digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Michael Moore on Bill O'Reilly's Show

youtube.com — This just in: Hell froze over.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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=
    • speel, on 10/12/2007, -56/+8haha yupp
    • falcon707, on 10/12/2007, -20/+74I don't really think either of them won.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -91/+52You are like one of those kids I beat the hell out of in school but still think you won the fight somehow.

      O'Rielly's problem is that he doesn't go enough into detail on what he is saying and he's two or three steps ahead of someone who is trying to understand where he was coming from. Thats his major weakness as a journalist. He doesn't speak to apeal to the man as does people such as Moore. Liberals have that art mastered.

      I myself would say similarly what O'Rielly said. I would sacrifice myself. Right now. To do what it takes to make things better and keep our nation safe. I would allow my child to decide if they will do the same or not. It's their choice.

      That is why I am a centrist, both sides miss the mark. They both speak truths, but they become convoluted and sometimes outright lies when they obsess over a few of those truths and forget to find the middle ground.

      That is why we have liberals and conservatives. Both sides obsess over what they think they know. They don't, in their arrogance and impatience, look at the bigger picture. Or do, but miss the point somehow because these obsessions cloud their ability to see more than what they want to see.

    • 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.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -53/+12lol, I bet I am one of the few, if not unique, who gets modded down by BOTH sides here.
    • bsummersett, on 10/12/2007, -24/+16@Zethris...
      Taking a moral higher ground in any situtation is bound to lead to negative reactions from others, especially when you discredit a huge organization such as a political party.
    • jingman, on 10/12/2007, -22/+10Round 2 is pretty boring - I kept waiting for one to ask the other "who do you like more, your mom or your dad? Huh? I wanna hear you say it."

      Two old dudes in a pissing match.
    • MyDocuments, on 10/12/2007, -27/+17at the end of pt.2 - o'reilly "we appreciate moore coming on. he knew what he was in for."

      uhhhh.. how can you say that dude? you just got owned up on your own show..
    • 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?
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -29/+18@ peritonlogon

      I don't think that was stated correctly. Liberals haven't mastered the art of appealing to the masses, what they have mastered is the art of diversion.

      If you ask a liberal what color the sky is they will answer, "We believe the important issue of global warming isn't receiving enough attention from the current administration...". All politicians, lobbyists, and activists do it, but the liberals have made it an art form. Point blank questions roll off a liberal like water off a duck.
    • lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -34/+21thank you, Bill OReilly for getting this fat ***** to stand up to the truth. Even though he didn't admit it, anyone with a brain sees the point here.. Good man.
    • 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.
    • Anubis2051, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5O'Reilly was the clear victor here, what are you smoking?
    • 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
    • rsims17, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Neither can claim any victory, in no way was this a debate of facts and logic, well no logic atleast. It was a banter an argument. O'riely did his usual thing trying to set some trap for moore to fall into which no one ever does. Moore argued in gross generalizations which if you took freshmen english in college you learned like seven rules of bs arguements, that was one of them.

      Personally i think moore is so full of his own ***** its sad, and O'Riely well cant accept a difference of opinion which makes him annoying to watch even when i agree with him.

      And yes this is pretty old but still funny to watch, and for me fun to debate on.
    • eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Garbage in garbage out.

      I can't beleive people watch this junk. Whats done is done. This banter and personal attacks is ridiculous. There are only three questions people should be asking.

      What happened?
      How do we keep it from happening again?
      How do we solve the problem?

      All this character assassination is why were in this dilema in the first place. Congressmen are so worried about being reelected that they can't "change their stance" or realize that their decision wasn't a good one.

      You wan't the tragic story from here take a look at politics, and how its more important to get reelected then to do whats right. It's more important to cater to fringe groups, then to stand for what you believe in. It's legal to vote on a law without reading it.

      As for this specifically...

      If your intelligence was bad you have an issue, but it wasn't a lie.
      Moore is right in the fact that we went to war under false intelligence, and stayed under "new" premises
      Moore is asking stupid questions with no real answers, or meaningless answers.
      You hear his ww2 comment? Pure ignorance.
      Moore is right that you dont get democracy at the barrel of the gun.

      The other thing is that people are being pigeonholed into either moore's position or o'reily's position, both of which are jsut plain stupid.

      And for bill to talk about blind ideology was ultimate hypocracy.

