Iraqi army quickly after arriving in Baghdad, a move many experts consider a major miscalculation.

When asked who was to blame for the subsequent Iraqi rebellion, in which thousands of Iraqis and Americans have died, Bremer said "we really didn't see the insurgency coming," the network said in a news release.

The network, which did not publish a transcript of the interview, added that Bremer's comments suggested "the focus of the war effort was in the wrong place."

The book, "My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope," is due for release on Monday. The interview will air on "Dateline NBC" on Sunday night.

Bremer also said he was deeply concerned about fighting insurgents and "became increasingly worried about the Pentagon's push to downsize the number of U.S. forces in Iraq by spring 2004," the network said.

[toetoe]

Light,

Let me shed some 'you' on the situation, though in the interest of brevity I'll confine myself to the part of the three-headed monster addressed directly to me. (Pause here for HUGE breath. Okay, that's better.) No one is justifying the unjust, am I right? I think we agree that war entails some atrocious behavior, giving all the more reason for avoiding it altogether. However, and I don't mean this in a NYAH-nya-nya-NYAH-nyeah way, you must believe some wars throughout history have been justifiable, or at least close enough to fool good men into waging them. Here's the timeline: buildup, insult, famine, envy, etc. >> war >> WAY too many dead, including locals who never picked up a weapon in anger, and were just born at the wrong points in time and space. I believe many folks fail to consider all the implications of war. I just want to make sure that you consider all the implications of your view, which is apparently: war is hell, warriors are babykillers. I think a woman that aborts her fetus is a babykiller, but I'm dying to hear the other side.

Okay, I lied. Two quick reviews. You did not directly address the analogy between Hitler and SHuss. By the way, I'm glad SH is despised enough to allow open study of Hitler. We need to learn from him, but it's considered bad form to mention him in human terms. The third point was unwittingly ridiculous. I know you wouldn't throw it out there just to incite vitriolic persiflage, yet it's WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. By that logic, we are accountable for all the deaths on September 11, 2001, and in Oklahoma City in 1995, etc., etc. We pissed off people with murderous tendencies. Oops, our bad??? :confused: Every refusal to negotiate with a kidnapper who eventually kills is blood on our hands? Every parolee who kills can be blamed on somebody? Life is not so neat.

Hey, I sound like Chad Everett at the end of every episode of "Medical Center," when he convinces James Daly to grow some stones. Or worse, a bad Jim Murray column, and yes, he had a few. :(

[Steve 'StatMan']

All the Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq by fellow Iraqi's are our responsibility. Bush opened Pandora's box in Iraq. I didn't see this kind of carnage before the invasion.

Sadam killed tens of thousands of his own people! Anyone who was a threat, and their family members, were routinely tortured and executed. You didn't see this carnage because the media rarely reported it. His current trial is for the murder of hundreds of villagers where an assaination attempt on Sadam took place. Sadam pretty much rounded up vast majority of males near-fighting age and had them tortured and/or killed, and then shut off the creeks to towns to starve the remaining people to death. A person testifying at Sadam's trial was stating how Sadam's people were tearing the skin of him and others by pouring hot wax on them and then peeling it and their skin off. That was when Sadam did his attention-diverting tyrade about himself being tortured, and that instead, of course, drew all the headlines.

Sadam took tons of money skimmed from the Oil For Food Program and bought all the great wealth that was hidden in his numerous and vast Presidential Palace Compounds (where we thought the weapons, esp. chemical, might have been hidden, since those he kept trying to exclude from U.N. searches). His own people (but not his supporters) were starving to death, and he wanted it to look like it was all the U.S.'s fault. Thousands more would still be starving today if we kept the sanctions in place. the supposed 'peaceful' solution. That 'peaceful' solutiion didn't work because over 2,200 companies and many world politicians were in on the bribery scam of the 'Oil for Food' program.

Well, if you didn't know all this before, now you should. Time to turn that Light 'on'.

