# Late Show 1/3 Bill O'Reilly



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

I have one Tivo and two Replay TVs. I watch Leno first, then Letterman. After watching Letterman stand his ground against Bill O'Reilly, I got a lot more respect for Letterman. It will now be Letterman first, then Leno.


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

I have more respect for both of them now. I'm no big fan of either guy, but I liked to see this side of Lettermen (he had a good grasp on what he was talking about) and a the more calm side of O'Reilly (he also had a good grasp of what he was talking about). I thought Letterman was a little...brash...with O'Reilly, but it was an interesting change from his usual form.

On a side note, how's Pennsville? Alloway/Woodstown native here, and I was active with those ambulance squads in the likely event you know someone.


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

RegBarc said:


> I thought Letterman was a little...brash...with O'Reilly, but it was an interesting change from his usual form.


I think it was high time someone told O'Reilly "60% of what you say is just crap!"

The kitty and 9-1-1 was very amusing


----------



## barrettd (Jun 14, 2003)

I didn't think Letterman had a good grasp on anything, including his own anger. He basically dismissed O'Reilly and then admitted he had no idea what he was talking about because he's never seen his show. I like Letterman and all, but he really let his emotions get the best of him.


----------



## Michelle5150 (Nov 16, 2004)

I was taken aback a bit by it. I'm no O'Reilly fan, and I love Letterman, but Dave seemed ready for something before O'Reilly even came out (_witness him swirling his pencil in O'Reilly's cup before he walked out_). But O'Reilly had an agenda to stir up trouble before he came out too. He was looking for a fight. Makes me wonder if something didn't happen backstage pre-show.

Dave was a little out of character last night. I think he could have made better arguments, he's a smart guy, but he seemed to let O'Reilly get to him too much and it knocked him off his game a bit.

But the end was priceless: "_It's always a pleasure Bill_".


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Not to get political here (hard not to with this subject!) but I don't understand Letterman's apparent stance that you have to agree with everything Cindy Sheehan says or you aren't showing her any compassion. Those are two very different things.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

...and, of course, Letterman leveling accusations that 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, then admitting he doesn't watch O'Reilly.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Bierboy said:


> ...and, of course, Letterman leveling accusations that 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, then admitting he doesn't watch O'Reilly.


I don't watch O'Reilly's show but I still know that almost everything he says is crap. I've seen his comments in clips on other shows, and I've also seen him on numerous occasions on other talk shows, and 90% of what he says on all of those occasions is complete crap. For example, all that crap about the school changing the lyrics to "Silent Night" is total and complete crap. But he gets away with it because nobody bothers to challenge him most of the time. I applaud Dave for at least calling him on the fact that he's full of crap.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Bierboy said:


> ...and, of course, Letterman leveling accusations that 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, then admitting he doesn't watch O'Reilly.


Perhaps Letterman was talking about the accusations right there on his show? For instance, that Red/Green ban story is complete crap but O'Lielly repeated it anyway. Then he talked about "M One Six in Britain." M 1 6???? Did he actually prepare to say that?

IMHO 60% is a rather generous number.


----------



## Clarkey (Dec 29, 2004)

So let me get this straight, Howard Stern and Bill O'Reilly got along during their interview recently on FOX, while David Letterman and Bill O'Riley didn't on The Late Show on CBS? I would have thought it would have been the other way around, "chachkies" aside. (I've viewed these segments and I'm both surprised and entertained at the same time.)


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

Michelle5150 said:


> I was taken aback a bit by it. I'm no O'Reilly fan, and I love Letterman, but Dave seemed ready for something before O'Reilly even came out (_witness him swirling his pencil in O'Reilly's cup before he walked out_). But O'Reilly had an agenda to stir up trouble before he came out too. He was looking for a fight. Makes me wonder if something didn't happen backstage pre-show.
> 
> But the end was priceless: "_It's always a pleasure Bill_".


The very end of the show where he thanked *some* of the guests was even more priceless.

(1) The "crap" comment, in Quicktime

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cbs_letterman_oreilly_060103a.mov

(2) Some seem to think this this is a reaction to one of O'Reilly's previous appearances on the Late Show, where he lied to Letterman's face about "Outfoxed."

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/10/bill_oreilly_on_letterman_video.php


----------



## nedthelab (Oct 4, 2002)

I watch the daily show every night and have seen John tear a new one on many guests he finds reprehensible, plus his stunt on Crossfire. But the two times Bill O has been on, John seem to kiss his A$$ and cower into the corner sucking his thumb. If any one could put bill in his place - which is a iron maiden - it should be John Stewart - IMHO


----------



## barrettd (Jun 14, 2003)

Magnolia88 said:


> I don't watch O'Reilly's show but I still know that almost everything he says is crap. I've seen his comments in clips on other shows, and I've also seen him on numerous occasions on other talk shows, and 90% of what he says on all of those occasions is complete crap.


And I'm sure that none of these "clips" you've seen were taken out of context or anything...Mind you, I'm not an O'Reilly fan, but at least Dave could have answered Bill's arguments instead of going, "Well, why are we in Iraq," or "Cindy Sheehan blah blah blah". Dave started the argument but then changed subjects when Bill answered his accusations.


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

well no matter what you think of either of them - it was great TV. I greatly dislike O'Reilly but he certainly got the better of that exchange.


----------



## iceturkee (May 26, 2005)

actually, i don't think o'reilly got the best of the exchange. even when he called letterman out on the 60 percent crap thing, i knew he would respond with the you can't believe everything you read in the media. i don't think he had a solid argument to back him up.

one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.

when dave asked him if he had a child who had been killed in war and o'reilly responded no, it drove the anger in me. ask yourselves, of all the members of congress who voted for this war, would send their child? that should tell you how two-faced most of these politicos (including our president) are.

btw, i am a veteran, which should explain most of my anger on this subject.


