anyone have this oreilly NPR thing thats not in streaming format?

[0roo0roo]

i have franken at the common wealth club and the terry gross interview of oreilly in mp3. i can't host it though, someone else would have to. files 50mb each

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i have franken at the common wealth club and the terry gross interview of oreilly in mp3. i can't host it though, someone else would have to. files 50mb each

wish i could help you...
but keep 'em handy just in case.

 

[Moonbeam]

I liked the way O pumped himself up by dropping the names of important people who've beed on his show. He should have taken a look at the folks who have been on hers.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I liked the way O pumped himself up by dropping the names of important people who've beed on his show. He should have taken a look at the folks who have been on hers.

funny ive never heard of her before Oreilly went on the show.

 

[Chadder007]

In for the MP3.....

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I liked the way O pumped himself up by dropping the names of important people who've beed on his show. He should have taken a look at the folks who have been on hers.

funny ive never heard of her before Oreilly went on the show.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I liked the way O pumped himself up by dropping the names of important people who've beed on his show. He should have taken a look at the folks who have been on hers.

funny ive never heard of her before Oreilly went on the show.

Like that would be a surprise.

 

[0roo0roo]

attempting to seed a torrent, we will see. waiting for tracker approval

 

[0roo0roo]

working audio link.
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?todayDate=current

link credit goes to friedpie

 

[Lucky]

Conclusion, Oreilly and the NPR host battled with wits and the smartest person won--Oreilly. For those who don't believe that, listen to what Oreilly got the host to admit:
1.) she was soft on Frankin
2.) she called frankin's book satire , but its obvious to a non-bias person it is political mudslinging
3.) she admitted she treated Oreilly differently (much more harshly)
Therefore, Oreilly proved she was bias and therefore not looking out for you, the viewers, or fair and balenced reporting.

OK, im listening to the oreilly interview now, but I did not hear the frankin interview. For those that did, how did it differ? Obviously she states both interviews are right about each authors book publication, so the format would hopefully be somewhat similar.

also in the first 10 minutes i've noticed a general harshness to this interviewer. i dont know the lady and dont have a bias against her i just notice modifiers here or there, or repeated questions that don't really have a point other than to instigate or provoke him. what's her normal style and what is her reputation?

frankin's book is NOT satire! Good lord, I couldnt believe she said that!

 

[Lucky]

why is she continually trying to bait orielly with franken material?



there is a clear difference in her mannerism and questioning around the 18 minute mark and after the misguided "spin" question. The questions about the war, format of the show, political views of this that would surpise people, his childhood-all interesting and suited to the interview I think. Seems like maybe she needed some time to regroup herself-she starts drawing some quotes from his book instead of others which makes sense given the interview is around his book.

also, at the 31:30 marks she says "now here's the conlusion"....did she cut something there or was that just a seemingly abrupt continuation line?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Lucky
why is she continually trying to bait orielly with franken material?



there is a clear difference in her mannerism and questioning around the 18 minute mark and after the misguided "spin" question. The questions about the war, format of the show, political views of this that would surpise people, his childhood-all interesting and suited to the interview I think. Seems like maybe she needed some time to regroup herself-she starts drawing some quotes from his book instead of others which makes sense given the interview is around his book.

also, at the 31:30 marks she says "now here's the conlusion"....did she cut something there or was that just a seemingly abrupt continuation line?

I think they used the entire taping, but she voiced in before and after, an intro and then a formal conclusion.

I would like to hear the complete interview, without the intro and conclusion, although I do not think it has been altered.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

LOL, Fresh Air was so easy on him compared to O'Reilley's style. Bill's problem is that his ego is so enormous I am surprised that he and it can fit in the same stadium.

"If you can't tell this is a defamatory book, then you can't read"


In other words, if you don't agree with me you are an idiot.


Fair and Balanced? BWHAHAH!!!! The whole world is out to get him. Some woman wrote a review of Michael Moores book, calling it a "bumper sticker". In his opinion, that makes a favorable review.

And, remember he knows the truth, and the whole world needs to be judged by his opinion. I used to watch him, but he became all about him and that's a total turn off. Bill was given more unedited air time than his show does in a week.

 

[Moonbeam]

The best part was where he refered to her as 'that woman' on his show. Hehe, sort of like Bill Clinton. I didn't get a blow job from 'that woman'.

 

[Lucky]

"If you can't tell this is a defamatory book, then you can't read"


In other words, if you don't agree with me you are an idiot.

You are honestly saying that frankin's book does not defame oreilly? that much of it's content is not negative so-called "satire"?

Fair and Balanced? BWHAHAH!!!! The whole world is out to get him. Some woman wrote a review of Michael Moores book, calling it a "bumper sticker". In his opinion, that makes a favorable review.

to be fair he admitted several times that he could be wrong and that he would re-read the review.

 

[Witling]

BigJelly, mea culpa. I seldom have my grammer or word usage successfully corrected but I honestly did think the word was "emnity." You're right, you can't spell, it's "enmity," but at least you knew how the word was organized. The thread has progressed a long way since my error. I tried to send you some personal mail but couldn't find your address. Hope you get to read this. I may never know because I tend to stop reading threads that get to long. The quote, quote, quote, without slicing down to the relevant thing makes me weary.