[falconridge]

God, how many deaths are just people caught in the numbers game of our "civilized," "progressive" society? By your definition, Light, aren't millions the world over being murdered? Consumers, travelers in vehicles, hospitalized folk, drug recipients, etc.? ... Let's overcome it. :(Years ago, back in the pasteboard days, before simulcasting, telephone or on-line wagering--even before there was advance on-track betting--I memorized John Updike's poem "Caligula's Dream" one afternoon at Bay Meadows (I had to do something to kill time between the second race and the 25-minute opportunity to bet on the next race--the eighth--on which I had an opinion). The epigraph is from Suetonius: "Insomnia was his [Caligula's] worst torment. Three hours a night of fitful sleep was all that he ever got, and even then terrifying visions would haunt him--once, for instance, he dreamed that he had a conversation with the Mediterranean Sea." The last half or so of Updike's poem:

"It was as water that his vision came,
At any rate--more murderous than he,
More wanton, uglier, of wider fame,
Unsleeping also, multi-sexed, the Sea.

I told him, 'Little Boots, you cannot sin
Enough; you speak a language, though you rave.
The actual things at home beneath my skin
Out-horrify the vilest hopes you have.
Ten-tentacled invertebrates embrace
And swap through thirsty ani livid seed
While craggy worms without a brain or face
Upon their own soft children blindly feed.
As huge as Persian palaces, blue whales
Grin fathoms down, and through their teeth are strained
A million lives a minute; each entails,
In death, a microscopic bit of pain.
Atrocity is trule emperor;
All things that thrive are slaves of cruel Creation.'

Caligula, his mouth a mass of fur,
Awoke, and toppled toward assassination."

[toetoe]

Steve,

This is not a flaming rhetorical question, but why didn't we or someone else try taking him out years ago? What changed, and how can we deal with these realities?

[falconridge]

The first line of the second quoted stanza of the Updike poem to which I refer in my previous post should, of course, read "It [my italics] told him, 'Little Boots, you cannot sin ..." (not "I told him ... ") Sorry about that, Chiefs.

--Falconridge

[toetoe]

Just had to lighten it up a notch, 'Ridge. :)

Updike wrote some gorgeous doggerel, didn't he? My favorite Updikeana is contained within "The Centaur," just magical stuff.

Speaking of wordsmiths, -(thread hijack alert !!)- the Sunday, January 1 NYT has nine little imagined "blogs" by H. L. Mencken as channeled by Thomas Vinciguerra. Featured are brummagem protests, neoconservative panjandrums, and Howard Stern's "verbal catarrh." :D Did the guy ever lighten up, thereby succumbing to "Mencken whoopee," one wonders? I'd put him third on the list of timeless transformative cultural phenomena, behind pet rocks and "Operation Dumbo Drop." :jump:

[PaceAdvantage]

Here's a question for lsbets and others who may be in the know. How often is "martial law" type action utilized in Iraq? Are there curfews in many places even today? I would think given the instability that remains, serious crackdowns on the ability of folks to walk the streets would go a long way towards curtailing the sporadic yet effective violence that still occurs far too often for comfort.

[gurulj]

Well said PA. I could not agree more...

Jerry

[gurulj]

How we got from O'reilly to Iraq I don't know. I do know that when I was in the US Army back in 1960 I spent some time in Pakistan as a spook near the Kyber Pass. Unless you've been to that part of the world you have no idea what you're speaking off. I just wonder how we got from horseracing to this?...

Seems what we have here are a few liberals sprinkled amongst us higher forms of life. Thank God we aren't all liberals or we'd all be speaking Iraqi... nay whatever they spake back in the days of the Crusades. Seems some among us would have us speaking that today.

About the O'reilly show... that remote has two buttons... one for changing channels... one for off and on. I choose to watch O'reilly, but when Colmes get's his little whiney ass on the tube I change to TVG.. Aren't you glad we live in a land where we have that choice? It was given to all of us by the Veteran lest we forget.... JMHO :cool:

[46zilzal]

Analysts: Bush spying rationale legally shaky

Memo questions use of presidential power in wiretapping without approval

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A memorandum from two congressional legal analysts concludes that the administration’s justification for the monitoring of certain domestic communications may not be as solid as President Bush and his top aides have argued.

