O'Riely On Letterman

[flames_1987]

Not sure if anybody caught that tonight but holy crap was it ever funny. Especially for a serious O'Riely hater like myself. Dave's best line during the show, "I can't fight you point for point with stats but I have a good feeling 60% of the things you say are crap"

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by flames_1987

Not sure if anybody caught that tonight but holy crap was it ever funny. Especially for a serious O'Riely hater like myself. Dave's best line during the show, "I can't fight you point for point with stats but I have a good feeling 60% of the things you say are crap"

I saw it, it was quite funny. Bill was going on about people not saying "Merry Christmas" but "Happy Holidays" instead. Aren't there more important issues in the world right now than that?:baby:

[RougeUnderoos]

You can see the entire thing at CBS.com. It is pretty funny. Bill isn't so tough when he's not on home ice.

[Cowperson]

I know O'Reilly has his supporters here, including Bingo, and an audience that faithfully tunes him in nightly and I'll concede he actually occasionally blurts out things I agree with . . . . .but generally I'm just shaking my head most of the time on the occasions I catch him.

The Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) versus John Gibson (FOX) war is pretty funny these days too. Olbermann has got his foot on Gibson's throat after naming Gibson "Today's Worst Person In The World" after Gibson was caught on radio saying people who didn't worship the "right God" were going to hell. Olbermann said Gibson should resign from television forever after Gibson denied even saying it . . . . even though its on tape.

Column wars. Gotta love 'em.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

Good on ole Bill for going out of his comfort zone - he always struck me as the cowardly type that stuck to his own territory and belittled people when they had no recourse since he controlled the arena. I thought Letterman was mostly bang on in his criticisms, especially for an entertainer (not self-appointed expert). Entertaining, but I was hoping for a little more comedy out of Dave.

[Flame On]

I know O'Reilly has his supporters here, including Bingo

Isn't it funny how someone who's opinion is so grounded; IMO, in one forum can be so deluded in another lol It's like Transplant or Snakeeye in the OT threads always wind me right up (in a good debatie kind of way) but in the hockey threads, geniuses! lol to all of you.

[Bobblehead]

I don't care that people have different positions on issues, that's great. What I hate is when people attempt to use bombast and bully people to their point of view. I saw a 60 Minutes piece on O'Reilly and discovered I agree with many of his points. But I strongly disagree with the way he browbeats his opponents.
I no longer have the link, but there was a page by someone who was asked to be on O'Reilly's radio show to speak about violence in video games. Apparently the guest's mic was turned off a selected moments to make him appear lost and overhwlmed. I have no proof that this is true, but after listening to him a few times it wouldn't surprise me.

He and the Limbaughs of the world have their audiences.

[mykalberta]

Letterman plays to his audience (left of centre young/demos)

Bill plays to his audience (right of centre older/reps)

You can say whatever you want about Bill, but when he does something he does it full force. IE the woman who claimed whatever against him - he countersued for 50 million the day after. Not many people would do that (right or wrong who knows).

Personally I like watching him because he has an opinion and he wont dilute it for anyone. I like the fact that he went on Letterman - if you are going to walk through shat somewhere, it might as well be in the shat factory.

The one thing I dont like is he seems a bit of a cash whore.

MYK

[Flame On]

I think he's a putz and a loser but I do give him some cred for going on shows like Letterman and the Daily show and taking heat.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

You can say whatever you want about Bill, but when he does something he does it full force. IE the woman who claimed whatever against him - he countersued for 50 million the day after. Not many people would do that (right or wrong who knows).

MYK

Then he paid her off in a private settlement.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/28/lawsuit.oreilly/

And if you want the details, always turn to a scummy newspaper!!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-210221c.html

Cowperson

[calf]

Clip for the lazy: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/

[Igottago]

Man, that O'Riely is such a freakin' turd. Looked like Letterman wanted to clock him at some points there. Wish he would've.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Then he paid her off in a private settlement.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/28/lawsuit.oreilly/

And if you want the details, always turn to a scummy newspaper!!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-210221c.html

Cowperson

Correct, he did counter sue, but you never saw the NY Times or Washington Post write another story about it becuase he would have also sued them for slander.