But, hey, in the best traditions of this forum --- I'm not admitting error or apologizing.

 

[0roo0roo]

You are honestly saying that frankin's book does not defame oreilly? that much of it's content is not negative so-called "satire"?

look up the definition to defame. its attacks through libel or slander, which means by definition to defame the charges must be untrue. since oreilly can't defend himself against these charges and instead retorts with personal attacks while running around the truth, they must be true. not defamation.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

You are honestly saying that frankin's book does not defame oreilly? that much of it's content is not negative so-called "satire"?

look up the definition to defame. its attacks through libel or slander, which means by definition to defame the charges must be untrue. since oreilly can't defend himself against these charges and instead retorts with personal attacks while running around the truth, they must be true. not defamation.

the closest thing he's gotten to defending himself is crying like a baby and having his boys sue franken.

 

[PatboyX]

listening to the whole interview...she seemed pretty strong at first and i could understand his attitude...but he didnt seem to understand and/or answer her questions. then she seemed pretty good...

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

You are honestly saying that frankin's book does not defame oreilly? that much of it's content is not negative so-called "satire"?

look up the definition to defame. its attacks through libel or slander, which means by definition to defame the charges must be untrue. since oreilly can't defend himself against these charges and instead retorts with personal attacks while running around the truth, they must be true. not defamation.

he gave several examples of falsities that franken perpetuated in his book in the npr interview.

 

[PatboyX]

he gave several examples of falsities that franken perpetuated in his book in the npr interview.

but not really in any detail.
if it really was defamation, plain and simple, it should be easy to prove...so...i dont understand why its still an issue.

just finished the interview...i really dont think terry gross is being too tough on him. she starts very strong with questions that seem a little rough but...i mean, its bill o'reilly, she was probably expecting him to come out guns a'blazing. i think she took it down a few notches when she saw that he wasnt really interested. and, honestly, when he leaves he leaves at an unwarrented time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Lucky

"If you can't tell this is a defamatory book, then you can't read"


In other words, if you don't agree with me you are an idiot.

You are honestly saying that frankin's book does not defame oreilly? that much of it's content is not negative so-called "satire"?

Fair and Balanced? BWHAHAH!!!! The whole world is out to get him. Some woman wrote a review of Michael Moores book, calling it a "bumper sticker". In his opinion, that makes a favorable review.

to be fair he admitted several times that he could be wrong and that he would re-read the review.

If you don't agree with me, then you are stupid.

See the problem? Did Franken give Bill a stick up his behind? You bet!

Bill has been intimidating people, selectively editing, and you heard it, he makes sure he wins.

Bills reasoning


1) I am right
2) You either agree with me, or you are spinning or stupid.
3) If you spin, then I will make sure you cannot win. It's my show, and I will make sure I do. If you are stupid, I will make sure to let everyone know it.
4) See number 1.



That is Bills problem. He is always right, and he will rub peoples face in it. Oh sometimes he admits to having to reconsider things, but he claimed he never had to retract a story. Why would he? If he was wrong, who is going to force him? So, either he never admits to mistakes he makes, or ought to submit his name to the Catholic Church for the Papacy. He certainly understands the concept of infallibility. Well, maybe he does never err. Then, Bill gets the free ticket to the Vatican, and deserves it.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
working audio link.
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?todayDate=current

link credit goes to friedpie

Streaming sucks...still need MP3.

 

[0roo0roo]

i even have terry gross interviewing conan obrien on mp3 damn this dsl upload speed supposed to be upgraded later this month to 256k upload grr. tracker moderator taking forever to approve mp3 torrent. will post when he does.

he gave several examples of falsities that franken perpetuated in his book in the npr interview.

really? like what? all i heard him say was what has been posted in transcripts already. he just claims he never said he won a peabody, trying to get by on a technicality kinda like clinton claiming he did not have "sex" with that woman. which i'm sure good ol bill rielly jumped all over. it would be like me claiming that we(me and my g/f) won the nobel prize when in fact she won it herself after we broke up. and repeat the lie 4 times. that was the only example he ever mentioned in the interview. consideriing he hosts a show called the no spin zone, its amazing you give him a pass. not to mention the incident wasn't simply about that, it was about how badly he reacted when it was revealed that he was wrong. he just calls franken an extremist evil propagadist, a tactic oreilly uses to discredit anyone that disagrees or has him in a corner. its not much of a defense or arguement, its just a rant, and its rather hipocritical since thats basically his own job description. he just repeats over and over that fraken uses libel and is defaming him, i guess he thinks that if you say it enough, it will become true. his only arguement rests on you believing his hollow statements. like that franken is a defamer, that he's telling the truth, that he's got all the facts, that its all lies, etc without any actual information backing it up. oreillys never been able to defend himself against these acusations, he just attacks the person who makes the accusation.

its amazing how often he goes into rants about how the liberal media conspiracy is trying to get him

 

[Lucky]

really? like what?

I can't get the npr site to load.