How many times can O'Reilly pull it off?

[anti_shrub]

Twice now, first with Moore and now with Krugman, he gets exposed as a right wing bully with no concept of the facts yet the next day he goes on his radio and TV shows and tells the audience he won the fight. I mean he even shows the clips, how can these people watch and still worship the splotch monster?

[GainesT1958]

1. Same kind of people who say "Ditto!" to an idiotic, Oxycontin-using...

Radio-blowhard junkie...the lame-brained among us...kind of like our pResident, when you think about it!:eyes:

B-)

[JHB]

20. Da Woims of da woild!

[dennis4868]

2. I cannot stand it....

when he keeps saying that Bush and the rest of the thugs did not lie or mislead regarding WMD and the reasons for war...I have yet heard a dem respond to that substantively and effectively...it is not nard to do if you do your homework! O'Reilly gets away with it all the time....but so do the other mainstreem media talking heads.

[olddem43]

3. Just like Sadam, if he gets his ass kicked -

he simply declares victory.

[TransitJohn]

18. Wasn't that the Iraqi Information Minister?

Baghdad Bob?

[olddem43]

26. Yes, Sadam's spokesman. Now THERE was a spin doctor!

No doubt will be working for FAUX.

[psychopomp]

4. I do not know about Krugman

because I have not seen it, but I would characterize the Moore/O'Rielly exchange as a draw at best. The 3rd party intel was a solid right hook but Moore could have countered. He did a quick foot shuffle and came back with some lefts to the body but did not do much damage. I think he was stunned by the right to the head.

[anti_shrub]

6. I'll admit Moore was *maybe* a draw

But Baby O'Reilly goes on his show and claims a complete dismantling of his opponent, when I'd think even the freeperest freep could see it wasn't.

Reminds me of that episode of Star Trek:TNG where Picard was being tortured and was made to think there were 5 lights when there was really 4.

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!@!

[joefree1]

5. I don't know, I don't watch Faux News

I just make fun of it.


Download the free bumper art here:
http://ediablo.com/eDiabloGallery.html

[neebob]

7. Because the splotch monster keeps telling "the fokes"

he's looking out for them. The fokes believe the splotch monster is good and the people makes a complete ass of himself "debating" are bad.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Looking out for Rupert Murdock is more likely

.

[Robbien]

8. If your taste tends toward reason, then Krugman is your man but

if you are addicted to angry contention then O'Reilly outshouted.

Krugman is my man.

[UdoKier]

9. I will give O'Liely credit for ONE thing.

Onlike Limbaugh, who ONLY speaks to rightwingers and the occasional cherry-picked inarticulate liberal caller on the the air, O'Liely has gone face to face with real live liberals. I don't think his performances have been impressive, but at least he tries to take us on.

Limbaugh is just a wussy.

[fujiyama]

10. Krugman is too good for this

He's too respectable to have to "debate" O'Reilly considering he's a professor at Princeton. I understand why he's decided to do this, but their on such different intellectual levels, it's not even comparable.

I only saw a few minutes, but Krugman uses these things called REASON and FACTS, while O'Reilly just yells alot, bullies people, and then declares victory.

[John_H]

22. Krugman should have insisted on no interruprions and no screaming

Take away O'Liely's two favorite techniques and he's worthless.

[tridim]

32. Don't forget his favorite line..

"That's a cheap shot!" He says it every time he doesn't want to respond to a point he knows he was beat on. A real mediator wouldn't let him get away with it, but Russert sure did.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

11. I just don't get it...

You can debate the Moore interview, but Paul Krugman clearly trounced O'Reilly. Krugman simply stated his arguments, and O"REilly attacked him throughout. As Krugman said, it's hard to have a reasonable debate with this guy. Did you see how he flipped out when Krugman said O'Reilly couldn't cut his mike?

[KurtNYC]

30. Yes and O'Reilly was crying about being edited in Outfoxed

Said that one of his 900 "shut ups" was taken out of context because he actually told the gay high school student that he should have shut up about his sexuality. So you see he wasn't telling him to shut up on his show, he was telling him to shut up regarding his WHOLE LIFE!? His brain is like a broken calculator, you can type in the numbers but the answer is always wrong.

[Dover]

12. He DOES win if he continues to attract viewers to watch his

Jerry Springeresque rantings, and Dems continue to agree to be his guests.

[Shopaholic]

13. You wouldn' t believe the folks on other boards

(non-political) that think O'Lielly won that debate because Krugman never raised his voice. They're so brainwashed by Faux & the rest of the noise machine that they honestly believe that the only way to "win" something is to scream and bellow and rant and rave.

