Almost Celebrity Deathmatch: O'Reilly vs Franken

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I just realized while reading this thread how much money you can make pandering to liberals. There is such a wellspring of bitterness and resentment that you could retire off one book with no content as long as it had a personal attack on a conservative figure on the cover.

Really, you guys were a little over-excited about seeing Franken, who obviously prepared well for his blind-side assault, attack O'Reilly. But, hey, whatever.

blind side? franken came out with the info long ago.

wellspring of bitterness? conservatives are all about bitterness, look at the rackfull of books you can find from conservative pundits in a bookstore. the market is quite large. books laden with inaccuracy from frauds like ann coulter(little miss "out of context" footnote whore) stuffed with such blatant inaccuracy that show just how little these authors think of their audience. its quite embarassing that it gets published.

 

[43st]

CSPAN has a Real Player (yuck) clip of the show. Here

EDIT... I'm wrong. The .ram file is just a little interview. NOT THE CONTENT.

EDIT #2... Found it Scroll half way down.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Thera
CSPAN has a Real Player (yuck) clip of the show. Here

EDIT... I'm wrong. The .ram file is just a little interview. NOT THE CONTENT.

EDIT #2... Found it Scroll half way down.

we know got a ram recorder? Some people would like to watch it in it's entirety without having to keep rebuffering

CkG

 

[ViRGE]

Go find a copy of StreamBox VCR, Cad, it'll do the trick nicely.

 

[0roo0roo]

streambox vcr seems to work. 500mb file yipes! its freeware, just use google to find it. i think theres also a realmedia codec out there that works with media player.. i hate realplayer.

 

[43st]

Doh-ith! Thanks CkG.

Anyway, just watched it. That was certainly a spicy meatball.

 

[SuperTool]

O'Reilly got exposed as a tabloid liar that he is.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Go find a copy of StreamBox VCR, Cad, it'll do the trick nicely.

Cool thanks

CkG

Uhhh - "do not download if in the US"? Uhhh

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Really, you guys were a little over-excited about seeing Franken, who obviously prepared well for his blind-side assault, attack O'Reilly. But, hey, whatever.

Franken is an unabashed Liberal that just happens to be entertaining. I thought Rush was the most entertaining persona on TV 8-10 years ago . . . then he started taking himself seriously. The worst thing that ever happened to conservatives was Bill Clinton. The party of Lincoln and Teddy lost its mind when Clinton was elected. Clinton had plenty of BS ideas that could have been trounced on the merits but far too many conservatives focused on the man instead of a legitimate message for American renewal. The Contract with America was somewhat useful but ultimately the GOP gained in Congress b/c Clinton had no coattails . . . many of his policies were ill-conceived/poorly executed and the GOP effectively assassinated whatever character he may have possessed.

As for this episode, it was entertaining but everybody likes to see a bully get his arse handed to him . . . particularly if it's a public spectacle and a relatively fair contest. There's no doubt O'Reilly was ambushed but he set himself up. In his interview beforehand he talked about fighting for the common man against the bad people . . . looking out for the little guy without influence. During his opening comments, he took a jab at Franken for 'coarsing' the dialogue. Then Franken preceded to treat O'Reilly like O'Reilly typically treats his guests . . . except Franken did not selectively use facts or verbally berate. Of course, O'Reilly blew his top with very coarse dialogue. And while discussing the merits of helping the little guy . . . O'Reilly essentially said everybody in America should try to get theirs b/c there's no way we will ever have equal opportunity. So much for looking out for the little guy.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

O'Reilly got exposed as a tabloid liar that he is.

I disagree. O'Reilly is selective with the facts but I do not think he typically tells straight up lies . . . except of course this episode . . . but almost everybody lies about personal accomplishments.

I think O'Reilly is quite reminescent of the typical superficial thinker found at AT. He decides on a conclusion and then seeks facts to bolster his preconceived notions so he can convince others he is right. He attacks the weakest aspect of an opponent's argument (or uses a Strawman) and then implies his revelations are all you need to know to decide that he is right. When faced with incontrovertible evidence he typically acknowledges said facts and then contends it does not significantly effect the conclusions he has established.

