It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Opinions on Moore vs O'Reilly

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 07:51 PM
I wanted to know peoples thoughts on the Moore/ O'Reilly interview. I heard alot of people saying that Moore was going to destroy O'Reilly and thats just not what I saw. Other people claimed the interview would be edited in a way that would make O'Reilly look good but this just was not true, One of the conditions that Moore wanted to do the interview in the first place was that the interview not be edited.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 07:56 PM
I tried to check it out around 8 but just saw Bill giving Ben Affleck a fluffer.

Went back to Ted Kennedy's speech. Better TV.

I saw the lame Bill O interview with Moore a few years ago and figured this would suck too.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:02 PM
Ben Affleck a fluffer
I thought the interview with Affleck was pretty good, He surprized me on just how smart he was I always thought of him as a airhead pretty boy. I think I would rather vote for Affleck right now then either of those Skull and Boners Bush and Kerry.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:06 PM
just watched it...

one item of o'reilly's, where he either twisted the truth or else he was just ignorant of the facts-

the cia DID NOT give dubya the wmd intel that was the basis for the "imminent threat", the cia tried to DISCOURAGE dubya and his cast of war criminals from using the intel that they spoon-fed to the american public-

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:07 PM
Well, what little I saw was not impressive. Two blowhards, in my opinion. Went back to watching my video.
I remember when the alternatives to summer tv during election years was playing cards.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:09 PM
I thought the debate was actually pretty 50/50, but I think Moore had the upper hand throughout it. O'Rielly NOT saying he would send his child to Iraq to fight lost him some of the arguments, as he is quite pro-War.

I expected Moore to tear him a new one, but I think both of them kept it pretty simple. It was nice to see though, no doubt about that!

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:10 PM
Moore did not do well in that interview.
He kept repeating the same things over and over.
There's so much more he could have talked about.
So many more issues he could have brought up.

[edit on 27-7-2004 by AceOfBase]

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:10 PM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Ben Affleck a fluffer
I thought the interview with Affleck was pretty good, He surprized me on just how smart he was I always thought of him as a airhead pretty boy. I think I would rather vote for Affleck right now then either of those Skull and Boners Bush and Kerry.

I have to agree with you - I would also rather vote for Ben Affleck rather than either of the main candidates. Ofcourse I would also consider marrying Ben Affleck, but thats another discussion.

As for the Moore/O'Reiley debate - two egocentric people both trying to force their point of view. No winners just voices.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:14 PM
It was interesting. I am sick of hearing Moore use the "would you send your child." The very question is un-American. It is a choice made by individuals to join the military, not your parents. There really wasn't much to the interview except did Bush lie and would you send your child. I think its pretty much like they agreed on, they both have their views and I think that is how it is for everyone. I do not see this interview doing anything to alter anyones opinions. Like the poster above stated about the Afflek interview, it was pretty good. He gained tremendous respect from me. The only way I could possibly consider going back to the democratic party for this election is if they would stop the hate Bush rhetoric and get over their loss in the 2000 election. I hated when Gore lost, but Bush gained my respect after 9/11. Kerry has done nothing to convince me to come back and vote for him. If only Bill could have ran again, then it would be a difficult decision. Heck, even if Hillary would run I would have a hard time deciding.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:19 PM
A big strike against Moore was how he kept pushing the "sending your child to war" point. All the soldiers fighting in Iraq are adults; yes, they have parents, but so does O'Reilly. Parents cannot decide for their children whether or not they should go to war. Absent of a draft, that is a personal choice. You sign up for the military, you go and fight when and where the government tells you to.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:23 PM
I loved it. O'Reilly owned Moore in that. O'Reilly is very good at debating, and Moore could'nt handle it.

Moore kept retreating to old subjects that they coverd and was backtracking and sidewinding throughout the whole debate. And the Hitler thing was just hilllarious. The whole thing was funny actually, was grade A comedy. O'Reilly knew what he was talking about, Moore had no clue. Those who said Moore would win were dead wrong.