      Real debates are about gaining informaiton. All this is, is two guys comparing who has the bigger penis.
    • 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.
    • steveng, on 10/12/2007, -24/+11Someone needs to assassinate O' Reily.
    • bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9News Flash:
      Moore said the CIA did not tell the FBI about the 9/11 plot.
      The CIA and FBI are not allowed to cross boundaries, this led to 9/11.
      Thank Frank Church and Sam Ervin and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1as with any issue regarding this "war" noone wins...
    • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5pwned? is this the one from 2 years ago? O'Reily made Moore look like a kid asking a girl to the prom in that one.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5you're saying O'Reilly acted like a stuck up bitch?

      I never got "cornered on the street" by girls demanding I invite them to the prom... You analogy seems kinda.. disturbing on just about every level...
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5@ Comatose

      If you actually read my post, you would see that I attributed the described trait to all politicians, however, liberals are the best at it. Be wary all you'd like. It is the truth.

      If "liberal" isn't specific enough for you, here is a short list of people who are masters at it:

      Bill and Hillary Clinton
      John Kerry
      Ted Dasshole
      Ted Kennedy
      Michael Moore

      I would hardly call Bush a "master".
    • themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Just another video of O'Reilly being an *****
    • 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.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"It's not a lie if you believe it to be true." - Bill O.

      Wait that sorta sounds like...

      "If you believe it, it is so."

      ... which is a creed of the Catholic church. Hmm....

      (BTW, I'm a Catholic, I would know.)
    • 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.
    • Jrgurl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1what is pwned
    • TechNutt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really don't know which of them I hate more, O'Reilly or Moore. Both of them ooze self-righteousness. Both of them really think they are the epitome of cool. Both think they are smarter than everyone else. Both are loathe to admit they are wrong about anything. And both are such flagrant hypocrites it's amazing anyone listens to either of them. Sure, there's plenty of windbags in Washington, NYC and Hollywood, but these do douche bags have to top any list of the worst.
  • turkette, on 10/12/2007, -33/+10Wow, this is old.
    • SqueakyWheel, on 10/12/2007, -27/+8Very old!!
    • wjw75, on 10/12/2007, -22/+4Hey, come on, this isn't just 'old' - it was actually on the front page like a couple of weeks ago.
    • pjack91, on 10/12/2007, -4/+64Should read:
      This just in: Hell froze over (during July of 2004.)
    • ilyag, 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 *****.
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"Should read: This just in: Hell froze over (during July of 2004.)"

      Yes, but hell just froze over recently. It's a fairly bureaucratic place. Lots of lawyers.
  • kanecorp, on 10/12/2007, -74/+24So old. Moore's an idiot.
    • MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -24/+60And O'Reilly isn't?
    • gh02t, on 10/12/2007, -26/+58Moore AND O'reilly are both idiots.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • MalShootsFirst, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16How is Moore an idiot? because you don't like him?
    • SlappyMc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@ theone3
      I cant count how many times this guy has called someone that disagrees with him a pin-head.
      Its a very childish personal attack.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Does O'Reilly actually BELIEVE his own bullsh*t?
  • nazuraki, 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.
    • bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -20/+34I think thats because O'Reilly didnt let Moore finish a sentence in the whole interview.
    • 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.
  • brandonr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+36Ugh... I really don't like either of them.
    • wjw75, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7I'll second that, although I always find O'Reilly more entertaining to watch, despite not agreeing with much he says.
  • DTAL, on 10/12/2007, -35/+31two losers battling it out + Fox news sucks
    • smtelegadis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34O'Reilly isn't news it's a editorial commentary on current events, and very biased at that.
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Erm.. The guy meant the channel 'fox news', not fox 'news'.
  • shortkid422, on 10/12/2007, -22/+15Wow, OReilly's logic isn't very good (unintentional lie isn't a lie...). Moore wasn't much better, but oh well. Fun to watch.
    • 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.
    • 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.
  • truebullfan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Not really fond of moore or O'reilly but fun seeing these guys go at
  • nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -32/+7Ya, they're both idiots, but michael moore's far more annoying (aka fat).
  • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -19/+15Only O'reilly could pull off looking dumber then Michael Moore on his own show.

    Tracy
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.

    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Yeah, "No-spin zone" really does accurately describe O'Reilly's show.