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

barrettd said:


> And I'm sure that none of these "clips" you've seen were taken out of context or anything...Mind you, I'm not an O'Reilly fan, but at least Dave could have answered Bill's arguments instead of going, "Well, why are we in Iraq," or "Cindy Sheehan blah blah blah". Dave started the argument but then changed subjects when Bill answered his accusations.


How many times must you say you're not an O'Reilly fan for you to believe it? I don't.


----------



## rizzlebizzle (Oct 14, 2005)

Magnolia88 said:


> I don't watch O'Reilly's show but I still know that almost everything he says is crap.


Sound logic...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I lean left on my politcal views, but to me, guys like O'Reilly and Stern (on the other extreme), are entertainers. They say outrageous things to get a reaction, to publicity. Heck, we are all talking about it here. That's his shtick. He throws things out there and it gets us to discuss. Of course most of what he says is crap, same with Stern or anyone else, including most of our politiicans out there. What annoys me more than what they say, is the reaction by "activists" on both sides of the fence who take what they say as the "gospel truth" and spin it to better their political views. I didn't see the Letterman show, but THAT is the tact i would take with O'Reilly. I would say, "Bill how much of this crap do you say for publicity? How much of it do you say just to get the extreme right riled up?"


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I didn't see the Letterman show, but THAT is the tact i would take with O'Reilly. I would say, "Bill how much of this crap do you say for publicity? How much of it do you say just to get the extreme right riled up?"


I finally watched it, and that is about what Dave did. Bill may or may not be correct on the subject matter, but I do not believe Dave came back with a single response or counter-argument. All he did was sit back and come up with meaningless quips like "I don't believe you," "That is 60% crap," etc. No substance at all.

That, and the responses you propose, play well with people who don't actually know, or want to know, the real facts and only want to see a good spat.

The tactic I would use is actually learning the issue and facts, and challenging the other person on that basis.


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

iceturkee said:


> actually, i don't think o'reilly got the best of the exchange. even when he called letterman out on the 60 percent crap thing, i knew he would respond with the you can't believe everything you read in the media. i don't think he had a solid argument to back him up.
> 
> one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.
> 
> ...


Well _I_ do think most of what O'Reilly says is crap. But Letterman said that and O'Reilly basically asked what he meant and to which Letterman basically says that is what I heard, but I don't watch your show...so I dunno. Advantage O'Reilly there. Then Letterman basically accuses O'Reilly of being heartless and cruel for not sympathizing with Sheehan (which is a totally lame arguement... of course everyone sympathizes with a parent who loses a child, but that doesn't give carte blanche on what they say).


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

loubob57 said:


> Not to get political here (hard not to with this subject!) but I don't understand Letterman's apparent stance that you have to agree with everything Cindy Sheehan says or you aren't showing her any compassion. Those are two very different things.


Me too!

I'm NO FAN WHATSOEVER of O'Reilly, but Dave seemed to be saying that it's appropriate to call terrorists who target civilians and go for maximum body counts "freedom fighters", as Sheehan does. We also all know that these "freedom fighters" would set up a Tahalaban-like uber-oppressive regime if they ever were to gain power.

One of O'Reilly's few comments that elicited applause from Dave's audience was that he would never allow such murderers to be called "freedom fighters" on his show.

Feeling Cindy Sheehan's pain and agreeing with her ultra-ultra-mega-uber-super liberal agenda are two completely different things.

There are plenty of other parents who have tragically lost children to the Iraq war who's political opinions run the full spectrum of those of the US population in general. Grieving for a loved one lost in Iraq would appear to have no correlation to one's political views on the subject of the war.

I do however agree that about 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap!


----------



## barrettd (Jun 14, 2003)

iceturkee said:


> one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.
> 
> when dave asked him if he had a child who had been killed in war and o'reilly responded no, it drove the anger in me. ask yourselves, of all the members of congress who voted for this war, would send their child? that should tell you how two-faced most of these politicos (including our president) are.
> 
> btw, i am a veteran, which should explain most of my anger on this subject.


The problem with that argument is that we have a volunteer military, which means it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to enlist. Parents don't "send their child" to the military.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

iceturkee said:


> actually, i don't think o'reilly got the best of the exchange. even when he called letterman out on the 60 percent crap thing, i knew he would respond with the you can't believe everything you read in the media. i don't think he had a solid argument to back him up.


Letterman had nothing but meaningless, non-factual comebacks. He didn't even try. Is that what you look for in a debate?



> one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.
> 
> ... when dave asked him if he had a child who had been killed in war and o'reilly responded no, it drove the anger in me. ask yourselves, of all the members of congress who voted for this war, would send their child? that should tell you how two-faced most of these politicos (including our president) are.


That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. At what point in the history of this country were members of Congress (or any branch, for that matter) restricted to acting on matters that only affect their family? How do you think that form of government would turn out?

For someone who claims to have served, you fall for the ridiculous lines normally reserved for people who don't have a clue. Those are the lines reserved for people who have much more emotion that common sense.

Let us know, as a former soldier, how you'd feel if the country were attacked and the only people who could vote on the war were families of killed soldiers. Yeah... great common sense and grasp of government and history.


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

You missed his point and I'm sure it was because you wanted to. Keep drinking that Kool Aide.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

stujac said:


> How many times must you say you're not an O'Reilly fan for you to believe it? I don't.





stujac said:


> You missed his point and I'm sure it was because you wanted to. Keep drinking that Kool Aide.