[stewert]

16. O'Reilly is Delusional........

I thought Krugman did great, and I thought O'Reilly made a fool of himself. All he did was scream and yell and point his finger, and call Krugman names. If Krugman had lowered himself to O'Reilly's level it would have ended up being an hour of 2 guys screaming and yelling at each other.

I think Krugman calmly destroyed every lie O'Reilly put out. He sat there with notes and stats and quotes and dates, then he read them. The only thing O'Reilly had was a copy of Krugmans book. And he even got that wrong, he told a lie about what Krugman said about the economy.

If you score it as a debate Krugman won 10 to 1. I don't think O'Reilly made one good point in the whole hour. And the points he made were backed up with spin and lies, he had no evidence to prove anything he said. He just recycled all the spin and lies he uses on the factor.

I think O'Reilly came off as a partisan liar who did nothing but defend Bush and the Republican party agenda. Then he said he was not there to defend Bush, after he spent 15 minutes defending Bush.

I think Krugman did exactly what he wanted to do, I believe he decided ahead of time to get O'Reilly mad and watch him blow up. Then he would sit there and calmly destroy every bogus argument O'Reilly spewed out.

What did you want Krugman to do, get in the gutter with O'Reilly and scream and yell and point his finger and get in his face ?

If Krugman had done that, he would be no better than O'Reilly or Hannity. I would say 90% of the reviews I have seen on Krugman were positive. The other 10% wanted Krugman to scream and yell and point fingers just like O'Reilly did. I think that would have been a mistake, Krugman handled it just the way he should have. He calmly crushed O'Reilly with quotes, stats, and facts.

The only answer O'Reilly had was, do your own research pal !

Why should he do his own research when he can have someone else do it for him. O'Reilly called media matters a propaganda web site, when all they do is publish his transcripts and then report the truth. If that's propaganda, I'm Elvis.

O'Reilly had no rebuttal to anything Krugman said, when he knew he was beat he just called him a socialist or changed the subject. I thought O'Reilly literally made a fool of himself. The people who wanted Krugman to get in O'Reilly's face and shout him down do not want a debate, they just want someone to shout O'Reilly down, that's not what a debate is supposed to be.

The people who think O'Reilly won the debate are delusional, they see what they want to see, not what actually happened. That includes O'Reilly, in his world the guy who screams the loudest and points his finger the most wins. That is not the world of reality, it's the world of a delusional right-wing idiot.

[charlie105]

24. Krugman, is that you?!!

Seriously, I agree with you 100%. I thought any sane person watching this had to come away with the conclusion that Krugman prevailed because he presented facts and resisted using ad hominem attacks. O'Reilly's finger jabbing and raised voice gave people the impression that he was bullying his opponent because he had no other way out.

My wife, although left-leaning, is a fairly objective person and my guide to tastefulness. She was utterly disgusted with O'Reilly performance.

If mannerism was a guide, I guess Krugman seemed nervous and cowed down. He was shaking and quivering, which I think is not from nervousness but a natural thing for him. To some people, that might matter though.

And predictably enough, O'Reilly showed clips of the interview on the Factor last night. Guess who looked like the winner?

[tom_paine]

28. Exactly what a Nazi would believe

Exactly.

On some psychological plane, there isn;t a nickle's worth of difference between the mindset of a Commie, Nazi, or Bushevik.

Not a nickle's worth of difference in mindset.

Basic economic philsophy, use of violence, and overt racism are the only things that seperate the Totalitarian Unquestioning Bootlickers from each other.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. Violence and yelling only appeals to lesser intellects

When you're not listening to the words then the mode of delivery is what counts to the neanderthalic segment of the populace.
Sounds like O'wily has studied Psych 101.

[noonwitch]

14. Yeah, but he totally bullied that Swiftboat guy, too

Sometimes, O'Reilly can be fun to watch. I loved it when he went after the swiftboat guy criticizing Kerry's service.

[depakid]

15. Sooner or later, every bully meets his match

Personally, I wouldn't want to be O'Reilly. My guess is that he looks over his shoulder every time he walks to his car in the parking lot.

[KharmaTrain]

17. Follow The Benjamins...

As long as O'Reilly leads the other cable networks/shows, he'll be able to get away with anything he wants. Faux sure won't dump their franchise even if he has a drop in his numbers. So he knows he's golden and as long as he has his nightly treehouse where he controls all, he'll continue to bully and get attention.