The Congressional Research Service, which advises lawmakers on a wide range of matters, said a final determination about the issue is impossible without a deeper understanding of the program and Bush’s authorization, “which are for the most part classified.”

Yet two attorneys in the organization’s legislative law division, Elizabeth Bazan and Jennifer Elsea, say the justification that the Justice Department laid out in a Dec. 22 analysis for the House and Senate intelligence committees “does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests.”

The National Security Agency’s activity “may present an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb,” Bazan and Elsea write in the 44-page memo.

[toetoe]

" ... may represent ... ebb." So what? :confused: :confused: That may represent the most inane, irrelevant "analysis" I've ever read, but shall I hang a shingle and charge people to hear my take? D. C. is full of "pundits" like these guys. Stay on topic, Bazan and friend, please.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Steve,

This is not a flaming rhetorical question, but why didn't we or someone else try taking him out years ago? What changed, and how can we deal with these realities?

Sadam had apparently escaped more than one assaination attempt, usually from his own people. Before our latest invasion, the news noted that Sadam had several 'look-alikes' or 'body doubles' that would appear at various functions, esp. when he would not need to address the public, to give the appearance he was somewhere, and out in public.

Sadam and the Baath party had an extremely strong hold over Iraq and all that went on. You really couldn't accomplish much without being a trusted party member. He had a strong network of spies, and would reward those who turned in others suspected of disloyalty. Tourture and rape of family members was a prime weapon to discourage people taking action against him. With the Oil For Food program, he and his cronies also had a tight hold over the food supply, and could use that to reward friends, or withold to punish various groups.

Sadam had a strong support structure of very loyal members and family. He supposedly killed at least one family member suspected of disloyalty.

When he first assumed command of Iraq, his first order of business was to gather all the leaders (not sure if they were Baath party members or not) to a meeting, then one by one, he read off a sizeable number of their names from a list, and armed guards led the individuals out of the room and shot them to death outside the room/in the street. They showed some chilling video from that meeting on TV during the invasion time, showing Sadam smiling, confidently smoking his cigar, as you could hear the gunshots in the background, as would continue to call out more 'enemies' to be executed.

Sadam and his support structure were likely way too strong to be toppled in Iraq, very hard to get a group together without someone finding out about it. If any individual would have taken Sadam out, power would have either passed down to trusted sons Udday and Qusay, or one of the other top officials, so likely little would change. If caught, I'd rate the life-expentancy of a would-be Sadam Assain to be about 2 minutes - and if they lasted longer than that, it'd be even worse for them, because that meant being tortured to death. Recall that Sadam, who's early governmental job was as a torturer, was said by his mistress to keep a video library of his favorite enemies torture sessions, and would entertain himself by unwinding with a drink and a cigar and play those videos.

Why wouldn't the U.N. do something about him? The U.N. pretty much just works to avoid bloddy conflicts between nations, but sits back and watches, or turns a blind eye, to the bloody conflicts within nations, not wanting to interfere. Remember, the U.N., being made up of hundreds of nations, is full of members who either do evil to their peoples, or seriously mismanage them into famine and/or civil war.

[highnote]

Sorry to go off topic and take this thread in a different direction, but I wanted to comment on the Letterman show.

I've been watching Letterman since his very first show and I have to say, in 25 years this O'Reilly interview was one of the strangest I have seen.

I watch O'Reilly on occasion. He's very sharp. I don't think he is brilliant, but he's no slouch. Letterman is not a Harvard man like O'Reilly, but he has a very keen intellect. So I really enjoyed their exchange. I thought it was very strange, but I enjoyed it.

I thought O'Reilly was getting a little boring giving so many examples. And I kind of agree with Dave -- so what. I say Merry Christmas all the time. If someone is offended by it, that's their problem. I don't say it to offend anyone. If these school districts want to try to enforce these silly bonehead "keep Christmas out of the classroom" decisions then let's have a national debate about it. It will soon be water under the bridge and life will return to normal. I agree with Letterman, this stuff seems to surface every few years then goes away.