Did someone mention meaningless, non-factual comebacks? Great examples of Dave-type lines on the show. Thanks


----------



## DrC4 (Jul 5, 2005)

iceturkee said:


> when dave asked him if he had a child who had been killed in war and o'reilly responded no, it drove the anger in me.


Actually, it went this way:

Dave: "Do you have children?"

Bill "Yes I do. I have a son the same age as yours."

Just needed to get that clarified

BTW, Got that from the clip off the link above.


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

iceturkee said:


> one of the things i love best about farenheidt (spelling) 911 is when mike moore and the mother of a soldier killed in iraq are walking around the capitol, asking congressmen with children old enough to enlist, would they allow their children to go to this war. of course, they all respond hell no.
> 
> btw, i am a veteran, which should explain most of my anger on this subject.


You should be careful of the "facts" you take away from Farenheit 911. There aren't very many accurate "facts" in it. 59 deceipts in Farenheit 911 


> Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."
> 
> Moores second statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to "sacrifice" his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty in the Judge Advocate General Corps; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to have children in the military.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

Hansky said:


> The tactic I would use is actually learning the issue and facts, and challenging the other person on that basis.


Hopefully Letterman's agent will suggest this change of career path to him. With Nightline gone (replaced by Nightline Light), I can see Letterman reinventing himself as you suggest and establshing the Tonight show as Koppel's real.successor.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

Michelle5150 said:


> Dave was a little out of character last night.


Actually, that combativeness was far more in his character back in the old NBC days. He was much more irascible back then and willing to mix it up with his guests. Now he has to compete with ass kiss Leno and can't afford to piss guests off lest they refuse to come back again.

I agree with most of the posters that he stumbled in his debate with O'Reily (who, whatever you think about his politics, is a very good rhetorician), but look at buzz surrounding this. That was Old School Letterman! And despite stumbling through his arguments, I prefer that Letterman to the one who fawned all over Oprah. I hope he challenges more of his guests like he used to.


----------



## lajohn27 (Dec 29, 2003)

I think Letterman was on point with his Christmas arguments. This are really isolated incidents. And in the case of the Silent Night story - flat out wrong .. the song was changed as part of a Christmas play written in 1988 by the choirmaster at Ronald Reagan's church.. They were performing that play at that school. I doubt that Reagan's choirmaster is against Christmas or part of the Christmas-Jihad.

To take Sheehan's comment about freedom fighters out of context is absurd. She doesn't praise them. Quite the opposite. I've read the quote, I'd really like to hear it. Because I can almost hear sarcastic quotes around the words 'freedom fighters' when you read the rest of the paragraph.

And regardless.. she may just be referring to them as they refer to themselves. Freedom really is a matter of perspective. I don't agree that they're freedom fighters, but I assure you that they believe they are.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

barrettd said:


> The problem with that argument is that we have a volunteer military, which means it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to enlist. Parents don't "send their child" to the military.


EXACTLY.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

lajohn27 said:


> ...I don't agree that they're freedom fighters, but I assure you that they believe they are.


..and since I BELIEVE I'm handsome, I guess that means I am?


----------



## barrettd (Jun 14, 2003)

stujac said:


> How many times must you say you're not an O'Reilly fan for you to believe it? I don't.


Well, I said it once, so I guess that would be the number of times? The fact that I think Dave came across poorly doesn't make me an O'Reilly fan.

Keep drinking that Kool Aide.


----------



## Frank_M (Sep 9, 2001)

I do not want to get into a politcal debate here. But the fact is... Dave was great. When he's engaged like that, he's just terrific. He's not trying to get into a political debate, he's just taking his shots and playing with him. I give O'Reilly credit for not getting all worked up.

Basically, Dave put O'Reilly in the Dr. Phil role. And since O'Reilly stayed with him, it made great TV.

But let's face it.... one of the two people in that interview has their 15 minutes just about up at this point. 

And regardless of your political beliefs... that interview was yet another reason why Dave is the man as compared to Leno.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Hansky said:


> Letterman had nothing but meaningless, non-factual comebacks. He didn't even try. Is that what you look for in a debate?


Yeah, it must be annoying for O'Reilly when someone uses his own tactics against him.

I couldn't even watch the thing all the way through.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Hansky said:


> I finally watched it, and that is about what Dave did. Bill may or may not be correct on the subject matter, but I do not believe Dave came back with a single response or counter-argument. All he did was sit back and come up with meaningless quips like "I don't believe you," "That is 60% crap," etc. No substance at all.
> 
> That, and the responses you propose, play well with people who don't actually know, or want to know, the real facts and only want to see a good spat.
> 
> The tactic I would use is actually learning the issue and facts, and challenging the other person on that basis.


The "real facts" as YOU see them or as I see them? I feel I am well versed in current events, but like you I have a point of view and I see "the facts" differently. TO say that I don't want to know the real facts is insulting.

The Letterman show is all about entertainment. It's not about "the facts". It would have been really boring if Letterman agreed with everything he said. He had to get O'Reilly riled up because it made for good entertainment. Those who want the news or politcal talk could go to MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. This wasn't about the news or political talk.

