Moore Vs. O'reilley Transcript

killswitch · July 2004

<div class="IPBDescription">At the DNC</div> The drudge report has a small conversation between Moore and O'Reilly. It was really interesting actually, mostly because neither party could cherry pick quotes and distort them by editing.

Moore kept trying to get O'Reilly to sacrifice his kid of Iraqis, while O'Reilly said that it wasn't his place to do that, but that he would sacrifice himself.
O'Reilly kept trying to convince Moore that Bush didn't lie, because Bush was misinformed about the WMDs.

I just realized I didn't post the link, argh! <a href='http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm' target='_blank'>Here</a> it is.

What I thought was most interesting was about overthrowing ruthless dictators. Moore says it's best to just let the people rise up by themselves and overthrow dictators, like the US and South Africa. I could not see this happening in places like North Korea. The Kurds that rebelled against Saddam were forced to lie down and paved over with asphalt. Even if these countries did overthrow the government it might just be replaced with an even worse maniac.

GunFodder · July 2004

I think that the World has the responibility to pressure and overthrow dictators and human rights abusers to free the populance. This should be the UN's responsability, along with peacekeeping missions, however the UN is horrendously ineffective and corrupt in its current state.

It's a shame that the US was forced to act "unilaterally" in Iraq (even though the UK, Australia, Poland, Italy, Spain, and Turkey and others aided us with troops or with territory leins), but the UN and many of it's more influencal member nations had some real shady agreements with Sadaam.

I love how Moore calls the US a dictatorship. **** that fat piece of ****; I have no love for Bush, but this is one of a handful of nations in which someone could release a movie like F9/11 let alone profit from it. I'd like to see him do the same thing back in Sadaam's Iraq, or Iran, N. Korea, the Sudan, etc., etc., etc. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' />

taboofires · July 2004

Well, you can't exactly call the current US government a democracy either, even a representative one. I don't think I need to repeat the details of the last presidential election, but the degree of rigging only differs from Saddam's by degree.

Zel · July 2004

<span style='color:white'>Read what the rules have to say about citing other people's newssources, please.</span>

ThE_HeRo · July 2004

<span style='color:white'>Stay on topic. In this case, that's beither Moore nor o'Reilly, but a very specific discussion between the two. Also, pictures are generally frowned upon in Disc., especially if they are labelled 'crybaby.jpg'</span>

killswitch · July 2004

<span style='color:white'>Related post nuked.</span>

Handman · July 2004

I sat down and watched the interview. If all of O'reilly's intreviews were like that, I might actually watch his show more often. I was waiting for one of them to jump over the table and start strangling the other; but alas, I was disappointed.

<span style='color:white'>Related post nuked.</span>

Rob · July 2004

The key difference between the US revolution and Iraq is that we were a WOLRD removed from the Brits. It's hard to organize a revolt when you're not sure if you're father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, etc are spies for the government who is all around you.

illuminex · July 2004

I was quite disappointed with O'Reilly, actually. Moore was acting like somehow it would have been Bill's decision whether or not his child died, which is clearly false. There has been no draft for any of the military action. If you sign up for the military, you KNOW that you're possibly going to face death. Isn't that part of the military's appeal?

They both had a clear agenda that they were unwilling to part from, which helped make it strikingly clear the differences between the two sides.

It's also clear that Moore did not bother to read the dictionary definition of "lie," and I'll post it here for everyone to see:

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

As O'Reilly pointed out several times, there must be intent. Moore never bothered to refute that point, instead sticking with the idea that Bush led the United States to "war" (and it wasn't even a real war; if you want one of those, go back in time to Vietnam or Korea).

Now, onto Moore's other point, about the "people" overthrowing dictators. Not happening in reality, especially in the last century. The Soviet Union collapsed because of the arms race that it could not support. The people did not "rise up." The uprisings that occured in the 1980's in the U.S.S.R. were quelled with extreme prejudice so quickly that they did absolutely nothing to motivate any other "revolutions."

I actually find some humor in Moore talking about the people in Iraq "rising up," because the Kurds tried that several times and they were shut down with mustard gas and sarin carrying Saddam's heavy fist to their brows.

It is pretty easy to conclude that Moore is either very uninformed or choosing to simply not believe that reality happened the way it did.

And of course, it's easy to conclude that O'Reilly had no idea how to really respond to Moore's "major question," which makes me quite disappointed in him.

Thansal · July 2004

I read the first few lines and I jsut can't stand to read any more.

Moore is making my side look stupid again.

O: He didn't lie and here is why: ********
M: Yes he did, because I can twist words how I want.
Repeat.

Moore just makes himself look stupid.

tried reading more... just made me want to beat in Moore's head.

What I would like to see is what would happen if each one of those lines was a Post in thie discussion forum.

Howmany would be nuked, how many 'relevant post deleated', and who ends up getting a nice shiney 'restricted member' title?

Forlorn · July 2004

wow moore got owned.

Lets see, the strongest point Moore makes is this:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Would you sacrifice—just finish on this. Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Which is a tough statement to answer, but even still, Moore is not being very fair here.

The fact is, "Parents" do not decide if their children join the military. Children are 18 year olds who may be young, but are perfectly legal to make major decisions for themselves, no matter how painful it may be for the parent.

So obviously, no parent would allow their child to be 'sacrificed', however it is not the parents choice.

Just as O'Reilley says he would sacrifice himself, that is the only fair choice he can really make.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And of course, it's easy to conclude that O'Reilly had no idea how to really respond to Moore's "major question," which makes me quite disappointed in him.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So really, O'Reilley responded perfectly the question. Just because he does not point out the obvious (you cannot control your children like Saddam controls his population), he still responds with that which is true; you control yourself.

Also I find it funny how these two focus on the issue of children when neither have children. Perhaps that is why they were unable to answer the question very well, or O'Reilley was wise enough to stick to simple statements to avoid making himself look the fool.

DrSuredeath · July 2004

Both of them suck. I watched the 'debate'

O'Reilly's ego is still there. He wouldn't let Moore complete his sentence. He avoided Moore's questions.

Vice Versa, Moore couldn't admit he's wrong sometime.

They both performed incredibly bad.

Moore Vs. O'reilley Transcript

Comments