He was dealing with what I call the "Lance Armstrong" syndrome. Once someone says something - you can never be rid of it. It would be like if I was sitting at a bar watching a flames game with some friends and co-workers and an old gf came up and said "I had an abortion you a$$hole". What could I say or do to counteract that? Nothing - I am helpless - the people who would believe me would do so on anything, and those who done wouldnt.

You will also notice that in the settlement she cant say anything publicly. Most likely what happened is maybe there was some hanky panky - but it was probably legal and legit and before he became uber popular and now that he is she brings up an outlandish story in an attempt to force him to settle because you deal with the lesser of two evils.

Think if someone were to go to say the Mayor of Calgary and say he abused some chick when he was 30 - what would he do, he would settle thats what - no matter whether its true or not cause in the world of whorish lawyers thats what you need to do.

The fact that there was a settlement only proves that what he did wasnt illegal - probably wrong but not illegal. If you didnt have such a dislike for the political right then common sense would seem to indicate the above. Do you really thing the chick would have settled had she had a legit case? Please!

MYK

[Flame On]

As the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Or, sometimes where there's smoke there's fire.
Or, If you didn't have such a dislike for the political right then common sense would seem to indicate the above. If you weren't so having a love-in with the right you'd see that it's possible it did happen as she said it. But doesn't have the celebrity wealth to out last him with lawyers and suits, could be was his tactic all along with counter suing. I don't know, nor do you.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

You will also notice that in the settlement she cant say anything publicly. Most likely what happened is maybe there was some hanky panky - but it was probably legal and legit and before he became uber popular and now that he is she brings up an outlandish story in an attempt to force him to settle because you deal with the lesser of two evils.

Think if someone were to go to say the Mayor of Calgary and say he abused some chick when he was 30 - what would he do, he would settle thats what - no matter whether its true or not cause in the world of whorish lawyers thats what you need to do.

Damn right she had a legit case. This happened while she was WORKING FOR WITH BILL For the O'Reilly factor. She had tapes of the incident.

Could you imagine if "You are so ######ing hot" were the words coming from Bill O'Reilly's mouth? (and not that dude from ET) He would have been destoryed, because he has taken that position of being moral, being very critical of other peoples actions when he infact was doing the same thing.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Correct, he did counter sue, but you never saw the NY Times or Washington Post write another story about it becuase he would have also sued them for slander.MYK

Not sure what you're trying to say.

If the Washington Post and New York Times were out to "get" Bill O'Reilly, as he frequently claims without much evidence, then they probably would have been all over it.

Instead, Andrea Mackris settled under an agreed-upon gag order and, with neither side saying anything else, the story logically died.

The final story on the subject in the Washington Post pretty much goes into every orifice for both sides and appears "fair and balanced."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct28.html

O'Reilly was obviously soundly trounced and FOX obviously surrendered millions to buy their star out of trouble. The fact the settlement asked for the "destruction of phone tapes, if they exist" tells an interesting tale.

Instead of asking why Mackris settled for millions, you might ask why the millionaires offered millions to settle a matter of sacred principle.

If there's one bombastic bullying guy in the world where this would probably be true, its Bill O'Reilly.

Do you really thing the chick would have settled had she had a legit case? Please!

Uh, yes. People do it all the time. The courts prefer it actually.

Cowperson

[Shin Pad]

Watching the Factor the day after O'Reilly's Letterman appearance, you would think that he won the debate with Letterman. I regularly watch the Factor, and as with anything, sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. He makes way too much out of the Christmas thing. He always goes out of the way to mention that he is "fair and balanced" (as all fox news personel do). If he was so "fair and balanced", he wouldn't need to mention it 10 times a program. He can say "the spin stops here" all he wants - he is one of the biggest spin doctors on TV these days. I'll give him credit for telling it like he sees it, but, sometimes he's hard to take - especially on his condesending views of Canada.

As for the sex scandal, I could see it being true - he is one of those guys that just doesn't seem to take no for an answer.