I look at it this way...back in the early 90s to me was the zenith of conservative radio, Rush, O'Reilly, Savage, Bob Grant here in NYC were all at the top of their game. Why? Because the country leaned left, Congress had a Democratic majority, we had a Democratic President, etc. So, the arguments between the conservative talk show hosts and the liberal callers, was great. Even I listened and enjoyed. Now that these guys sit there and spout their agendas, and the majority of their guests and the majority of their callers agree with them, it's boring. I love arguing politics, but how do you argue with someone who agrees with you? It's boring. That's the whole dynamic that Letterman tried to build. That's why Bill Maher's show works, or John Stewart. It's entertaining to argue


----------



## peacefield (Mar 14, 2005)

I'm kind of at a loss as to why talk show hosts like Letterman even have political commentators as guests. If I watch Letterman, I want to be entertained with jokes, etc, not watch a political debate. I guess for some reason I don't really find an exchange between O'Reilly and Letterman amusing. 

Maybe I'm not being clear (I have trouble sometimes articulating what I mean), but if I want to watch a debate or see talking heads go at each other on TV, I'd rather see one that was serious and where experience and backed-up comments prevailed.

Oh, and same goes for plain old celebs that are on a talk show like Letterman's. If you go on a show, don't talk about politics! I hate that. Just talk about what you do best and keep the rest out of it. 

Why can't all talk show hosts be like Carson?!


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> The "real facts" as YOU see them or as I see them? I feel I am well versed in current events, but like you I have a point of view and I see "the facts" differently. TO say that I don't want to know the real facts is insulting.


Try reading again. The comebacks I pointed out are often used by people who have no desire to debate the facts, and are often targets to people who think such comebacks do in fact constitute an actual debate of the facts (whatever they may be). The point is that NO facts are being debated. So, if you want to read what is not there and be insulted, so be it.



> The Letterman show is all about entertainment. It's not about "the facts".


Oh, okay, so at least one person (and quite possibly two) of the participants had no desire to use it as a true discussion of facts. I don't disagree at all, as it is the basis for what I posted above.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

peacefield said:


> I'm kind of at a loss as to why talk show hosts like Letterman even have political commentators as guests. If I watch Letterman, I want to be entertained with jokes, etc, not watch a political debate. I guess for some reason I don't really find an exchange between O'Reilly and Letterman amusing.


When Falafel Bill went on The Daily Show to plug his book, the interview was almost completely devoid of political content. It was a relaxed and groovy segment with some funny jokes (some even from O'Reilly) that almost made one forget that O'Reilly was evil incarnate. 

You probably would have liked that one, peacefield.


----------



## BLeonard (Nov 19, 1999)

I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly in that I don't normally agree with him or watch his show regularly but I guess I am a fan as I make a point of watching a program when he is a guest. I do like to hear him speak and it is always better when it is not on his own show where he is in complete control.

I've always loved Letterman but this one was particularly interesting because it is so unusual to see Dave react to someone in a negative way. I don't think Dave was prepared to "debate" Bill. I just think he wanted to express himself. Too bad Al Franken wasn't on the show that night as well.

I wish he would have said something to President Bush when he was on after they came back from that commercial break where Bush cleaned his glasses on a producers jacket.


----------



## peacefield (Mar 14, 2005)

busyba said:


> When Falafel Bill went on The Daily Show to plug his book, the interview was almost completely devoid of political content. It was a relaxed and groovy segment with some funny jokes (some even from O'Reilly) that almost made one forget that O'Reilly was evil incarnate.
> 
> You probably would have liked that one, peacefield.


Sounds like a blast, busyba!


----------



## iceturkee (May 26, 2005)

first, i'm not a guy. second, and most important.....my point is that i believe most conservative parents, who support the war, would disuade their children from enlisting or going into rotc. if you don't agree, that's your opinion.

obviously, i believe michael moore is brilliant and doing a yeoman's job of uncovering the truth. yes, i'm still basically a liberal democrat in my mid 50's and arn proud of it!!

for the record, i served almost 11 years of active duty, receiving many decorations normally given to serion personnel. my record was unblemished. i would have retired but i fell down two flights of stairs and was medically discharged.


----------



## barrettd (Jun 14, 2003)

I believe most parents, regardless of whether or not they support the war, would try and dissuade their children from enlisting. For the most part, parents don't want their children put in harm's way. Even if they support this war, who knows about the next one?

This is why I have the utmost respect for you and the rest of our men and women who currently serve or have served. The fact that someone volunteers to go and fight for our country is one of the reasons I see ours as the best military in the world.

Even if you think Moore is brilliant... 



iceturkee said:


> first, i'm not a guy. second, and most important.....my point is that i believe most conservative parents, who support the war, would disuade their children from enlisting or going into rotc. if you don't agree, that's your opinion.
> 
> obviously, i believe michael moore is brilliant and doing a yeoman's job of uncovering the truth. yes, i'm still basically a liberal democrat in my mid 50's and arn proud of it!!
> 
> for the record, i served almost 11 years of active duty, receiving many decorations normally given to serion personnel. my record was unblemished. i would have retired but i fell down two flights of stairs and was medically discharged.


----------



## iceturkee (May 26, 2005)

just for clarification, both my parents served in world war 2. when i was getting ready to graduate from college, my mom suggested i look into the military. my initial reaction was why......especially, given my thoughts about vietnam and the va treatment of injured war veterans.

but my mom would never steer me wrong. she thought the discipline the military could give me would be most beneficial. she was correct. i also learned that you can change an institution by working from within it. all my college croonies thought i would never make it out of basic training. not only did i complete my three years but (and i was a journalist), the newspaper i edited and wrote won top honors in department of defense competition. i wrote many controversial stories but i also learned how to become flexible, tactful and diplomatic. i earned a meritorious service medal as an e-4. 

i never regretted the decision.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I could tell where it was going the minute he introduced him. Dave typically walks over to center stage and welcomes the guest and even whispers in their ear. In this case he simply stood up from his chair and waited for Bill to come over and shook his hand. He then immediately asked him about his previous jobs which was to show that he previously did tabloid journalism on Inside Edition.

