Did anyone just watch The O'Reilly Factor?

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: flavio
This one right?

Yep and I ALREADY replied to the un-american part "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam."

They compare what we did to Iraq to the 9-11 terrorists.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio
This one right?

Yep and I ALREADY replied to the un-american part "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam."

They compare what we did to Iraq to the 9-11 terrorists.

I think you're stretching and reading what you want into it. The "scenes" were "similar" with bunches of dead people. But I suppose I can't keep you from making that mean whatever you please and then labelling it "anti-american".

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio
This one right?

Yep and I ALREADY replied to the un-american part "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam."

They compare what we did to Iraq to the 9-11 terrorists.

I think you're stretching and reading what you want into it. The "scenes" were "similar" with bunches of dead people. But I suppose I can't keep you from making that mean whatever you please and then labelling it "anti-american".

A lot of people would call that anti-American. Why dont they compare it to the slaughter of the Kurds by the Iraqies or the victims of the suicide bombers in Israel. If your implying that they picked all destruction caused by America by coinicidence than you are nieve.

 

[TekViper]

just starting on the east coast.

 

[flavio]

I see a couple possibilities here:

1. similar scenes of dead people
2. setting up a later point by pointing out that the US has made some questionable moves that resulted in many dead.
3. comparing the loss of American lives in 9/11 to the loss of American lives in other recent events

or your interpretation (I think)....

4. America sucks because it does things all the time which are just as bad as 9/11

I really don't think #4 was what was intended, but an attempt by you to read something extra into it so you could feel justified in ignoring the main point of the document and dismissing the whole thing as "anti-american".

 

[chiwawa626]

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy

Originally posted by: novon
You'll never find an intelligent liberal on Fox News, they are too biased. Then again, you'd be hard pressed to find any intelligent person on Fox News.

You'd be hard pressed to find an intelligent conservative on CNN, they are too biased. Then again, you'd be hard pressed to find any intelligent person on CNN.

I can do the SAME thing. Let's not start insulting.

FOX News? hah i watch it for entertainment...lol, its like the WWF of news channels

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: flavio
I see a couple possibilities here:

1. similar scenes of dead people
2. setting up a later point by pointing out that the US has made some questionable moves that resulted in many dead.
3. comparing the loss of American lives in 9/11 to the loss of American lives in other recent events

or your interpretation (I think)....

4. America sucks because it does things all the time which are just as bad as 9/11

I really don't think #4 was what was intended, but an attempt by you to read something extra into it so you could feel justified in ignoring the main point of the document and dismissing the whole thing as "anti-american".

I understand 1 and 2, but you should show other countries attacks (thats my point that i said in my first response to your comment, which im assuming you didnt read). But to address your third point, we didn't lose CIVILIANS in Iraq, Panama, or Vietnam; in 9-11 it was mostly civilan casualties. Thats where i believe you are nieve. They are implying civilian dead and since it wasnt our civilians they imply the panamans, iraqie, and vietmanese civilians. Also, to prove my point no American stepped foot in Baghdad, only bombs were dropped; don't make me look like a consipiricy therorists when i know the facts (this is getting old flavio).

 

[GoingUp]

I missed it... did anyone get a TIVO or something of it?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio
I see a couple possibilities here:

1. similar scenes of dead people
2. setting up a later point by pointing out that the US has made some questionable moves that resulted in many dead.
3. comparing the loss of American lives in 9/11 to the loss of American lives in other recent events

or your interpretation (I think)....

4. America sucks because it does things all the time which are just as bad as 9/11

I really don't think #4 was what was intended, but an attempt by you to read something extra into it so you could feel justified in ignoring the main point of the document and dismissing the whole thing as "anti-american".

I understand 1 and 2, but you should show other countries attacks (thats my point that i said in my first response to your comment, which im assuming you didnt read). But to address your third point, we didn't lose CIVILIANS in Iraq, Panama, or Vietnam; in 9-11 it was mostly civilan casualties. Thats where i believe you are nieve. They are implying civilian dead and since it wasnt our civilians they imply the panamans, iraqie, and vietmanese civilians. Also, to prove my point no American stepped foot in Baghdad, only bombs were dropped; don't make me look like a consipiricy therorists when i know the facts (this is getting old flavio).

So are you saying you sincerely believe it's #4? I think THAT is nieve. You're really taking alot as implications here with the end result being that you ignore the entire point by nitpicking and conjecturing with one sentence.

 

[T2T III]

The punk is a R-E-T-A-R-D!!!!!

Jeremy Glick can suck my _ _ _ _ !

