Thread: lol - Obama hands O'Reilly his ass

eohrn, like I said, WE are the government, it is not some foreign enemy coming to get you. Can it be frustrating, contentious, even bad sometimes? Yes, but so can we, that's why we vote and have forums

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Well I'm sure you can make the difference between adjectives and adverbes perfectly in your second language. . . you're just soooo smart! :rolleyes:

Well you're still not perfect, adverb or adjective.

I don't think I'll miss you either! Redistribution of wealth was brought up as the "main" focus in this thread. . .If you ONLY one to speak about redistribution of wealth in the direction of the wealthy to the poor. .because you think this would be a point AGAINST Obama. . .you can limit yourself in your delusions.

I want to speak about things that add to the discussion in a positive way and are somewhat related to it. Those things happen to make Obama look like a piece of shit liar. If you want to add something not obviously on-topic, you'll have to somehow explain how it relates to our discussion.

I believe that every aspect of redistribution of wealth should be considered. . . It just happened that the greatest redistribution of wealth happened in the last 10 years. . .under Bush!

Okay. I considered it. Can we get back to the topic?

Don't complain to me about it! I know. . .sometime the truth is inconvenient. . .so it's better to sweep it under the rug!

Yes, I know the truth is inconvenient to you. That's why you constantly avoid the topic and bring up Bush.

Get back on topic? OK. Obama made O'Reilly look like an amateur in the ring with a champion.

Yes, an interviewer needs to ask the tough questions, but Obama is the President, after all, and a certain modicum of respect is due to the position. O'Reilly missed on that aspect too.

This was a rare opportunity for O'Reilly to raise himself to the ranks of the great reporters; instead he comes off looking like Judge Judy, Steve Wilkos, or Jerry Springer.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Get back on topic? OK. Obama made O'Reilly look like an amateur in the ring with a champion.

Yes, an interviewer needs to ask the tough questions, but Obama is the President, after all, and a certain modicum of respect is due to the position. O'Reilly missed on that aspect too.

This was a rare opportunity for O'Reilly to raise himself to the ranks of the great reporters; instead he comes off looking like Judge Judy, Steve Wilkos, or Jerry Springer.

I actually liked the interview. Yes, O'Reilly did try to interrupt him dozens of times, etc, in contrast to the soft interview he gave Bush 43 and I attribute that to bias, but that's ok IMO.

I actually prefer interviews of opposing sides of a politician. It's very typical of non-US press to do that to politicians. Heck, they even do that between politicians in open official political forums, where you'll see things like the Prime Minister's Questions in the UK, Irish and other Parliamentary systems based on British custom.

Let's even take O'Reilly's questions regarding the 'hate' that Obama gets from political enemies and the serious and fluid conversational exchange that everyone witnessed who has seen it. It's a questioning format I found very legitimate and for which Obama gave good answers in a very serious exchange. It's really no different than the kind of interview and questions asked by RTÉ's Carol Coleman of Bush 43 when he visited Ireland for a summit:

YouTube - Carol Coleman-Pres. Bush Interview

That was a very good interview IMO. Bush was taken aback by it but that's because he was used to the lousy softball interviews done in the US, which is getting worse given politicians are now increasingly seeking biased softball interviews and avoiding oppositional interviews, something that I give Obama credit for not doing in this case. Biased US sources like FOX didn't even show the Coleman interview in full IIRC given its content. But Bush--whether he recognised it or not--did very well in the interview. I got far more from that about him than I did from the softball ones he got from O'Reilly and others on FOX, etc.

In the Coleman interview, many Republicans ripped Coleman for being 'biased' or 'aggressive' etc to her amazed puzzlement. To her, what she did is simply typical and expected of non-US journalists. To the contrary, Americans should expect Coleman/O'Reilly type interviews for their own benefit.

I wish that politicians would submit to such interviews more in the US as I think the nation benefits from it. However, it must be fair and that means each side submitting to them. It also should be a public expectation that they do so for their own good, even if that means 'their side' must do so because as much as they might like to seek advantages, it's really not in their advantage to not see who they believe are 'on their side' who are not tested for veracity, competency, etc.

The left , including all robotic non-free-thinking automatons on this forum,

in unison and in harmony HATE:


Fox News in general
OReilly
Beck
SaraPalin
Conservatives
W
Chaney
Repubs
Anti-Obama Truths
All Repubs Candidates for POTUS
etc,etc feel free to add on

Yes spewing of hate,
alla Sol Alinsky(demonize the enemy,call them stupid and conspiratorial),
yet accusing the good guys of same ,,,,,whenever those inconvenient truths rear their nasty heads.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Get back on topic? OK. Obama made O'Reilly look like an amateur in the ring with a champion.

Yes, an interviewer needs to ask the tough questions, but Obama is the President, after all, and a certain modicum of respect is due to the position. O'Reilly missed on that aspect too.

This was a rare opportunity for O'Reilly to raise himself to the ranks of the great reporters; instead he comes off looking like Judge Judy, Steve Wilkos, or Jerry Springer.

If you say so, too bad Obama doesn't have the ratings that O'Reilly does. It's all about the message and the agenda.

Originally Posted by chassisman

If you say so, too bad Obama doesn't have the ratings that O'Reilly does. It's all about the message and the agenda.

Obama's ratings top O'Reilly pretty easily.

I really dont know what you were watching,, Dick.
Funny how people interpret the same video entirely differently, depending on their own beliefs and biases. Nothing new or shocking.

Yet,,, [B]YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS[/B](alla J McEnroe)...

Are you blind AND deaf.

And O'Reily was pitching softballs and had time constraints.

Originally Posted by clarkatticus

eohrn, like I said, WE are the government, it is not some foreign enemy coming to get you. Can it be frustrating, contentious, even bad sometimes? Yes, but so can we, that's why we vote and have forums

Thanks, Clark! Always the voice of reason!

Originally Posted by GeorgeLaw

I really dont know what you were watching,, Dick.
Funny how people interpret the same video entirely differently, depending on their own beliefs and biases. Nothing new or shocking.

Yet,,, [B]YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS[/B](alla J McEnroe)...

Are you blind AND deaf.

And O'Reily was pitching softballs and had time constraints.

O'Reilly knew he had time constraints. That was no surprise. Nor an excuse. As to softballs... I suppose there is some validity there. Why he hit on culture war issues instead of real issues is beyond me. But hey, it was his call.

As I said, he came away with damage to his reputation.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Obama's ratings top O'Reilly pretty easily.

Especially when you consider that no one would have cared to see an O'Reilly interview, but everyone tuned in to see President Obama being interviewed, by anyone.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Obama's ratings top O'Reilly pretty easily.

We'll see who still has a show in November of 2012, fair enough?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Get back on topic? OK. Obama made O'Reilly look like an amateur in the ring with a champion.

Yes, an interviewer needs to ask the tough questions, but Obama is the President, after all, and a certain modicum of respect is due to the position. O'Reilly missed on that aspect too.

This was a rare opportunity for O'Reilly to raise himself to the ranks of the great reporters; instead he comes off looking like Judge Judy, Steve Wilkos, or Jerry Springer.

this would surmise that O Reilly actually wants a serious , intelligent interview . He is a clown who's only intent is to entertain the like minded buffoons who watch his program . I actually believe that Bill respects Mr.Obama and is just playing for the cameras .