I have watched Bill a few times and I agree his major purpose is to entertain using political debate as his tool. He knows his market and panders appropriately.

What I wished Dave would have said when Bill brought up how we might hurt the troops feelings is the basic question: Are we no longer allowed to debate public policy?

Yet the republicans constantly bring up the troops as a way of staying the course. Its like telling stockholders we shouldnt change anything even though were loosing lots of money because it will hurt the employees feelings and maybe/maybe someday years from now things could be better.


----------



## Mr. Merkin (May 6, 2005)

Letterman came across as a TOTAL JERK! Since when does he discuss politics with his guests or EVER get confrontational with a guest?? Never!! He's all of a sudden a hard-hitting journalist when he has someone conservative on?? He had no idea what he was talking about, would take shots at O'Reilly and when O'Reilly would respond or refute his points, instead of defending his position, Letterman would change the subject by making stupid jokes for a cheap laugh from the crowd. If you're going to go after someone like that, you have an obligation to at least know what the heck you are talking about, you can't have the luxury of throwing out barbs and then when they are returned just cracking jokes and never explaining or backing up your accusations. I was never a huge fan of Letterman, but I think he is a total jer*off now and will never watch his crappy show. Typical Hollywood liberal nonsense, just make wild accusations without any basis in fact. 

And by the way, Cindy Sheehan is a lunatic and a freak, I don't care what happened to her son, it is no excuse to become a media whore and an antisemite! She is an anti-American nut and has been exploiting her son's death for her own gain, I'll bet he's turning over in his grave as a proud veteran to have her dishonor his memory like that.


----------



## grecorj (Feb 6, 2002)

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/ny-etranscript,0,1822887,print.story