 

[fluxquantum]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
If anyone doesn't get C-SPAN2, but you have broadband, you can go here, and watch it live with WMP or Real Player.

sweet..thanks. i will take a look. sounds entertaining (me starts popping the popcorn)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fluxquantum

Originally posted by: Insane3D
If anyone doesn't get C-SPAN2, but you have broadband, you can go here, and watch it live with WMP or Real Player.

sweet..thanks. i will take a look. sounds entertaining (me starts popping the popcorn)

Actually you need this link. Halfway down.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
streambox vcr seems to work. 500mb file yipes! its freeware, just use google to find it. i think theres also a realmedia codec out there that works with media player.. i hate realplayer.

500MB is for all 9 hours of coverage from the looks of it. I'm not sure how to only download the part I/we want though.

CkG

 

[0roo0roo]

9hrs? cripes. ah well, i'll let it download away

I disagree. O'Reilly is selective with the facts but I do not think he typically tells straight up lies . . . except of course this episode . . . but almost everybody lies about personal accomplishments.

from what i've read, he lies often. common tactic when he's cornered is to simply call his opponents arguement irrelevant. he's claimed to come from a poor family, so he can fight for the common man when its simply not true.

 

[Taggart]

A few thoughts:

1. Is O'Reilly patronizing or what? He keeps on referring to the "folks," in this case the book sellers who were in the audience that were to ask questions. He uses that term on his show and in his book too. His context suggests they are little people or something that he has been chosen to fight for. He attempts to automatically justify his positions by claiming he is fighting for the "folks."

2. Al Franken is obnoxious and is only going to repel people from his ideas by being such an a-hole. I think he may be bordering on crazy too...he berated Alan Colmes at a recent press dinner for not defending the liberal agenda effectively. He actually walked up to his table and started yelling at him. Unstable? Possibly. He needs to learn how to act in civilized society. I think that one audience member that asked about having a civil dicourse that is inclusive instead of divisive was aiming it at Franken and O'Reilly equally but Franken still clapped...ironic, since Franken did the opposite.

3. Ultimately I think Franken is the bad guy here, since he attacked and O'Reilly defended. That is NOT the way civilized people try to discredit a person or their beliefs (attacking their character in a supposedely friendly and inclusive discussion).

4. I have no clue whose ego and self-love is bigger

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

3. Ultimately I think Franken is the bad guy here, since he attacked and O'Reilly defended. That is NOT the way civilized people try to discredit a person or their beliefs (attacking their character in a supposedely friendly and inclusive discussion).

I'm not sure you can paint Franken as THE villain, per se. Scott Petersen is a widower that was banging some random blonde while his pregnant wife was at home. Assuming he didn't kill his wife (which is not a reasonable assumption) does he get a pass on the adultery? O'Reilly did a Clinton. He lied about something relatively insignificant but instead of coming clean he decided to compound the lie with denials and then recriminations against his accusers. O'Reilly was on the defensive but he had an indefensible position.

I'm from NC so while we certainly advocate correcting a wayward soul . . . publicly calling someone a liar is declasse even when it is true. I felt sympathy for O'Reilly BUT he was the vehicle of his own demise. Name your cliche but ultimately O'Reilly was held to the standard he applies to everyone else . . . and he was found wanting.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I just realized while reading this thread how much money you can make pandering to liberals. There is such a wellspring of bitterness and resentment that you could retire off one book with no content as long as it had a personal attack on a conservative figure on the cover. Really, you guys were a little over-excited about seeing Franken, who obviously prepared well for his blind-side assault, attack O'Reilly. But, hey, whatever.

Well, I'm a bit conservative, and I enjoyed just reading about this greatly (sadly I couldn't watch it) precisely because Franken had an obviously prepared blind-side assualt on O'Reilly. Its great when people get a taste of their own medicine. I've seen bits of a few of O'Reilly's shows, and he's just a loud, self important bully. This sounds like exactly what he would have done on his own show. Except had it been the other way around on his show, he wouldn't have let Franken reply - just cut his mike and gone to commercials.

