What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
178 Comments
- pjack91, on 10/12/2007, -4/+64Should read:
This just in: Hell froze over (during July of 2004.) - falcon707, on 10/12/2007, -20/+74I don't really think either of them won.
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -29/+82How does a guy like O'Reilly lecture people on the dangers of blind ideology? takes some gal.
It would be like Moore lecturing O'Reily on physical fitness. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+55As a liberal, I really don't think Moore does a good job at making the case here.
He got Bill to admit that the WMD nonsense was a "mistake." He should have asked O'Reilly why Bush wouldn't admit it was a mistake. - binderhead, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41Just remember kids:
"It's not a lie if you believe it to be true."
Your Friend,
Billy O. - MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -24/+60And O'Reilly isn't?
- gh02t, on 10/12/2007, -26/+58Moore AND O'reilly are both idiots.
- smtelegadis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34O'Reilly isn't news it's a editorial commentary on current events, and very biased at that.
- brandonr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+36Ugh... I really don't like either of them.
- frogpelt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32lie n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
The intent is what determines whether a statement is a lie or a mistake. Just like the intent determines whether a killing is an accident or a murder. Indisputable. Don't waste your words. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28The submitter's summary containing the words "This just in" is comedy gold. This interview aired in 2004. It was taped inside one of the political conventions (not sure if it's Republican or Democratic). They're discussing a movie that came out two years ago.
I'm not crying "dupe" or "old" or any of that crap, but come on, you've gotta admit that this is funny *****. - t.toe, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32neither of them let each other finish each other's sentences. just another case of two egomaniacs trying to debate each other.
- Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24@Herolint: Point blank questions roll off politicians. It's not as though liberals have a special boot camp where one goes to train to talk a certain way. The terms liberals and conservatives are over generalizations. Within each "group" are a myriad of often contradictory viewpoints on different subjects so it's silly to say "liberals" are such and such and do such and such.
I'm always wary of any statement that attributes some indirect characteristic to a group as general as "liberal" or "conservatives". You want to see a "conservative" redirecting direct question? Go watch Bush and Rumsfeld answer questions (its quite debatable if they are true conservatives or just politicians using a conservative voter base). Many politician, left or right, conservative, moderate, liberal, etc. all do that because they have to appeal to a population with a spectrum of opinions. By leaving their answers vague they can make themselves seem suitable for a number of different demographics. - music13, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27I've realized (through watching the few O'reily clips that have shown up on the Digg homepage recently) that he (Bill) does not listen to the answers to his questions. He simply asks a question so that he can make a point. And he calls himself a journalist. Pathetic.
- bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -20/+34I think thats because O'Reilly didnt let Moore finish a sentence in the whole interview.
- kaytrio, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19@music13: Well, you have to understand. O'reilly isn't a journalist. He's an entertainer. A journalist reports news. An entertainer tells people what they want to hear. Fox news is entertainment, not journalism.
- Shmoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13They were pretty civil to one another. For two supposed blowhards, I thought that was a pretty good debate.
- corevette, on 10/12/2007, -62/+72wow....bill o'reilly gets pwned like always. i can't believe he still has his own show.
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikAuCqjvsFw&mode=related&search= - oyourmom, on 10/12/2007, -13/+23There not both idiots they just strongly believe there sides and almost all of the time Bill just makes himself look more stupid because Moore provides more detail.
- MasterFunk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Like watching two boxers with blindfolds on.
- L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13You're extrapolating O'Reilly to the entire network. I think they're pretty honest about what shows are commentary (or entertainment) and which are supposed to be news.
Basically, it works just like EVERY 24 hour news network. 10 minutes of news spread over 24 hours with a whole lot of commentary. The only real difference is, the commentary on Fox is far more "right" than the other networks. - HydraulicToast, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Moore, like most liberals, words his questions in ways that disregard fact altogether, and embrace emotion, and how you feel. Things like, 'would you sacrifice your children?' If these "children" are 18, then they aren't exactly children, are they? They are individuals. That is why O'reilly is correct when he answers that he would sacrifice himself. Its not up to the parents to decide what their kids do when they grow up. Its up to them. Serving for your country is an honor. Its a shame to see these parents going to the media to have their sorrows broadcast across America. This is war. Its happened before, I promise.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16How is Moore an idiot? because you don't like him?
- truebullfan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Not really fond of moore or O'reilly but fun seeing these guys go at
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5according to condi and powell
saddam was no threat and had no wmds and no means to make wmds and really didnt have much of a conventional means to make war. Just a couple of months before 9/11
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv
Saddam is also well known to have denided the services of the paki nuke scienctist that sold his technology to iran and north korea. - themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Just another video of O'Reilly being an *****
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Bush didn't want to find out the truth, that's why it's a lie even if he "didn't know" the truth. That's the point that Moore is making and he's right.
- raminix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Aren't Michael Moore and Fat Bastard the same person?
- Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6How anyone can say that they both have a valid point is beyond me. While Moore's a little over-the-top (no right-minded person would WANT or encourage their child to die, even in battle), O'Reilly's talking points are smoke and mirrors. He immediately resorts to inferring that people are unpatriotic or amoral whenever he's backed into a corner.
Name all the 'liberal liers' you want to (or conservatives for that matter!) - none of them were as sneaky, disrespectful, and outright dishonest as our current administration. And neither they nor their devoted followers have anything to do but point fingers at detractors. "Oh, well Moore said he LIED and spent billions and sent thousands to fight and die and ruined our relationship with the rest of the world over a war with no end and no winner and no clear exit strategy and continues to do so against the wishes of his people because it was the whole reason that his constituents put him in power in the first place. But he didn't LIE, he spoke un-truthfully. It was an accident. See? What's wrong is that you're a liberal (you didn't know?!), and hate America."
