8 p.m. EDT for anyone who cares.

It should be a hoot!

woa :eek:

I hope Michael Moore bitchslaps him.

Here's the transcript:

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm

Originally posted by sppunk
Here's the transcript:

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm :erm

That was sort of amusing I guess.

lol whats an "unintentional mistake"?

Wow. I'm no big O'Reilly fan, but once again Moore looked like a complete idiot.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Wow. I'm no big O'Reilly fan, but once again Moore looked like a complete idiot.

Not really. They both did what they do well: Push their own agendas. It was a complete wash. I don't know why O'Reilly wanted him on that show so badly in the first place, it was kind of pointless.

Originally posted by sppunk


Not really. They both did what they do well: Push their own agendas. It was a complete wash. I don't know why O'Reilly wanted him on that show so badly in the first place, it was kind of pointless. Like I said I don't like either, but O'Reilly really did get Moore with the "liar" point, and Moore can't now say that Bush didn't lie and that he was misinformed because one o fthe major points of F9/11 is that Bush "lied to the public."

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Wow. I'm no big O'Reilly fan, but once again Moore looked like a complete idiot.

what the hell? moore kicked o'reilly's ass all over the place!

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Like I said I don't like either, but O'Reilly really did get Moore with the "liar" point, and Moore can't now say that Bush didn't lie and that he was misinformed because one o fthe major points of F9/11 is that Bush "lied to the public." Um, that was the part of the argument I felt Moore won, and O'Reilly did better with the "if you were President, Saddam would still be in office" bit. Arguing "my guy was entirely wrong, but didn't know it" comes off as arguing a technicality, while avoiding the entire bigger issue of Bush being dead wrong.

Originally posted by Pumpkins23836
Um, that was the part of the argument I felt Moore won, and O'Reilly did better with the "if you were President, Saddam would still be in office" bit. Arguing "my guy was entirely wrong, but didn't know it" comes off as arguing a technicality, while avoiding the entire bigger issue of Bush being dead wrong. The point wasn't being debated whether Bush was wrong. One of the central points of Moore's move is that Bush sends US kids do die based on a lie that he told the American public.

So, Moore simply <i>cannot</i> admit that if the facts were wrong and they were presented to the president who then presented them to the people, that the President can be wrong without being a liar because then his movie is already wrong.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Like I said I don't like either, but O'Reilly really did get Moore with the "liar" point, and Moore can't now say that Bush didn't lie and that he was misinformed because one o fthe major points of F9/11 is that Bush "lied to the public."

oh boy....nimrod'son....i remember you from some discussions back in the days when this board had all the war related threads. Man, you looked ridiculous back then and nothing has changed...

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
The point wasn't being debated whether Bush was wrong. One of the central points of Moore's move is that Bush sends US kids do die based on a lie that he told the American public.

So, Moore simply <i>cannot</i> admit that if the facts were wrong and they were presented to the president who then presented them to the people, that the President can be wrong without being a liar because then his movie is already wrong.

Bush did lie, and still is. He still says WMDs exist and Saddam was a harm. He's been told, many times, that they weren't really there and Saddam couldn't attack Iran if he had wanted ... him still insisting that there were some is a lie.

It'd be the same as me telling you that You're name isn't Mike. I've been told and told it is, and I haven't seen you, yet I know it's Mike.

So, hi Alex, how you doing?

Originally posted by sppunk


Bush did lie, and still is. He still says WMDs exist and Saddam was a harm. He's been told, many times, that they weren't really there and Saddam couldn't attack Iran if he had wanted ... him still insisting that there were some is a lie.

It'd be the same as me telling you that You're name isn't Mike. I've been told and told it is, and I haven't seen you, yet I know it's Mike.

So, hi Alex, how you doing? Repeating bad information isn't a lie - that's even what all of the comissions reports concluded. Look, if you tell someone that the Red Sox won today because your friend said so and it turns out they lost, you didn't "lie."

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Repeating bad information isn't a lie - that's even what all of the comissions reports concluded. Look, if you tell someone that the Red Sox won today because your friend said so and it turns out they lost, you didn't "lie."

Right. But after I've been told and told and told and SHOWN that they got beat, yet still say they won, that is a lie.

Let's do a retrace on the memo's Bush has about there being no credible threat and no weapons.

Eh, as much as I dislike O'Reilly, I think he really did win that debate. Or at least forced a draw. Moore just isn't a good debater, one-on-one like that. He can't defend himself well against O'Reilly, O'Reilly being a fantastic debater, (Whatever you might think of him.)

Originally posted by Marginalia
Eh, as much as I dislike O'Reilly, I think he really did win that debate. Or at least forced a draw. Moore just isn't a good debater, one-on-one like that. He can't defend himself well against O'Reilly, O'Reilly being a fantastic debater, (Whatever you might think of him.)

To debate you must honor both sides. O'Reilly ignores, won't allow questions (and won't answer them) and shouts at his guests. He interrupts them and always complains they're not on topic if they try to explain a fact.

Dammit. I missed seeing two hard heads mix it up.

Both probably looked stupid to their opponents, so it probably served no real purpose.

Originally posted by sppunk

But after I've been told and told and told and SHOWN that they got beat, yet still say they won, that is a lie.

Let's do a retrace on the memo's Bush has about there being no credible threat and no weapons.


that's the point that people fail to grasp

grasping at straws, grasping at any scrap of evidence, no matter how shady, that said saddam had WMD's was what this administration had to do to prove to america that we needed to go to war; in fact, they wanted to get rid of saddam not to liberate the iraqi people (if so we would've kept millions of africans from being killed in Rwanda in teh 1990's) but to get to those oil fields

hunderds of reports come out of/thru international and domestic intelligence agencies everyday, but it seems like the 2 or 3 reports that said saddam might have WMD's were the only ones that mattered; this "selecting infromation that sounds good to us" strategy is bad news

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr President, we have 40,000 reports that say Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction.

OK.

Mr President, we have 2 reports that say he does!! Holy shit!

Bomb those fuckers.

oh and Moore did much, much better than 95% of the guests on that man's program

as long as you agree with him and are a total moron (see eg, Ben Affleck) then he won't yell and scream

but if you're diametrically opposed to him (like Moore), then you're gonna be interrupted and yelled at

Originally posted by sppunk


To debate you must honor both sides. O'Reilly ignores, won't allow questions (and won't answer them) and shouts at his guests. He interrupts them and always complains they're not on topic if they try to explain a fact.

Oh I know. O'Reilly is an asshole, no question. He's obnoxious. I just didn't think Moore really played his hand well, you know? He was, as all of O'Reilly's guests, on the defensive for most of the time, but the few questions he asked I didn't like, and he seemed to really resort to cheap arguments. I don't think he thinks well on his feet.

unintentional mistake, thats the best part of this conversation... i'd have to see the video feed, cause in text it seems like moore skooled bill