And for the record O'Reilly has a young son under 4, and two daughters. No parent could say they would send a child they only had for 4 years.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by PurdueNuc
A big strike against Moore was how he kept pushing the "sending your child to war" point. All the soldiers fighting in Iraq are adults; yes, they have parents, but so does O'Reilly. Parents cannot decide for their children whether or not they should go to war. Absent of a draft, that is a personal choice. You sign up for the military, you go and fight when and where the government tells you to.

Exactly. This isn't Abraham sacrificing Isaac.

I guess Boilermakers do have some brain cells after all

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:36 PM
I think Moore had every right to ask O'Rielly if he "would send his kid to Iraq". Since both Moore and O'Rielly realize that one cannot forcefully send their child to war, it was more of a personal question. What Moore should have asked was "would you like your child to die in Iraq for the War?" Both are legitimate questions, but I think Moore should have stated his question differently.

I still think Moore had the upper hand on O'Rielly!

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:39 PM
Actually I thought Ben Affleck did better than Moore did. I think Affleck surprised him a little. Notice Bill hit them both with the Putin, Blair, CIA-told-him-so-he-didn't-lie question, which I think is very valid by the way.

I think Bill won that one, but I think Moore presented himself ok. He gets a few respect points in my book but I still don't agree with his views at all. I also think a few of his analogies (too many analogies overall) backfired on him somewhat. Bill is hard to bog down in theoreticals like that because he can justifiably say, hey, we're getting away from the question and make it look like Moore didn't really answer. Bill answered about every question he was asked including the "child to war" question pretty quickly with the correct answer and only real answer.

Kudos to both for remaining remarkably civil, though.

Hey! Time for SG: Atlantis now!

[edit on 27-7-2004 by Ambient Sound]

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:48 PM
There was one thing that stuck out my mind. I just saw the beginning of the interview, but O' Reilly claimed that Russian intelligence said they WMDs. The Russians said that statement a few months ago when everyone was crying that there were no wmds to be found. Then Russia tried to say that they told this to Bush way back in 2002 or 2003 at the G8 summit except there is no transcription of that conversation. I think the whole Russian thing was totally BS.

Moore didn't do much research and that showed. O' Reilly did research, but poor at that. Russia's intelligence was NOT used to justify the War in Iraq before we attacked. And if I'm wrong, then someone please point me out to an article before the Iraq war started.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:56 PM
Most of the time I judge things not only for what is said, but also what isnt. Where was the beef? WHERE WAS THE BEEF?

It was a wast of time, and the only thing gained was that O Reilly let everyone see how he tries to manipulate people..........

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 09:00 PM
Here's something about Russia and their statement about WMDs that O'Reilly was using:

Too bad Moore is a broken record...

O' Reilly always tries to get the last jab in and then change the subject. It's ridiculous. He'll say some smart-ass comment or rhetorical question to make you look like a joke and then change the subject entirely. I understand why people put up with it. I'd be like, no, we are staying right here on what you said or you can quote "SHove it" (then I'd promptly walk off stage and let him say another smart ass remark behind my back)

lol, anyway...

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 09:22 PM
Here is the transcript of the interview
if anyone is interested.. I was going to just Link it..But, I'm afraid
the link will go bad, fast.. It's already been removed from Drudges Frontpage.

Mike vs Bill

Tue Jul 27 2004 16:51:50 ET

FOX NEWS is planning to air a redhot interview between Bill O'Reilly and boxoffice sensation Michael Moore on Tuesday.

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained an embargoed transcript of the session:

Moore: That’s fair, we’ll just stick to the issues

O’Reilly: The issues… alright good, now, one of the issues is you because you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the senate intelligence committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain, and now the 911 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Gladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?

M: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.

O: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that’s not a lie.

