He's doing Olbermann tonight. Balance!
What? When did this happen?
I dig it. And I must say that although he's still a rude bastard O'Reilly has wisely toned it down here. I'm liking the fact that this supposed mumbling and misspeaking Obama falls back on when he doesn't have a teleprompter isn't present here.
He toned it down for the interview because they are genuinely concerned about getting shut out of a Democratic administration. Also Bill likes to pose as a big-boy journalist, and not being able to get a Presidential nominee was wounding his fragile ego.
His Q&A segment after the interview with his "guests" is much more nausea inducing, as when one doesn't agree with him that Obama isn't a "terror warrior" and that O'Reilly is totally awesome, he just talks to the sycophantic commentator for the rest of the time.
You can assume that, but I'M gonna assume this!
O'Reilly: Are you gonna attack Iran or not? *finger point*
Obama: I won't take military options off the table.
O'Reilly: So you won't attack Iran? Blarg!
Obama: It's an option that is still on the table.
O'Reily: BLARG HURF DURF!!!!!!!
O'Reilly: About Iraq. Just admit you're stupid.
Obama: Well. I didn't say anything that would make me look stu...
O'Reilly: Just admit you're stupid! You owe the nation!
O'Reilly: ADMIT BLARG HURF DURF!!!!
sosage's transcripts are infallible. Let me just say HURF BLURF DUH
i really wish obama would have attacked bill's word usage. for example, when bill was huffing about iran or the surge, obama would have responded with something akin to: bill, i don't think your wordage fully respects how complicated international politics are. while it may feel good to exclaim one's military potential, it doesn't allow for a complete discussion of the nuances of the situations that will inevitably effect billions of people. if we don't take those considerations into mind, we are failing to be the moral and just society we claim to be. etc...
Yes, and O'Reilly's viewers would have heard "Bill, I don't think." blah blah blah
I hear nuance and extended meta-talk about phrasing is totally persuasive on URANUS
no, i think it would be totally feasible if held to it with some gumption. the way you beat o'reilly is by telling him not that he is wrong, but that his points of view are incomplete and therefore tarnish the end product of his argument. then you just incorporate his sentiment as just one thing to consider and be very adamant and theatrical about it.
|Spit Spingola |
O'Reilly's been around forever but I still can't believe this guy. Imagine if all interviewers were like this.
OBAMA, USE OF DIPLOMACY IS HYPOTHETICAL.
NOW WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN IRAN USES ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON AMERICANS BY GIVING THEM TO HEZBOLLAH WHICH IS CERTAIN TO HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT. EVER!!!!
lovin' it like mickey dees.
Oh yeah. 3:14.
O'reilly - "Oh, sure, diplomacy MIGHT work." *rolls eyes, turns chair, makes jerk off gesture* "Whatever."
It actually really works a lot of the time when you use the "brush your argument to the side, reiterate something I already said, let's move on to another subject which I will aleady be speaking about before you get to say anything" unfortunately.
And that's all Bill has to go on, besides the "That all hypothetical!" idea of diplomency vs. his infallible "What IF Iran got a nuclear bomb?"
| Register or login To Post a Comment|