January 4, 2006, 4:55 PM EST

DAVE LETTERMAN, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN": How were your holidays? Good? 
O'REILLY: I had a nice winter solstice, yes. 
LETTERMAN: OK. 
O'REILLY: You can't say Christmas. 
LETTERMAN: You can't say Christmas? Why is that? 
O'REILLY: Because it's politically incorrect. And we did a lot of reporting on this. And that was a big thing that we were doing leading up to the -- while you were in St. Bart's, we were leading up to the Christmas holiday by saying, "Hey, how come we can't say Christmas? 
LETTERMAN: I wasn't aware that you couldn't say "Christmas." When did this happen? 
O'REILLY: Sears-Kmart started it. They said, "No more Christmas. It's all Happy Holidays or Winter Solstice. I actually got a card from a friend of mine that said, "Have a blessed winter." I live in New York. You know what you can do with your blessed winter, you know what I'm talking about it? Are you with me, Dave? 
LETTERMAN: I wasn't aware that this had happened. 
O'REILLY: You weren't aware of the big, giant controversy over Christmas? 
LETTERMAN: Well, I ignore stuff like that. It doesn't really affect me. I go ahead and do what I want to do. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, Happy Hanukkah. 
O'REILLY: Here's why it matters. 
LETTERMAN: Yes. 
O'REILLY: You with me on this? 
LETTERMAN: Yes. 
O'REILLY: OK. Ridgewood Elementary School in Dodgeville, Wisconsin. The song "Silent Night"? "Silent Night," you know? Knocked out the words and told the little kids to sing, "Cold in the night, no one in sight. Winter winds whine and bite. How I wish I was happy and warm, safe with my family out of the storm." They replaced the words to "Silent Night" with that. 
Now, with all due respect, I even think the baby Jesus would say, "Give me a break." You know? You want another one? 
LETTERMAN: No, but what -- I don't -- but what does this prove? It proves that community of... 
O'REILLY: It proves there are pinheads at the Ridgewell Elementary School in Wisconsin. That's what it proves. Here's another one. You want another one, or are you bored with this? 
LETTERMAN: I kind of think we should -- I mean, but isn't this the kind of thing where, like, once or twice every 20 years, somebody gets outraged and says, "Oh my God, we've got to put diapers on horses." 
Isn't it just about -- it's just like so what, let it go, it'll take care of itself. 
O'REILLY: No. There is a movement in this country by politically correct people to erode traditions, and this Christmas tradition in the most cherished in the country. Look, how absurd is it that you can't go into the department store... 
LETTERMAN: I don't feel threatened. 
O'REILLY: No, it's not a matter of feeling threatened. 
LETTERMAN: I don't think this is an actual threat. I think that this is something that happened here, and it happened there, and so people like you are trying to make us think that it's a threat. 
O'REILLY: Wrong. 
LETTERMAN: Because nobody said, "Happy Holidays" to me and then said, "Oh, Merry Christmas. Oh, I can't say Merry Christmas." 
O'REILLY: Well, here's why it gets to be more than that. Because it's in court. There are lawsuits in Plano, Texas, another grammar school. The kids were told not to bring in any Christmas colors like napkins that are red and green. That's in court. That's being litigated. Now you can say, "OK, it's just a little thing. It doesn't affect you." But it isn't. The erosion of the culture and the projection of traditions is important in this country. 
LETTERMAN: Yes, but are we really describing an erosion here? 
(CROSSTALK) 
O'REILLY: I've got a million of them. And they're funny ones. Memphis, Tennessee, bible belt library. They have a little display where you can -- say you are in a duck hunting. You can bring in a dead duck and put it there and advertise your duck hunting club. "We kill ducks. Show up at 9:00, and we'll blow some ducks out of the air." 
OK. There was a church that wanted to advertise a Christmas pageant, so they brought in the manger scene. And the library said, "You can have the manger scene in Memphis, Tennessee, but you can't have the baby Jesus, Joseph or Mary, or the wise men. We're not sure about the shepherds." That was the big debate. Now, how stupid and crazy is this? 
LETTERMAN: I don't believe you. 
O'REILLY: It's true. 
LETTERMAN: I just don't believe you. 
O'REILLY: You think I'm making this up? 
LETTERMAN: I do. I think you're making it up. 
O'REILLY: Then I could write for your show. 
LETTERMAN: Let's talk about your friends in the Bush administration. Things seem to be darker now than they might have been here before. How do things look to you? 
O'REILLY: It's pretty rough, you know. But they're not my friends in the Bush administration. They're not kicking the door down to be on my show. In fact, you have an easier time getting President Bush to come on here than I have of getting him on "The Factor." 
I think that the Iraq thing has been full of unintended consequences and it's a vital thing for the country and it's brutal, it's absolutely brutal. We should all take it very seriously. This simplistic stuff about hating Bush or he lied and all this stuff, does the country no good at all. We've got to win this thing. You have to win it. And even though it's a screw-up, giant, massive, all right, right now, for everybody's protection, it's best for the world to have a democracy in that country functioning and friendly to the West, is it not?
LETTERMAN: Yes, absolutely.
O'REILLY: Okay, so let's stop with the lying and the this and the that and the undermining and let's get him. That is putting us all in danger. So our philosophy is we call it as we see it. Sometimes you agree, some you don't. Robust debate is good. But we believe that the United States, particularly the military, are doing a noble thing, a noble thing. The soldiers and Marines are noble. They're not terrorists. And when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents 'freedom fighters,' we don't like that. It is a vitally important time in American history. And we should all take it very seriously. Be very careful with what we say.
LETTERMAN: Well, and you should be very careful with what you say also. [audience applause]
O'REILLY: Give me an example.
LETTERMAN: How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?
O'REILLY: Because I beleieve she's run by far-left elements in this country. I feel bad for the woman.
LETTERMAN: Have you lost family members in armed conflict?
O'REILLY: No, I have not.
LETTERMAN: Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you? 
O'REILLY: I'm not speaking for her. Let me ask you this question.
alright. This is important. This is important. 
LETTERMAN: Let's go back to your little red and green stories.
O'REILLY: This is important, this is important. Cindy Sheehan lost a son, a professional soldier in Iraq, correct? She has a right to grieve any way she wants, she has a right to say whatever she wants. When she says to the public that the insurgents and terrorists are 'freedom fighters,' how do you think, David Letterman, that makes people who lost loved ones, by these people blowing the Hell out of them, how do you think they feel, what about their feelings, sir?
LETTERMAN: What about, why are we there in the first place? The President himself, less than a month ago said we are there because of a mistake made in intelligence. Well, whose intelligence? It was just somebody just get off a bus and handed it to him?
Bill O'REILLY: No.
LETTERMAN: No, it was the intelligence gathered by his administration."
O'REILLY: By the CIA.
LETTERMAN: Yeah, so why are we there in the first place? I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country. [audience applause] There's no doubt about that. And I also agree that now we're in it it's going to take a long, long time. People who expect it to be solved and wrapped up in a couple of years, unrealistic, it's not going to happen. However, however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of 'Why the Hell are we there to begin with?'
O'REILLY: If you want to question that, and then revamp an intelligence agency that's obviously flawed, the CIA, okay. But remember, MI-6 in Britain said the same thing. Putin's people in Russia said the same thing, and so did Mubarak's intelligence agency in Egypt.
LETTERMAN: Well then that makes it all right?
O'REILLY: No it doesn't make it right.
LETTERMAN: That intelligence agencies across the board makes it alright that we're there?
O'REILLY: It doesn't make it right... mistakes were made. .LETTERMAN: See, I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ. [audience applause]
O'REILLY: No, I'm sorry.
LETTERMAN: Honest to Christ.
O'REILLY: No way. [waits for applause to die down] No way you're going to get me, no way that a terrorist who blows up women and children.
LETTERMAN: Do you have children?
O'REILLY: Yes I do. I have a son the same age as yours. No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a 'freedom fighter' on my program. [audience applause]
LETTERMAN: I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don't know that for a fact. [more audience applause]
Paul Shafer: 60 percent.
LETTERMAN: 60 percent. I'm just spit-balling here.
O'REILLY: Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.
LETTERMAN: Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you're... 
O'REILLY: Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.
LETTERMAN: Yeah, but I think there's something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.
O'REILLY: Well, you have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.
LETTERMAN: Well I don't watch your show so that would be impossible.
O'REILLY: Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?
LETTERMAN: Because of things that I've read, things that I know.
O'REILLY: Oh come on, you're going to take things that you've read -- even with what say about you? Come on. Watch it for a couple, look, watch it for a half hour. You'll get addicted. You'll be a Factor fan, we'll send you a hat.
LETTERMAN: You'll send me a hat. Well, send Cindy Sheehan a hat.
O'REILLY: I'll be happy to. 
LETTERMAN: Bill, it's always a pleasure [audience laughter].

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.


----------



## Kevdog (Apr 18, 2001)

You can watch it for yourself here:
http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/dave_tv/ls_dtv_big_show_highlights.shtml

Click on the Bill O'Reilly link.

Personally, I can't stand O'Reilly. I've seen his show a few times and it usually amounts to him disagreeing with someone and either shouting them down or simply telling them to shut up. And when someone has the temerity to stand up to him, he resorts to questioning their morals, patriotism or their sanity, if not all three. He is almost *NEVER* as reasonable as he was with Dave.