M: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…

O: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth

M: Well, I’d have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasn’t true… actually it’s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a –

O: Ok, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president –

M: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie

O: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine –

M: But that was your question –

O: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, US intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, “he lied.” This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious –

M: Well, that’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test –

O: Alright, now you’re dancing around a question –

M: No I’m not, there’s no dancing

O: He didn’t lie

M: He said something that wasn’t true

O: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources

M: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody

O: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too

M: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”

O: You’re diverting the issue…did you read Woodward’s book?

M: No, I haven’t read his book.

O: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?

M: I know who he is.

O: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, “slam dunk” if you’re the president, you ignore all that?

M: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.

M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th

O: Nobody disputes that

M: Ok, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.

O: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why. You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

M: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don’t know a worse –

O: It wasn’t a lie

M: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O: I call that bad information, acting on bad information – not a lie

M: A seven year old can get away with that –

O: Alright, your turn to ask me a question—

M: ‘Mom and Dad it was just bad information’—

O: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie, go ahead

M: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question


M: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?

O: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.

M: And, but what were they killed for?

O: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people

M: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator

O: Well we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction

M: But that was the reason

O: The weapons of mass destruction

M: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat

O: That’s right

M: And there was no threat, was there?

O: It was a mistake

M: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.” I don’t think that is good enough.

O: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents

M: So we agree on that

O: but that is the historical nature of what happened

M: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?

O: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional

M: No, not intentional, it was a mistake

O: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that

M: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead

O: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that

M: So that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake – how would you feel towards me

O: Ok, now we are wandering

M: No, but my point is –

O: I saw what your point is and I answered your question

M: But why? What did they die for?

O: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people –

M: No, that was not the reason –

O: That’s what they died for

M: -they were given –

O: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake

M: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world –

O: Alright, I’ve got anther question—

M: Would you sacrifice—just finish on this. Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?

O: Depends what the circumstances were.

M: You would sacrifice your child?

O: I would sacrifice myself—I’m not talking for any children—to remove the Taliban. Would you?

M: Uh huh.

O: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.

O: Al Qeada was given refuge by the Taliban.

M: But we didn’t go after them—did we?

O: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qeada.

M: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.

O: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan—you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?

M: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.

O: How?

M: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Osama was—

O: Why was that?

M: That’s my question.

O: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.

M: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two month head start.

O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?

M: No, unless it is a threat to us.

O: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long—you would have let him go?

M: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.

O: Before—from 33-until 41 he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.

M: There’s a lot of things we should have done.

O: You wouldn’t have removed him.

M: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.

O: That was a preemption from Michael Moore—you would have invaded.

M: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I’m trying to stop this war right now.

O: I know you are but—

M: Are you against that? Stopping this war?

O: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to—

M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O: I would sacrifice myself—

M: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—

O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

M: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’

O: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous

M: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

O: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism—I know that escapes you—

M: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?

O: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.

M: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?

O: Iraq aided terrorist—don’t you know anything about any of that?

M: So you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?

O: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.

M: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.

O: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.

M: Now come on.

O: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.

M: How do you know that?

O: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there.

M: How do you know that?

O: You wouldn’t have removed him.

M: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted---

O: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.

M: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.

O: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.

M: The people rose up.

O: why? Because they went bankrupt.

M: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up—

O: Alright alright.

M:--that’s how you, let me ask you this question.

O: One more.

M: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.

O: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam—

M: Why didn’t they rise up?

O: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off—

M: well that’s true in many countries throughout the world__

O: It is, it’s a shame—

M:--and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways—

O: I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright—and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?

M: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?

O: I would.

M: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?

O: That’s right.

M: Where’s the recruiter?

O: You’d love to get rid of me.

M: No I don’t want—I want you to live. I want you to live.

O: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is…


posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 09:24 PM
I think Moore has a good point.

Unfortunately, he was wearing that green hat so no one could see it.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Jazzerman
it was more of a personal question. What Moore should have asked was "would you like your child to die in Iraq for the War?"

How about this? Would you like it if your your son pushed his little daughter out of the way of a speeding train and got killed by it in the process?

<<   2 >>

log in