Michael Moore with Bill O'Reilly at the DNC

on-ramp · 08-01-2004, 05:27 PM

Michael Moore sure gave Bill O'Reilly a nice spanking at the DNC.
read for yourself.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

MOORE: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?

O'REILLY: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say: “We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.”

MOORE: But what were they killed for?

O'REILLY: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people.

MOORE: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war: to remove a brutal dictator.

O'REILLY: Well, we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction.

MOORE: But that was the reason…

O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction…

MOORE: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat…

O'REILLY: That’s right.

MOORE: And there was no threat, was there?

O'REILLY: It was a mistake.

MOORE: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.” I don’t think that is good enough.

O'REILLY: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents.

MOORE: So we agree on that.

O'REILLY: But that is the historical nature of what happened.

MOORE: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?

O'REILLY: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional.

MOORE: No, not intentional, it was a mistake.

O'REILLY: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that.

MOORE: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead.

O'REILLY: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that.

MOORE: So, that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake — how would you feel towards me

O'REILLY: OK, now we are wandering.

MOORE: No, but my point is…

O'REILLY: I saw what your point is and I answered your question.

MOORE: But why? What did they die for?

O'REILLY: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people…

MOORE: No, that was not the reason…

O'REILLY: That’s what they died for…

MOORE: …they were given…

O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake.

MOORE: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world…

O'REILLY: Alright, I’ve got anther question…

MOORE: Would you sacrifice — just finish on this — would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?

Moneyguy1 · 08-01-2004, 06:46 PM

I thought it was rather civil; both handled themselves as gentlemen, I will give them that.

Especially after O'Reilly had called Moore a coward many times because he would not come on the show...

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

The only thing Moore spanked was his monkey...if the fat liar can still reach it.
O'Reilly is right. Moore is a coward and will not appear on his or any show that is not totally liberal.
Since it was the DNC, O'Reilly was a gentleman and "interviewed" Moore instead of roasting him. Moore did not return the favor and was an ass who tried to take advantage of the situation. Typical.

SteveStromberg · 08-01-2004, 08:12 PM

Id like to hear Fat Fuch er Micheal Moron take on Micheal Savage. Now that would be something to hear.

speeder · speeder's Garage

I agree that O'Reilly was a gentleman, but Moore made a valid argument in that exchange. It was not OK to send young people to die w/o better info then they had and no realistic plan to "win the peace". Bush kicked the inspectors out and started bombing and invading at a time when Saddam was zero threat to anyone, and it's not just hindsight. Plenty of people, (including me), disagreed at the time.

Also, FWIW, O'Reilly's demeanor has improved dramatically since getting his ass handed to him by Franken and several others over the "distortions" on his shows, and that is putting it politely. I actually enjoy listening to him now.

ubiquity0 · 08-01-2004, 08:23 PM

errr... I guess I have to disagree w/ everyone here. I don't really think the Moore gave O'Reilly any 'spanking' (reading the complete transcript). Seemed like a fairly evenly balanced affair to me.

"O'Reilly is right. Moore is a coward and will not appear on his or any show that is not totally liberal." That statement seems patently ridiculous to me. Isn't the complete transcript proof that Moore did indeed appear on O'Reilly's show? I'm confused

Does that mean he was a coward before, but isn't now? Are you disputing that he appeared at all? I guess not?

I liked O'Reilly's 'gentlemanly' opening to the interview:
"Wanna apologize to the president now or later?"

350HP930 · 08-01-2004, 08:27 PM

Face it, BOR can't look like he is winning an argument unless he can cut off the other guys mike.

BOR is the guy who had to officially apologise, based on his own pre-war guaranttes, that he was wrong about the iraqi WMDs after all.

The more I read on BBS's like this one the more aware I become that BOR has become the rush limbaugh for the right wingers with above average IQs.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by ubiquity0
errr... I guess I have to disagree w/ everyone here. I don't really think the Moore gave O'Reilly any 'spanking' (reading the complete transcript). Seemed like a fairly evenly balanced affair to me.