If my kid goes to school and they color Hanukkah candles it won't bother me. If he wants to convert from Catholicism to Judaism it won't bother me. It's his choice. In fact, I'd probably be impressed that he had an interest in religion at that level.

All in all, I liked the interview. I would never try to debate O'Reilly unless I was an expert on the topic he was debating. He's good and he knows his subject matter. But I thought Letterman held his own. In fact, I thought Letterman was on the offensive, which is very unusual for him. I was surprised to see him treat O'Reilly the way he did. There must be more to this. Something must be going on behind the scenes.

I thought it made for good TV. Remember -- it's just show business.

[toetoe]

No Letter Man fan here, but he's doing what Leno does, Carson did, and maybe even Allen and Paar also; i.e., hijacking the conversation when the guest dares to go beyond the scope of knee-jerk answers and room-temperature
i. q.'s. He's been annoying for so long, and so, so shallow, that anything insightful or intimate must terrify him. I DID see him cry when thanking his doctors, though, so I know he's human. Having that bald guy on the bandstand, the one with the microphone halfway down his throat, makes Letter Man look good by comparison, I ... guess. :confused:

[highnote]

I thought Letterman only tried to dodge one question. I'll have to go back and watch the interview again to see which one. I don't think O'Reilly won the "debate". In fact, I don't know why it had to turn into a debate. Usually, Letterman justs interviews the guests and that's it.

The funny thing is, I always figured Letterman was a Republican -- or at least an Independent. Never thought of him as too liberal. So I was surprised to see him disagree so strongly with O'Reilly.

Like I said earlier, that interview was unlike anything I've ever seen Letterman do. Maybe he was having a bad day. I could tell by the tone of his voice as he introduced the next guest as he went to commercial break that he was not happy with the interview.

All in all, O'Reilly is tough interview. He is very sharp, confident and full of himself. I've seen him cut politicians to pieces and then ease up on them because he felt bad for how bad he was making them look. O'Reilly likes to prove that he's smarter than the person he's talking to. As soon as he's proved it, he eases up. Sort of like class in a racehorse. One horse spits out the bit and admits his competitor is better.

I think they were both trying to see who would be the first to crack.

I think Letterman felt he was right, but he just didn't have the words to express it. O'Reilly felt he was right, but he couldn't make Letterman crack.

It was an interesting interview. I've never seen Letterman attack someone like he did O'Reilly -- especially the 60% crap line. That was out of character. So he was either frustrated or else there is some other friction going on between them behind the scenes.

Makes for good drama.

[toetoe]

I guess Letter Man's admission was accurate, as anyone with the advantage of being the interviewer SHOULD be able to carve up a guest. It's just that some are decent fellows and don't need to carve. BO is small enough to like it. Maybe that's why he moved on from "A Current Affair" or "Inside Edition" or whatever it was called.

[46zilzal]

when people disagree, they simply disagree. THAT in itself does not qualify a person for a liberal or conservative label.

[highnote]

when people disagree, they simply disagree. THAT in itself does not qualify a person for a liberal or conservative label.


You're right about that. You can be a conservative and still think that what O'Reilly says is 60% crap.

[Lefty]

swety, that's right, but it's usually the liberal who says and thinks it without watching his show.

[Lefty]

46, liberals and conservatives think about the world, economics and war in totally different ways and thusly are fairly easy to spot. I know a lot of liberals don't like being called that but i don't mind at all being called a conservative.

[twindouble]

46, liberals and conservatives think about the world, economics and war in totally different ways and thusly are fairly easy to spot. I know a lot of liberals don't like being called that but i don't mind at all being called a conservative.

Lefty, you know I could have some compassion for liberals if they really believed in what they are saying and doing, like the young people of the 60's right or wrong. The lib's of today are hypocrites and the name of the game is destroy Bush and get Congress back at any cost. They just don't give a shit about any other result. Their lust for power is dragging this country down to a level that's shameful and dangerous. If the majority of Americans fall for it in these mid term elections, we deserve what we get.

T.D.

[highnote]

swety, that's right, but it's usually the liberal who says and thinks it without watching his show.