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

iceturkee said:


> first, i'm not a guy. second, and most important.....my point is that i believe most conservative parents, who support the war, would disuade their children from enlisting or going into rotc. if you don't agree, that's your opinion.


My parents are so far to the right, it makes me look like a hippie.

My brother got back from Afghanistan 1 year ago, is in Baghdad now, and got promoted to Sergeant in a scout/sniper unit. My father actively encourages both of us to do what we want to do, and if we want to serve our country, go right ahead. He himself is a disabled veteran of Vietnam, and every male in this family going back 225 years has served in the military, and every war.

While this isn't an example of all conservative parents everywhere, I simply don't agree with your chicken hawk analysis. You are more than entitled to your opinion, but if you want to start labling people, I would appreciate some empirical evidence to prove your point, or at least back it up. My apologies if I come off as brash, but what you typed struck a chord with me.


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

peacefield said:


> I'm kind of at a loss as to why talk show hosts like Letterman even have political commentators as guests. If I watch Letterman, I want to be entertained with jokes, etc, not watch a political debate. I guess for some reason I don't really find an exchange between O'Reilly and Letterman amusing.
> 
> Maybe I'm not being clear (I have trouble sometimes articulating what I mean), but if I want to watch a debate or see talking heads go at each other on TV, I'd rather see one that was serious and where experience and backed-up comments prevailed.
> 
> ...


Very good point. :up:

I think the Daily Show is more suited for this debate than the Late Show is. It was interesting to see Letterman in this form and God bless him for inviting the king of debate onto the program. But maybe the show was meant for jokes?


----------



## wannaB (Sep 19, 2005)

> i believe michael moore is brilliant and doing a yeoman's job of uncovering the truth.


Now that is funny I don't care who you are..........

This argument is alot like votes in the senate & congress - right down party lines. I think most folks can agree to disagree but some seem to make it personal & that is where it gets ridiculous.


----------



## Mr. Merkin (May 6, 2005)

I wonder.. how much of the millions and millions of dollars that Moore made off that Leni Riefenstahl-type propoganda piece of crap ended up going to the families of war veterans that he exploited for that movie?? Anyone know?? If he cared so much, shouldn't he donate the proceeds? And if his arguments are so strong, why does he use so many deceptive editing techniques like he did in Bowling for Columbine? I smell a rat, a big, fat, unkempt one, but a rat nonetheless.


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

fox sucks, bill sucks, letterman rules. nuff said.we need terrorists to put the fear of something in our american a**es. our govt will not be there for you in the event of a catastrophe. the iraq war is stupid, saddam was never a threat to us at least as bad a threat as we are to ourselves. the people need to take america back or we will asian in few generations. my 2 cents. btw i like asians.


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

darthrsg said:


> fox sucks, bill sucks, letterman rules. nuff said.we need terrorists to put the fear of something in our american a**es. our govt will not be there for you in the event of a catastrophe. the iraq war is stupid, saddam was never a threat to us at least as bad a threat as we are to ourselves. the people need to take america back or we will asian in few generations. my 2 cents. btw i like asians.


Hi. What is this.


----------



## iceturkee (May 26, 2005)

i see we have a bunch of compassionate conservatives on this forum (she says with tongue firmply planted in cheek).

so how many of you bush war lovers have served your country? last time i checked we are guaranteed freedom of the press which means cindy sheehan can say whatever she darn well pleases. i bet her son is damn proud of her!!!!


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

Please, please, please, I hope this thread doesn't get locked. Can we tone down the insults a little? There was some good conversation in here and it would be a shame if it couldn't go on because of the insults.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

Mr. Merkin said:


> that Leni Riefenstahl-type propoganda piece


Leni Riefenstahl is one of the great artists of the 20th century.

She was offered a commision (much like many corporate films I've done) to undertake a positive presentation of an event in the mid-1930s. An event sponsored by a political party in Germany that, BTW, had considerable support in the U.S. then and for many years afterward. A party that had many advocates in the U.S. even many years _after_ WWII ("we fought the wrong enemy", "the Nazis had some good ideas but they went too far"). Leni Riefenstahl, personally, was right wing in a very philosophical, theoretical sense, but I've never been convinced that made her responsible for the horrors that followed, any more than I think right wing philosophical sympathizers in the U.S. today are responsible for the debacle in the middle east.

What Michael Moore did resonated with much of the country and most of the world. He is also not un-talented. But to compare Michael Moore with Leni Riefenstahl as an artist is to compare George W. Bush with a president.


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

::throws hands up in air::

Well, that's that.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

RegBarc said:


> ::throws hands up in air::
> 
> Well, that's that.


I do what I can.


----------



## funbox (Apr 5, 2002)

When considering Bill O'Reilly and other war lovin' gangsters its always good to keep in mind, the bigger the mouth the smaller the testicles. Now I have no idea, but I think 9 out of 10 people would agree (in private if he's their hero) that Bill got picked on something mighty as a child. As bad as Michael Moore is, at least he's benevolent. Bill O'Reilly's a season or two away from tryin' to get an HBO show where he raises his right hand proudly screamin "***********!" Seriously, he's just a case of childhood gone very, very wrong.


----------



## itsmeitsmeitsme (Nov 13, 2003)

It won't be long now, will it???


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

itsmeitsmeitsme said:


> It won't be long now, will it???


Nope, I give it a couple of hours, max. 

Anyway, does Letterman still own property in Montana?


----------



## RayChuang88 (Sep 5, 2002)

lajohn27 said:


> I think Letterman was on point with his Christmas arguments. This are really isolated incidents.