"O'Reilly is right. Moore is a coward and will not appear on his or any show that is not totally liberal." That statement seems patently ridiculous to me. Isn't the complete transcript proof that Moore did indeed appear on O'Reilly's show? I'm confused Does that mean he was a coward before, but isn't now? Are you disputing that he appeared at all? I guess not?
[/B]

No. I watched the interview. He is still a coward. Moore did not and has not appeared as a guest on the O'Reilly Factor...he was just a short interview at the DNC, a hostile format for O'Reilly where Moore could control the interview and had the backing of thousands of fanatical, left-wing fans.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by 350HP930
The more I read on BBS's like this one the more aware I become that BOR has become the rush limbaugh for the right wingers with above average IQs.

Nah, O'Reilly is too far left for most of us right-wingers..he appeals more to the Democrats who have recently converted to conservatism.

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

The interview was pretty lame actually... O'Reilly accepted the premise that we were sending people to Iraq to die, so the whole interview followed right into Moore's hands.

One of Moore's big arguments is that Bush, Cheney, Haliburton & friends are all profiteering from the war on terror, right? Does Moore consider making a propanda film and making $100 million profiteering also? I'd like to ask the fatass what he thinks of that.

Mulholland · 08-01-2004, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by on-ramp
MOORE: Would you sacrifice — just finish on this — would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?

O'Reilly choked, no mistaking.

But Moore's premise about sacrificing children is a false premise...Our volunteer army has no children, none forced into the military with a waiver stating that they will be safe, and a majority of which are Republican.

Moore is less.

ubiquity0 · 08-01-2004, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulholland

But Moore's premise about sacrificing children is a false premise...Our volunteer army has no children, none forced into the military with a waiver stating that they will be safe, and a majority of which are Republican.

So he should have said- " Would you sacrifice — just finish on this — would you sacrifice your adult son or daughter to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?"

I don't think whether casualties are republicans or democrats changes the arguement at all?

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

But the idea that we are sending our volunteer troops over there to die is just plain wrong. They joined knowing where they would likely be going, knowing the danger, and knowing what their mission would be. We liberated 50 millioin people, built hospitals and schools, and helped them train their own armies.

Do you ask the father of a police officer if he would sacrifice his son? How about firefighers? NO, you don't. They're doing a job which happens to be dangerous. You don't assume they're going to die.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by ubiquity0
So he should have said- " Would you sacrifice — just finish on this — would you sacrifice your adult son or daughter to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?"

I don't think whether casualties are republicans or democrats changes the arguement at all?

It is just a stupid question from a stupid fat ass with an invalid premise....just like almost every thing he says.... We do not sacrifice children or soldiers. They are killed in battle trying to kill the other SOB while trying to remain alive.

It is like asking if you are willing to "sacrifice" your child by letting him drive a car (much more dangerous than the military)....Obviously you would not answer, "Sure, I have no problem sacrificing my child's life in the name of transportation."

ubiquity0 · 08-01-2004, 10:33 PM

I disagree. The question of sacrifice is central to the notion of 'war'. the decision to go to war must take into account the values of the lives that will inevitably be lost. To deny this, a leader would have to be a mad-man. I think Bush believes this, and made his decision on his interpretation of the information that was presented to him. i.e. he reached the conclusion that it was 'worth it'.

I'm always weary about the 'car crash statistics' argument... it can be used for almost anything. Bush made the decision to go to war. I wouldn't hold him any more responsible for the road accident victims than I would hold Henry Ford responsible for the deaths of soldiers in Iraq.
Anyway, aren't more people are killed by cars than by murder, or terror attacks? Should cars be outlawed?

Moneyguy1 · 08-01-2004, 10:41 PM

Fint:

Since your answers seem to give some of us trouble understanding them, let me posit this:

Why is it different for Moore not to want to show up on FOX and it is OK for the president not to want to show up at the NAACP convention?