I can't belived how warped his thought patterns are. He must be pen-pals with John Walker Lindt.


To quote the final part of the discussion:

Bill: "I hope your mother is not watching this."

Bill: "I'm not going to dress you down anymore out of respect for your father."

Jeremy: "We're done?"

Bill: "Yes, we're done."

 

[bigdog1218]

I'm usually with O'Reilly on most subjects, but it's kind of annoying when he tells someone to shut up, which made him look like an a$$, because the guy actually brought facts and O'Reilly was definately not ready to have an intelligent argument with this guy. O'Reilly thought he was going to be able to walk all over him, but the guy had some points and O'Reilly just completly blew him off and insulted him. It looked like a publicity stunt just to get the people talking like we are here.

I mean O'Reilly always brings up the point that he only presents facts, even though some of these "facts" are just what he thinks is right. Then this guy comes up saying that the US supplied weapons, money and training to Osama and his buddies, which O'Reilly knows is a fact, but he didn't say it cause he was too busy telling the guy to shut up. Then the guy says that these same terrorists destroyed the twin towers and killed his father, also a fact. So where did this guy go wrong in saying the US did support terrorism.

 

[Lorax]

"are we done?"

"we're done."

oreilly rules.

 

[achiral]

good lord that was crazy...that dude has been hitting too many crack pipes

 

[GoingUp]

That guy was a tool.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio
I see a couple possibilities here:

1. similar scenes of dead people
2. setting up a later point by pointing out that the US has made some questionable moves that resulted in many dead.
3. comparing the loss of American lives in 9/11 to the loss of American lives in other recent events

or your interpretation (I think)....

4. America sucks because it does things all the time which are just as bad as 9/11

I really don't think #4 was what was intended, but an attempt by you to read something extra into it so you could feel justified in ignoring the main point of the document and dismissing the whole thing as "anti-american".

I understand 1 and 2, but you should show other countries attacks (thats my point that i said in my first response to your comment, which im assuming you didnt read). But to address your third point, we didn't lose CIVILIANS in Iraq, Panama, or Vietnam; in 9-11 it was mostly civilan casualties. Thats where i believe you are nieve. They are implying civilian dead and since it wasnt our civilians they imply the panamans, iraqie, and vietmanese civilians. Also, to prove my point no American stepped foot in Baghdad, only bombs were dropped; don't make me look like a consipiricy therorists when i know the facts (this is getting old flavio).

So are you saying you sincerely believe it's #4? I think THAT is nieve. You're really taking alot as implications here with the end result being that you ignore the entire point by nitpicking and conjecturing with one sentence.

LOL read my post again, i SAID i understand the first 2 points, but wish they would show other countries other than America killing people. And point three implys civilan lost therefore against america. If at first you dont succeded, then name call. Flavio respond with pointing out how im wrong or don't post your bs.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
I'm usually with O'Reilly on most subjects, but it's kind of annoying when he tells someone to shut up, which made him look like an a$$, because the guy actually brought facts and O'Reilly was definately not ready to have an intelligent argument with this guy. O'Reilly thought he was going to be able to walk all over him, but the guy had some points and O'Reilly just completly blew him off and insulted him. It looked like a publicity stunt just to get the people talking like we are here.

I mean O'Reilly always brings up the point that he only presents facts, even though some of these "facts" are just what he thinks is right. Then this guy comes up saying that the US supplied weapons, money and training to Osama and his buddies, which O'Reilly knows is a fact, but he didn't say it cause he was too busy telling the guy to shut up. Then the guy says that these same terrorists destroyed the twin towers and killed his father, also a fact. So where did this guy go wrong in saying the US did support terrorism.

I just watched it. WTF?

Go join this idiot, why don't ya?

 

[achiral]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
I'm usually with O'Reilly on most subjects, but it's kind of annoying when he tells someone to shut up, which made him look like an a$$, because the guy actually brought facts and O'Reilly was definately not ready to have an intelligent argument with this guy. O'Reilly thought he was going to be able to walk all over him, but the guy had some points and O'Reilly just completly blew him off and insulted him. It looked like a publicity stunt just to get the people talking like we are here.