      I actually saw a 'fair and balanced' promo directly before a 15 min long discussion on moustaches. Even that report was heavily biased.
  • deanmeek, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7This interview happened Jul 27 2004. Did you people miss it? Here is the link that proves it. http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm
  • spyatt, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1screw both of them they are both retards
  • kaiserollofdoom, on 10/12/2007, -20/+9as a republican, so many of zealots (o'reily is close to it) make us look so bad. We don't like that fact that so many of the left think we are war mongers. We just want to be safe yo! Either way Zealots on either side are ridiculous.
    • chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14republicans can't say "yo"..
    • migla, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Yeah, damn those peacemongers too... [he said jokingly]
    • deanmeek, on 10/12/2007, -22/+9O'Reilly is no zealot. Not even close. His arguments are logical. Why so many people don't like him is usually because they think he is a pompous jerk or arrogant. He is definitely opinionated. There really isn't a good counter to him either on the radio or T.V. Who do you have? Alan Colmes, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Mike Mallory, Ed Schultz, Mark Riley. Listen to both sides. It is amazing to me how there can be so much disagreement. The only reason I can come up with is that people aren't exposing themselves to both sides of the debate. The choice is clear.
    • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6O'Reilly is only "close to a zealot?" That alone scares me right there.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3yo republican cracka... catch you down on the flipside, jive turkey
    • 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.
  • MasterFunk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Like watching two boxers with blindfolds on.
  • joelthoman, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6This is very old. Why is this even on Digg? Despite the fact that O'Reilly can be a real ass sometimes, his show is still really fun to watch. Michael Moore has lost any respect I have had for him after that movie Farenheit 9/11. Mostly fiction that was.

  • Sagura, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5I hate both of those assholes.
    Also, this video is extremely old.
    No digg.
    • fjacky66, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5Yea,O'Reilly is a *****,and Moore is full of *****.
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1Funny, I don't like Moore because he's an ***** and I don't like O'Reilly because he's full of *****...and an even bigger *****.
  • devilman, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11Moore a clear winner. Next? How about a cage match!!!
    • Anubis2051, on 10/12/2007, -17/+9What are you smoking? O'Reilly Definatly won that one.
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • Emray, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11Those of you who hate both of them just have no political opinions it seems, because any real liberal would back Moore's statements, while a conservative would likely take O'Reily's stance on things. And about Farenheit 911 being fictional, it is all the truth, just a biased truth. I agree with everything in the movie, but I can understand why some would find it to be false information.
    • bsummersett, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Any truth is just that: true.... It's logically impossible for a truth to biased.
      Someone's opinion on the other hand...
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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!
    • menacingcheese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Have you never heard of moderates? Just because I'm not a Bill O'reilly or Michael Moore fan boy does not mean that I don't have political opinions. On some issues I lean right and on some I lean left. I make my opinions based on the individual issues at hand rather than just listening to what some egomaniac on the TV (or movie screen) tells me to believe.
  • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5They both made a promise that we should hold them to.

    We need to chip in and buy them some guns and plane tickets so that they can go out and hunt Osama or some other person I'm supposed to be afraid of. They both said they'd give their life for this, I doubt Moore would give up dinner and I doubt O'reilly would give anything save what the government made him.

    Here's a promise I'll make for all of you diggers out there.

    I would give my life to defend American freedom abroad in the form of joining the military and shipping myself over to Iraq,

    If I weren't fat and lazy and happy sitting in front of my computer, oh, and if I somehow thought that the war might in some way actually defend the country's freedoms and if I thought our freedoms were uneroded and still worth defending.

    You all can hold me to that one.
  • ricecold, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5How old can we get here...This was years ago!
  • Ruckus21, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Hey theone3
    Put your youtube away and get in bed, you've got to deliver papers in the morning.
  • justinwalden, 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.)
  • mtwolf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3This is really really old. This was from the 2004 Democrat convention in Boston. Bury this article.
  • skankin231, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3They're both douches.
    • inigomntoya, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4DING DING DING DING DING!!

      That was the CORRECT answer we were looking for!
  • 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.
    • bmh129, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2No kidding! Don't these guys just make each other rich by never agreeing? I mean, this wasn't hell freezing over; this was prime time ratings. They can do more damage if they work together sometimes. It's like Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
  • Teddystiltskins, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8This is old news you leftist idiots. Bill O'Reilly, no matter how much I don't like him, was the clear winner in that debate.

    This is a very old video you propagandist leftist idiots!!!

    Geez, same playbook, different year!!!
  • magic6435, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"When can we sign him up!" HAHAAHAH classic
  • bashar129, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@ peritonlogon

    "I would give my life to defend American freedom abroad in...Iraq"

    Since when was Iraq a danger to American freedom?