 

[DZip]

Al Franken... now there's man to respect. He just hates all conservatives.

 

[yellowperil]

I don't really care for political shock jocks on either side who can dish it out but can't take it in. One thing that any loudmouth radio host relies on is the fact that his mic is turned up louder than the other guy and he has the power to cut him off. It was funny how O'Reilly kept exaggerating the amount of time Franken was speaking - it may have seemed like 45 minutes to eternity to him since he's not used to having his trap closed for an appreciable amount of time while his opponent is talking.

Franken has been the same guy for years. You can't really expect people to discredit each other 'nicely' in a political forum; satirists have been doing it before this country was even founded.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Ivins spoke for about 12 min, O'Reilly for 12-15min, and Franken spoke for 22min. Granted, Franken's time was extended in part b/c O'Reilly made comments which prompted Franken to continue.

O'Reilly's first comment was Franken spoke for 35 min. As he became more incensed Franken's attack increased to an alleged 45 min. I wouldn't be surprised if it became an hour by the time O'Reilly got back to his show.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Ivins spoke for about 12 min, O'Reilly for 12-15min, and Franken spoke for 22min. Granted, Franken's time was extended in part b/c O'Reilly made comments which prompted Franken to continue.

O'Reilly's first comment was Franken spoke for 35 min. As he became more incensed Franken's attack increased to 45 min. I wouldn't be surprised if it became an hour by the time O'Reilly got back to his show.

Genuine curiousity here, did you time how much time Franken spent on bashing O'Reilly? Maybe I'll time it when I get home unless you did already.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Memory is getting a little foggy but I want to say it was a good third. I came across the broadcast while Franken was speaking. I'm not a fan of Franken but I like Book Watch. Anyway, once I saw Ivins and O'Reilly on the panel I decided to hang around. When it was rebroadcast I paid attention to the time b/c I remembered O'Reilly's claim that Franken spoke for 35-45 min. Franken was at least 12 minutes into his opening comments when he really got into his O'Reilly bit but it lasted less than 10 minutes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Aside from the fact that O'Reilly looked like somebody shoved a truck load of cement up his ass while Frankin spoke, I thought he held up, ultimately rather well. He got back a bit of his usual wry, humorously caustic, sense of self righteousness at the end. It would be interesting to know the exact details of the award fiasco Frankin accused him of and just how big a deal it is. Anybody who can't publicly admit to a mistake, I'm still trying to infer is CADdy implied incorrectly , has reliability problems as far as I'm concerned. I, for example, once thought I made a mistake. I still don't know what came over me.

 

[0roo0roo]

4:45~ franken starts his speech

4:57~franken takes on bill
5:02~end of franken beating bill

5:05~ end of franken speech


and yea, the rm file was like 8 hours lol luckily u can skip around

and yea, bill blew his top lol "your arguement is irrelevant because your a lefty" is his only retort.. as ussual.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: friedpie
If O'Reilly is on the cover of Franken's book then I hope O'Reilly gets a cut of the revenue. Anyone know if there is a law about that?

Also, it's SO obvious that Franken is using O'Reilly's fame to sell his lame ass book.

The pic was public domain.

O'Reilly is a public figure, and has to take his lumps the same as Franken would if you wrote a little gem like "Al Franken is a lame ass book writer". Franken would not get a cent from you. If Franken had taken copyrighted material of O'Reilly without permission, then Bill would be entitled to compensation. A public domain pic by definition is not copyrighted.

No, but O'Reilly may have some grounds against Franken for profiting from his likeness (he is a celebrity) and for defamation of character. Probably not, ultimately, but it might be interesting to see what happens.

wellspring of bitterness? conservatives are all about bitterness, look at the rackfull of books you can find from conservative pundits in a bookstore. the market is quite large. books laden with inaccuracy from frauds like ann coulter(little miss "out of context" footnote whore) stuffed with such blatant inaccuracy that show just how little these authors think of their audience. its quite embarassing that it gets published.

Look at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, etc. Compare the readership of those with the book market. "its quite embarassing that it gets published"