I don't know if liberals say it any more often than conservatives. I've never kept track. My guess is that it's 50/50.

There are conservatives who are not above this type of behavior. And vice-versa. There are liberals who use common sense.

[highnote]

Lefty, you know I could have some compassion for liberals if they really believed in what they are saying and doing, like the young people of the 60's right or wrong. The lib's of today are hypocrites and the name of the game is destroy Bush and get Congress back at any cost. They just don't give a shit about any other result. Their lust for power is dragging this country down to a level that's shameful and dangerous. If the majority of Americans fall for it in these mid term elections, we deserve what we get.

T.D.


The irony of this is that this is exactly what many conservatives were doing to Clinton from the moment he took office. I agree that many liberals are doing the same thing to Bush. It does the country no good. It just divides the country even further with neither side wanting to give an inch.

Eventually Americans will get tired of our politicians being dragged down and vote the guilty ones out of office. Hopefully, they'll be replaced by good ones -- regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.

[twindouble]

The irony of this is that this is exactly what many conservatives were doing to Clinton from the moment he took office. I agree that many liberals are doing the same thing to Bush. It does the country no good. It just divides the country even further with neither side wanting to give an inch.

Eventually Americans will get tired of our politicians being dragged down and vote the guilty ones out of office. Hopefully, they'll be replaced by good ones -- regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.

Your right, I was just as disgusted with the Republicans with the Clinton affair and was just as verbal about then as I am today. The difference now is we are at war and these dummies just don't give a dam like I said.

T.D.

[highnote]

Your right, I was just as disgusted with the Republicans with the Clinton affair and was just as verbal about then as I am today. The difference now is we are at war and these dummies just don't give a dam like I said.

T.D.

I agree. Maybe if our presidents were allowed to do their jobs, we wouldn't be at war because they'd have more time to devote to counter-terrorism.

But, I'm guilty of going off topic again. Guess, it's inevitable.

[Lefty]

Clinton was a whole different ballgame. Repubs knew he was a womanizer because of Jennifer Flowers and he proved them right with Monica Lewinsky. Repubs knew he was gonna raise everybody's taxes and he did. I didn't like Clinton because he was a phony. He swore to Jesse Jackson at the convention that he would "fix" the welfare cuts the 94 repub Congress forced him into. But when the new welfare prgm was successful he took credit for it and everything else the 94 repub congress accomplished.
Talking about Clinton and Bush is apples and oranges.

[twindouble]

Clinton was a whole different ballgame. Repubs knew he was a womanizer because of Jennifer Flowers and he proved them right with Monica Lewinsky. Repubs knew he was gonna raise everybody's taxes and he did. I didn't like Clinton because he was a phony. He swore to Jesse Jackson at the convention that he would "fix" the welfare cuts the 94 repub Congress forced him into. But when the new welfare prgm was successful he took credit for it and everything else the 94 repub congress accomplished.
Talking about Clinton and Bush is apples and oranges.

I was primarily talking about the down and dirty politics that I'm so sick of I don't have the words. Does nothing to further our democracy or set an example for future generations or the world as it exists today.

T.D.

[dav4463]

I've always liked Letterman, but he made a mistake on this one. He did not respect O'Reilly and it showed. Bill made him look stupid despite the applause that was probably generated by the applause sign anyway. Letterman needs to stick with being funny.

[highnote]

I've always liked Letterman, but he made a mistake on this one. He did not respect O'Reilly and it showed. Bill made him look stupid despite the applause that was probably generated by the applause sign anyway. Letterman needs to stick with being funny.


It was very strange to me that he went after O'Reilly the way he did. I've never seen him do that before. I wonder if there is more to the story.

[twindouble]

It was very strange to me that he went after O'Reilly the way he did. I've never seen him do that before. I wonder if there is more to the story.

He had to because he's tied to intertainment industry, what else could anyone expect. O'Reilly has to find another way to reach young people.

I never liked Letterman's brand of humor, if you want to call it that. Anyone who would laugh at his clowing around, would laugh at anything. Bozo the clown was more intertaining.


T.D.