Tell you what - tired of all the bad press about Bush? Post a story of his triumphs, of his strength and quality of leadership. Of unadulterated success. Of moral and political victory. Refute all these awful, anti-Bush stories with some mere token, some nugget of irrefutable evidence that anything good has come of this. Or, ya know, get so worked up over 'liberals' that you can justify some kind of political blood-fued. Whatever works. - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5O'Reilly is most certainly a zealot. But he doesn't toe the Republican line on every issue (the environment, for isntance). What makes him a zealot is that he refuses to accept any evidence that contradicts his positions. You could present the guy with hundreds of volumes of evidence on one side of a topic, but if he's on the other side, he'll never waver.
- Billistic, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Actually Moore's lost weight
http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/23382/20060710012235/www.variety.com/graphics/photos/storypics/moore_michael.jpg - mcnugget, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Moore had a more logical argument, but O'Reilly would say he won because he confused the issue enough so there was no clear winner either way. It's the same with any 'fair and balanced' debate on Fox News, either they win or nobody does.
- Enchirito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@bsummersett
your right, truth itself can not be biased. But it's pretty easy to introduce bias by choosing which truths to present and which to ignore. - inigomntoya, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Wow - that was a waste of time!
Next time I want to waste 15 minutes of time listening to two extremists, I am going to pull my mother-n-law and my neighbor's cat into the same room and listen to THEM go back and forth on why I can't make a decent chicken/broccoli casserole. - Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ Anubis2051
I digg that comment. I think Michael Moore is a crap sandwich who smothers himself in frosting and shiney cake beads in the hopes somebody will ingest him. - Muncher, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Everyone is their parents' "child." You never outgrow being related to them.
- jwegan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If you don't think facts can be biased and skewed to support a truth then you have a lot of learning to do
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I'm not exactly fond of O'reilly, but it seems to me that he is actually making more sense in this.
O'reilly's good point: An unintentional false statement is not the same as consciously lying.
Moore's: Bush needs to recognize mistakes made.
Am I just stupid or is the rest of the world simply picking sides with the guy who is against the guy that they hate the most?
(Just as a note, both of the guys are dicks.) - XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not an O'Reilly fan but he missed an easy one...
Moore: "Would you sacrifice your son our daughter for Iraq?"
O'Reilly: "long pause - "I would sacrifice myself."
He should have said "I would always support my children's commitment to serve in the United States military in any theater of operation."
It is not the parents decision, they are not sending their son's and daughter's off.
Everyone in the military is an adult that is committed to their call of duty and everyone, parent's especially, should support, respect, and appreciate their decision.
That said, war sucks and it is a real shame we can't all just get along together! - antidense, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interesting culture difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives often value sticking to one's principles even if they might be unpopular. This obviously characterizes O'Reilly. Liberals often value realizing one's mistakes, learning and adapting. Ultimately too much of either is detrimental. But as this clip shows, we are still not listening to one another. Conservatives need to learn that it's not so bad to admit mistakes while trying to fix them. Liberals need to learn that too much criticizing can undermine any attempt to take action. We really gotta stop blaming one another and just focus on finding a solution we can all live with.
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2two words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence - wisebob134, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Moore isn't that great of a debater half the time he spent in the interview was trying to hit O Reily in the soft spot by asking him if he would sacrifice his child(ren) to save Fallujah May be they can send Moore into war and roll him into the enemies
- Anubis2051, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Michael More is a ***** Dumb Ass.
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10I actually have increased respect for both of them. Neither descended into direct personal attacks, and it was fairly civil, considering the ***** O'Reilly's pulled before.
- XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Taking a statement or situation out of context does not reflect the truth.
In recent news, this is not unlike the Net Neutrality guys taking the Whitaker statement "I don't even know what Net Neutrality is" statement out of context.
Did everything in the movie actually happen, most of it sure, does it reflect the truth, absolutely not.
Same thing with Whitaker, he was discussing all the things meant by the statement Net Neutrality when he said that, some of which AT&T supports...
Int both cases, it is all a big game played by the extremists on both sides, I stand firmly in the middle! - mcnugget, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@HydraulicToast
"Moore, like most liberals, words his questions in ways that disregard fact altogether,"
Moore and Liberals disregarding fact? That's rich.
Refresh my memory, who disregarded fact altogether to send the US to Iraq in the first place?
Who else disregards fact everytime he speaks? - surfit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They equally came out badly in that interview. It's like they are polar opposites of the same screwed up mindset, each incapable of seeing the other's viewpoint. They are both way too nationalistic - for a start - to be worth listening to.
- lowerlogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2mistake - An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.
The only way you can allow yourself make an intentional mistake is to intentionally withhold information from yourself and then perform an action that results in an error from your deficient knowledge. Even then you can't be completely sure that you will make the mistake before it happens because there is a chance you will be able to perform the action without error.
I suppose an example of an intentional mistake is getting into a car and attempting to drive somewhere without knowing how to get there - you'd most likely go down the wrong roads and get lost (make an error) based on your deficient knowledge - the definition of a mistake, and you did it intentionally. - DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3this is ancient...it's one or two years old
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -27/+29@ Zethris
I modded you down because your first sentence was rude and your second paragraph was so ridiculously out of touch with reality.
two or three steps ahead? give me a break
Journalist? O'Reilly? O' really
Doesn't appeal to the masses? who are the masses he's appealing to then? It's not the 'educated elites' I'll tell you that.
"He doesn't speak to appeal to the man as does people such as Moore." I don't understand this...at all... I assume by 'the man' you mean, of course, that which is holding me down. I suppose I agree with this... Moore speaks the language of 'the man' O'Reilly is out of the loop.
But seriously, if you think liberals have mastered the art of appealing to the masses then why haven't they used it? -
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 