I mean O'Reilly always brings up the point that he only presents facts, even though some of these "facts" are just what he thinks is right. Then this guy comes up saying that the US supplied weapons, money and training to Osama and his buddies, which O'Reilly knows is a fact, but he didn't say it cause he was too busy telling the guy to shut up. Then the guy says that these same terrorists destroyed the twin towers and killed his father, also a fact. So where did this guy go wrong in saying the US did support terrorism.

what facts were those, that guy was just talking bullcrap, it was all rhetoric, not one freakin point. everytime oreilly gave him talking time, he started sounding like a mental patient, so they cut him

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: achiral
good lord that was crazy...that dude has been hitting too many crack pipes

I actually think the crack pipes have been hitting him.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
I'm usually with O'Reilly on most subjects, but it's kind of annoying when he tells someone to shut up, which made him look like an a$$, because the guy actually brought facts and O'Reilly was definately not ready to have an intelligent argument with this guy. O'Reilly thought he was going to be able to walk all over him, but the guy had some points and O'Reilly just completly blew him off and insulted him. It looked like a publicity stunt just to get the people talking like we are here.

I mean O'Reilly always brings up the point that he only presents facts, even though some of these "facts" are just what he thinks is right. Then this guy comes up saying that the US supplied weapons, money and training to Osama and his buddies, which O'Reilly knows is a fact, but he didn't say it cause he was too busy telling the guy to shut up. Then the guy says that these same terrorists destroyed the twin towers and killed his father, also a fact. So where did this guy go wrong in saying the US did support terrorism.

The guys facts were bull, the US trained mujahidin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invaders, not to take down Afghanistan's government at that time. While a few Al Qaeda members might have been mujahidin, none of the leadership were, including Bin Laden. The kid was an arrogant, uninformed punk . . . I just got done watching it and I've never seen O'Reilly that mad.

 

[bigdog1218]

i'm just saying I think O'Reilly looked like an a$$. I mean they didn't have a discussion at all. The guy brought his point, O'Reilly had nothing to come back with, so he just made a fool of himself.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
i'm just saying I think O'Reilly looked like an a$$. I mean they didn't have a discussion at all. The guy brought his point, O'Reilly had nothing to come back with, so he just made a fool of himself.

Oh yea, have a discussion with a total irrational person.

I'd like to kick him in the nuts.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
I'm usually with O'Reilly on most subjects, but it's kind of annoying when he tells someone to shut up, which made him look like an a$$, because the guy actually brought facts and O'Reilly was definately not ready to have an intelligent argument with this guy. O'Reilly thought he was going to be able to walk all over him, but the guy had some points and O'Reilly just completly blew him off and insulted him. It looked like a publicity stunt just to get the people talking like we are here.

I mean O'Reilly always brings up the point that he only presents facts, even though some of these "facts" are just what he thinks is right. Then this guy comes up saying that the US supplied weapons, money and training to Osama and his buddies, which O'Reilly knows is a fact, but he didn't say it cause he was too busy telling the guy to shut up. Then the guy says that these same terrorists destroyed the twin towers and killed his father, also a fact. So where did this guy go wrong in saying the US did support terrorism.

I think you should have watched the segment a bit further. Bill O'Reilly appolgized and indicated if he knew the individual would have behaved like he did, he would not have been brought him on the show. Bill acted as he should have. Since Jeremy's father was no longer around to kick his ass for being such an ass, Bill had to step and - and I think so he did appropriately.

 

[bigdog1218]

The guys facts were bull, the US trained mujahidin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invaders, not to take down Afghanistan's government at that time. While a few Al Qaeda members might have been mujahidin, none of the leadership were, including Bin Laden. The kid was an arrogant, uninformed punk . . . I just got done watching it and I've never seen O'Reilly that mad

So why didn't O'Reilly bring this up? Cause if he doesn't initiate and drive where the discussion is going he has no idea what to say, case and point today.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
i'm just saying I think O'Reilly looked like an a$$. I mean they didn't have a discussion at all. The guy brought his point, O'Reilly had nothing to come back with, so he just made a fool of himself.

I think you should have watched the segment a bit further. Bill O'Reilly appolgized and indicated if he knew the individual would have behaved like he did, he would not have been brought him on the show. Bill acted as he should have. Since Jeremy's father was no longer around to kick his ass for being such an ass, Bill had to step and - and I think so he did appropriately.

 

[achiral]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218

The guys facts were bull, the US trained mujahidin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invaders, not to take down Afghanistan's government at that time. While a few Al Qaeda members might have been mujahidin, none of the leadership were, including Bin Laden. The kid was an arrogant, uninformed punk . . . I just got done watching it and I've never seen O'Reilly that mad

So why didn't O'Reilly bring this up? Cause if he doesn't initiate and drive where the discussion is going he has no idea what to say, case and point today.

dude were you even watching that segment?
and if you were, what is wrong with your cognitive skills?