In both cases, the individual is certain to face a hostile situation. Don't you agree?

Moore wanted to meet O'Reilly in a neutral place. I think that would be a natural reaction; the president agreed to show up at the Urban League. Both compromised.

We all saw the same exchange. I thought it was civil and others saw it differently.

Too bad two people cannot have an exchange of ideas without the supporters of one side resorting to name calling. Sad, really.....

tabs · 08-01-2004, 10:54 PM

Mr Moore the facts of life are that war is a dirty business. I don't believe any man takes sending troops in harms way lightly. I think that sometimes it is necessary, and lives are lost and for those families I cry...Sadam to the best of intelligence which both political parties thought was accurate, along with our esteemable allly Great Britain thought the threat of WMD's was credible. Could the USA have taken the chanch...hindsight is always 20/20 MR. Moorer, it is nice to play Gawd after the fact Mr. Moorer. Perhaps you'd like to run the country, and then we can pick apart your decision making process.

Mulholland · 08-01-2004, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ubiquity0
So he should have said- " Would you sacrifice — just finish on this — would you sacrifice your adult son or daughter to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?"

I don't think whether casualties are republicans or democrats changes the arguement at all?

First, Michael Moore, as well as any leftist of his ilk, give not ***** one for the military, never have and never will. The leftists of his bottom-feeding variety have politicized the war for political gain. The military are MEN and WOMEN, not children, not belonging to anybody except the military, to whom they have pledged to die for if need be...regardless of the cause...In this case it is just.

I bring up political affiliation because I doubt highly, knowing the history of antipathy and animosity the left have shown for the military, that the military would rather take their orders from Democrats. It is Republicans who have historically supported the military, making Republicans the rightful spokesmen for their endeavors.

tabs · 08-02-2004, 12:01 AM

And Mull your point is....

A. Michael Moorer is a sicko pinko

B. Just misunderstood

C. Is out of his mind and doesn't know what he is doing...

rcecale · rcecale's Garage

Maybe things have changed since I retired from the Corps, but can somebody tell me exactly when our men and women serving in the military became merely "children"?

To hear people like MM talk about them, they are nothing more than lambs being sent to slaughter, with no idea what they are doing. This, I can assure you, is far from the truth.

Training, training, training. This is what these people do. For those of you in southern California, how often can you drive down I-5, between Orange County and San Diego, and NOT see training exercises going on? How often do you have a day when tere is not the sound of F/A-18 fighter jets overhead. How often do you not hear the distant thunder of artillery round or tank firing, from inside Camp Pendelton? These are the sounds of men and women being trained to do their jobs.

I speak of So. Cal, because that is where the majority of my stateside service was. The same sounds can be heard all over this country. The stealth bombers at Whiteman AFB in Missouri. The F-15's and F-16's at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas. The fighters and bombers at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma City. The Navy ships coming and going from Norfolk and San Diego. This is what these people have been trained to do.

Nobody joins the military to die, that's a given. the people that DO join are, however, aware of that possibility. Like Bryanthompson said above. It's the same thing as a policeman or a firefighter, or anybody else who's profession carries that element of danger. The training is designed to keep that to a minimum. Nobody wants anyone to die, but unfortunately, it is the nature of the beast.

Today we have an all-volunteer force, made up of men and women who have made this choice themselves. Nobody has raided their homes and forced them to enlist or be commissioned. they serve of their own free will. will we have casualties in war? Absolutely! Are the casualties poor little lams who unwittingly were led to their slaughter? Absolutely not!

For Moore and his kind to portray them as such is nothing but an insult to those who serve, and those who have served. Moore certainly has the right to speak his mind, don't get me wrong. As much as it pains me to listen to him spew forth his drivel, I respect the fact that he is well withiin his rights to do so. Just know, however, that he has no first hand knowledge of what he speaks, period!

And for what it's worth, I am one veteran who is tired of listening to his diarhea of the mouth! He needs to find another "victim" to champion!

rant over...