The only way to deal with an O'Reilly is to get him out of his glass tower...just like Franken did with the lawsuit...where he can't filabuster and intimidate. Moore & Krugman went onto O'Reilly's turf...a formatted TV program where soundbites and "action" always get more attention that calm and rational. Even on Russert, O'Reilly knew the format better than Krugman, thus knew where to bully and how to always get in the last word. It didn't matter that those words made no sense, it was the perception viewers got of him "being strong"...that's why he was struttin' like a peacock about the Krugman showdown.

O'Reilly, like Limbaugh are chickenshits who fold like a deck of cards on an even playing field, but they won't allow that to happen. And there's no law that says they have to be either truthful or honest...just bring in ratings that make their corporate masters money and keeps their regime in place.

There are a lot of "Archie Bunkers" out there...frustrated people (mostly white middle-aged males) who fall for O'Reilly's fake popularism in a co-dependency that Faux has manipulated and the other cable networks are trying to as well. They're more angry than rational...lashing out at those who they've been conditioned to blame for all their troubles...us. Unfortunately that isn't going to vanish anytime soon...it'll take years to debunk this message and with limited levers of power and the media, this is just a faint hope right now.

[ASanders84]

21. Why does O'Reilly call himself a "traditionalist"?

What does that mean anyway? Is that a 'nicer' way of saying hes a conservative or is he trying to mislead people that he is above the left/right spectrum.

[stewert]

25. traditionalist..........

O'Reilly now calls himself a traditionalist because nobody was buying the Independent crap.

He can not say he is a conservative because he has spent 8 years denying that, so now he is a traditionalist.

traditionalist = conservative

O'Reilly is an old Irish conservative, he just can't admit it because he has denied it for so long.

Someone mentioned Archie Bunker in this thread, bingo. About 2 years ago I wrote up a big article and posted it on my message board comparing O'Reilly to Archie Bunker. O'Reilly is the Archie Bunker of 2004.

Except with Archie he had the guts to admit he was a conservative racist homophobe. O'Reilly dont have the guts to admit it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

23. I was watching that

what struck me was how often Bill tried to deviate from the topic they were talking about, to himself. Its as if O'Reilly wanted to stop talking about the country and start talking about why everyone is mean to him and why the NYTimes doesn't like him and give him respect.

Krugman should have just told him "Life doesn't revolve around YOU Bill, its not always about YOU."

But he didn't, and just changed the subject back to Iraq.

O'Reilly is so immature its hysterical.

[KurtNYC]

31. Immature is the word

He got all flustered talking about Al Franken. And just looked that much more irrationally juvenile referring to him as "Stewart Smalley."

[tom_paine]

27. Standard Totalitarianism 101: The Nazis won Stalingrad, you know

At least, that what THEIR Fox News told THEIR DITTOHEADS.

Some things simply don't change much except their skin.

[gratuitous]

29. O'Reilly will pull it off forever

As long as he has supine and compliant "hosts" like Tim Russert, who sat there like the statue in the Lincoln Memorial while O'Reilly blustered, raged, bullied and name-called. Krugman waited for O'Reilly to blow himself out, applied two or three facts that totally demolished him, then had to endure five minutes of red-faced ranting.

Timmy? Timmy did nothing. He didn't ask O'Reilly what was wrong or out of context about the facts that Krugman presented. He didn't admonish O'Reilly about sticking to the points. He just let him interrupt, bloviate and gas on without interruption. Krugman clearly thought he'd been invited to an exchange of viewpoints; O'Reilly came ready to shout and spew.

And Timmy picks up a paycheck for his non-performance. I'm sure Big Russ would be appalled that his son gets paid for what he did last night. Shame on you, Timmy.

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

33. It's called chutzpah and americans respect that

Dems need some of that instead of always being so dammed apologetic.

[gratuitous]

35. Not really chutzpah

And chutzpah is not very well respected by anyone. The old rabbi definition of chutzpah is a man who murders his parents, and then begs for leniency from the court on the ground that he's an orphan.

O'Reilly's bluster and bloviation are mistaken by some weak-minded persons for being a "tough guy, don't take any crap from anyone" pose, but any examination below the surface appearance shows that he's a bully who browbeats his opponent into submission. He doesn't "win" debate points except insofar as he goes on and on, and runs out the clock.

Russert did a poor job of "moderating" the discussion. Shameful that he picks up a hefty paycheck regardless of the kind of work he does.

[Ducks In A Row]

36. Bill is insane. That's the only answer

get a padded room ready for that man, quick!