    Forgot to reply to peritonlogon's comment, sorry.
  • kaytrio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I doubt he understands the irony of what he said last: "on either side"
  • rickbauls, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0The headline should have read, "Two ***** in one tv show."
  • Shorties, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Bill Oreilly always has to get the last word, seriously even if bush truly believed Iraq had WOMD what do you do? Well you send UN troops in to inspect the place what did they find? Nothing so what the hell makes bush sure they have WOMD if they is proof right there that Iraq doesn't. You want to talk about blind ideology that's all Bill Oreilly's show is.
  • hockeysk8, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Why isn't there a "So old it isn't worth discussing" category in BURY IT!
  • ChuckRoastHere, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Bill O'Reilly is a Tool
  • joshfraz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2i'm having a tough time deciding who i dislike the most!
  • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Attack of the hyperbole monsters.
  • 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.
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@HydraulicToast

      "Moore, like most liberals, words his questions in ways that disregard fact altogether"

      Your saying his questions weren't true? Were they false questions?
    • Muncher, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Everyone is their parents' "child." You never outgrow being related to them.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ HydraulicToast
      He's saying that Michael Moore asks deceptive questions that cannot be answered yes or no without you falling into his argument either way. Michael Moore's points are obviously so ludicrous they can't stand up on their own merits so he has to revert to this sleight-of-mouth trick.

      Michael Moore is nothing more than a charlatan.

      @ Muncher
      True, but nobody is going out there throwing their young toddlers into a chipper or even forcing their adult children to go fight in Iraq. That's the picture that Michael Moore is trying to paint though (mainly because he is a rancid douche).
    • 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?
    • DRCross, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Hyrdrolic I dont have any children, but if i did, they would be my children no matter how old they would be. Can you imagine your family being wiped out, becoming a statistic is all well and good but what kind of life does this leave for the individual you are talking about. There is no war in this world that can be justified. I believe in cultural values not patriotic one.
    • firsttube, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ Hydraulic Toast: I think the point is that the war isn't justified, not that we'd be forcing our kids to go.
  • Anubis2051, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Michael More is a ***** Dumb Ass.
    • 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.
  • tsuroki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3It's a race between the Hindenburg and the Goodyear Blimp. You decide which is which.
    • usefulmoose, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0HAHA F*CK YEAH.. JUST LOOK AT DESE TUBS OF OPINIONATED LARD WOO WOO
  • Spazkake, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Oh my god. "Unintentional accident". Did this guy drop out of elementary school?
  • raminix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Aren't Michael Moore and Fat Bastard the same person?
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1They're both full of *****.
    • Rice, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Thank you! Damn straight they are. Gosh.
  • bonked, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Wow, and it only happened almost 3 years ago! This is "OLD" news by anyone's terms.
  • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This video is two years old. Very old news.
  • LarryOnTheWeb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2O'Reilly asked a legitimate question from the get go, "Is Bush a lier"? Moore said that Bush was, but as Bill said, American, British, and Russian Intel all said the same thing. O'Reilly didn't stick to the rules though, the one's that he set up himself, because they were supposed to get one question each but Bill went on and on. Moore say's the pres lied and when Bill questions him about that Moore gives a lame example.

    Morore: "So in other words if I told you that nothing was going on down here on the stage"
    Bill: "That would be a lie because we can see that that wasn't (unintelligible)"
    Moore: "But i'd have to turn around and see it and then I would realise oh Bill I just told you something that wasn't true. Actually it's president Bush that needs to apologise to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some kind of connection between Saddam Hussein and september eleventh"

    Totally lame example. He knew that there were people behind him even though he hadn't turned around so that actually would be a lie.

    I could go on but I don't think O'Reilly got owned here. O'Reilly kept asking legit questions and Moore kept asking emotional questions.
  • casabona, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Moore tries to play the "I'm sympathetic for the troops" card- He is not. He is ***** exploting them to make money. What an *****.
  • craiger316, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3O'RLY?
  • TimCat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Forget the personailites, from a straight logical argument position O'reilly wins on points. By definition Bush didn't lie. That doesn't belittle the point moore wanted to make, he just never pursued his line of reasoning with substance.

    On the 2nd question O'reilly answered solid and stuck to it, he may have been lying but he didn't waver. Moore response was useless. I think both of these guys are probably whores to their own fame and money, but in this case O'reilly won.
    • 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.
  • TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"It depends on if the mistake was intentional"

    Wha...wha....what?
    • 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.
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2two words:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
  • PowerCow, 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.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.