Bill O'reilly Vs Moore. You decide The winner [video]
 

Bill O'reilly Vs Moore. You decide The winner [video]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

I have to say that I really see O'reillys point about Bush not lying. What would you do if you were President and had 3 legitimate sources (i.e.) Russian Intelligence, British Intelligence, and Us Intelligence telling you that Saadam was going to use Nuclear Weapons against you? Saadam is a fucking Freak who killed hundreds and thousands of his own people. Isn't it good that he's gone?

As far as Moore asking, ?would you sacrifice your child? etc. My answer would of been "I don't have to make that choice because you have to be 18 (Adult) to join the Military and at that point your a considered an Adult and responsible enough to think for yourself.

Don?t forget that Saadam was not cooperating with inspectors during the investigations
And if he had weapons of mass destruction he had plenty of time to get rid of them.
Just because we didn?t find them doesn?t mean they don?t exist. Haven?t you ever looked for something and never found it until years after the fact?
:2 cents:

o'reilly is a sellout

O'Reilly Is a Fuckin Asshole!

Two words:

INSIDE - EDITION

O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch & the whole fox network is a fucking joke.

Watch the trailer to the movie "Outfoxed"
http://http.dvlabs.com/carolina/Trailer_A.wmv

and check out
http://www.outfoxed.org/

Personally I thought Moore did a better job (but I'm kind of on his side).

:1orglaugh

Damn, that looks really good.

It's about time someone did something like this about Fox News. Fucking lunatics 24/7.

that interview was funny. O'Reilly got owned!!!

I have to agree, here with the point ole bill makes regarding the intelligence too, but I also think Bill is an asshole, and agree with Moore on most of the stuff!

at any rate , even if you take iraq totally out of the equation Bush has still ran this counrty into the ground, and we need an overhaul:2 cents:

O'Reilly is an idiot. I can't believe that asshole calls himself an independent. He's a fucking conservative Republican hence the Bush loving.

I think they both sucked in this debate, neither one got his point across well. I think O'Reilly was a little more clear, but thats just in delivery and not wandering too much, dont really agree with his facts, and Moore just sucked overall, wandering too much and no coherent argument.

Thanks for the link! :thumbsup

You guys must have watched some other interview. The one I saw, O'Reilly wasn't owned at all. He was on the attack making fatboy sweat.

:karaoke <--- O'Reilly
:uhoh <--- Moore
:1orglaugh <--- Me

Wow! Thanks!:thumbsup

He calls himself an independent?

Michael Moore was invited. It was not his fucking show. O'Reilly was not able to own Moore at all. Moore is the winner in that debate because he survived. He had everything to lose.

In that case, O'Reilly lost.

Considering it was O'Reilly's show (and he obviously knew what questions he was going to ask - live nationwide) I think Mike did ok. What else could he do other than defend himself and attack back? Wouldn't you? Isn't that the nature of a debate?

I would've like to see some kung-fu ninja blows but hopefully next time.

:glugglug

o'rielly thinks he's the man but he's really just a cocky old faggot with a small pecka

i'd love to smack him in the saggy chin and see what kind of intelligent explaination for it he comes up with:321GFY

O'reilly won the point about Intelligence, not necessarily because he's right, but because Moore did not counter properly.Holes could be poked in the argument about Bush receiving misinformation from any of the sources O'reilly quoted.

O'reilly used the old post-justification for war (removal of ruthless killer Saddam) when asked why they went to war instead of admitting, as his own statements suggest, that they went to war on misinformation of a threat that didn't exist. There are any number of ruthless dictators that America is in bed with so it's obvious we never went their to remove Saddam for that reason. It would be easier for us to 'bring Democracy' to our 'friends' in Egypt than it is to our foes in Iraq. Wonder why we didn't chose to try our expirement in Iraq first.

Clearly, O'reilly was the more versed of the two in debating. Moore seemed ill prepared to answer directly and was easily flustered by O'reilly's quick spats (even though O'Reily wasn't saying much).

O'rielly again sidelined Moore by trying to draw parallels to Hitler's Germany and Iraq when there is no comparison there. Iraq is not a world power for one thing the way Germany was. Iraq does not have a sophisticated army (something we knew from the Gulf war). Iraq wasn't conquering powerful nations on a rampage the way Germany was in 1941. Why did O'rielly bring this up? So that Moore would get bogged down in it. Moore wasn't skilled enough to see thru O'reilly's childish comparisons.

Moore won the point about sacrificing for a mistake. At the very least, O'reilly could have said that he himself would sacrifric, AND that he hopes his children would want to do the same, of their own volition, if there was a real threat, although it's not something any parent would wish for their children. We know we won't be seeing his kids anywhere near Iraq nor the children of any of the other Elite's that are so gungho for war themselves.

Based on this interview I'd recommend Moore stick to making films and let the films speak for themselves.

they both got their punches in. They both looks like hard-headed idiots becasue of how they won't budge even an inch in their positions....its pointless to have them debate because both of them won't admit they are wrong.

Moore stood his ground!

yeah, i agree but i think he has blinders on