Oh, I wished it were!! Here in Sacramento, CA during the Christmas shopping season in 2005 I've never seen such a dearth of Christmas decorations _ever_. I remember as a small child back in the 1960's and 1970's when an _entire_ shopping center was completely decked out in Christmas decorations.


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

RayChuang88 said:


> Oh, I wished it were!! Here in Sacramento, CA during the Christmas shopping season in 2005 I've never seen such a dearth of Christmas decorations _ever_. I remember as a small child back in the 1960's and 1970's when an _entire_ shopping center was completely decked out in Christmas decorations.


Indeed.

Around here the generic-ation of "holiday" decorations is obvious.

Also, almost universally cashers and customer service people are told to not wish any customer "Merry Christmas" under any circumstances. Many are even instructed not to wish any customer "Happy Holidays" since a few people might even be offended by _that!_ It's strictly "Thank you for shopping at <name of retail business>" just like the rest of the year.


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

Fish Man said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Around here the generic-ation of "holiday" decorations is obvious.
> 
> Also, almost universally cashers and customer service people are told to not wish any customer "Merry Christmas" under any circumstances. Many are even instructed not to wish any customer "Happy Holidays" since a few people might even be offended by _that!_ It's strictly "Thank you for shopping at <name of retail business>" just like the rest of the year.


does this happen... yes. Does this usually happen? No.

In fact, I would submit that this is not the case 75% of the time.

Is there a law against saying Merry Christmas? NO
Are employees of these businesses punished for saying Merry Christmas? NO
Are they forced to work on Christmas? NO

The over sensitivity to Merry Christmas... is just like any other silly corporate / bureaucratic nonsense. Policies are designed to insulate the entity from lawsuits.

I have a hard time taking seriously the assertion that there is 'War on Christmas'
or the notion that Christians are oppressed in the United States.


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

daperlman said:


> Are employees of these businesses punished for saying Merry Christmas? NO


At Kmart, Sears, Sav-a-Center (grocery chain), several regional retail chains around here (and elsewhere, I'm sure) *YES*. Saying "Merry Christmas" is punishable by official reprimands and other job actions. Multiple slips will result in termination.



daperlman said:


> Are they forced to work on Christmas? NO


At many national and regional retail chains (particularly drug stores and convenance stores, CVS and Wallgreens, for example), *YES!* Employees get scheduled to work on Christmas and have little say about it. They get double-time pay though. Of course _working on Christmas_ has noting to do with the PC debate. These stores have had a tradition of being open on Christmas day for many years.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Fish Man said:


> RayChuang88 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I wished it were!! Here in Sacramento, CA during the Christmas shopping season in 2005 I've never seen such a dearth of Christmas decorations ever. I remember as a small child back in the 1960's and 1970's when an entire shopping center was completely decked out in Christmas decorations.
> ...


And how is this a BAD thing... ?!?!    What does _any_ of that have to do with God or faith?

Christmas is an over-hyped market-driven orgy of capitalism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion anymore; it's a crass, cynical ploy by corporate America (etc.) to separate your money from your pocket, and nothing else. :down:

I'm quite sure that Jesus would absolutely fricking _overjoyed_ to see the celebration of his birth and life and teachings being divorced from all this commercialism and I can't understand why the faithful aren't cheering that effort on even faster! Keep Christmas as a religious holiday. Celebrate it in your church and your home and your heart. Leave the store decorations, customer service greetings, cheesy town hall displays, etc. to "winter holidays" paganism (NTTAWWT!)


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

Fish Man said:


> At Kmart, Sears, Sav-a-Center (grocery chain), several regional retail chains around here (and elsewhere, I'm sure) *YES*. Saying "Merry Christmas" is punishable by official reprimands and other job actions. Multiple slips will result in termination.
> 
> At many national and regional retail chains (particularly drug stores and convenance stores, CVS and Wallgreens, for example), *YES!* Employees get scheduled to work on Christmas and have little say about it. They get double-time pay though. Of course _working on Christmas_ has noting to do with the PC debate. These stores have had a tradition of being open on Christmas day for many years.


There will be 0 persons terminated as a result of saying merry christmas this year. Christmas is a federal holiday, and while there are a few 24 hour type places that remain opened during most or all holiday, but in almost every case places are closed during Christmas.

BTW... IMHO... and I am confident those of our forefathers, an owner of a business a person should be able to fire someone for any and all reasons, and make whatever rule he/she pleases.

Nevertheless, while there are instances of oversensitive managers and officials here and there, I am just not buying this widespread oppression of Christian individuals in this Country.

IMHO, It is like hearing a white person complain of injustice because there is a black entertainment channel and not a 'white' entertainment network.


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

madscientist said:


> And how is this a BAD thing... ?!?!    What does _any_ of that have to do with God or faith?


It doesn't, *at all.*

To try to force the issue to have anything to do with religion misses the point completely.

I think I've come up with a great definition of "Political Correctness".

*Political Correctness is: "Hyper-sensitivity to another persons potential hyper-sensitivity."*

Is one example of employees of a store being forbidden to say "Merry Christmas" in and of itself a particularly big deal?

No, not really.

But the whole "politically correct" trend is an Orwellian 1984 "Good-speak bad-speak, thought police" sort of thing.

It is a form of censorship of our freedom of expression. It has absolutely nothing to do with God or religion. It is censorship of free speech, and that is why it's a bad thing.

This country was _founded_ on the principal that all of us should be free to express ourselves. We should be free to express our views on government, politics, asthetics, philosophy, life, beauty, art, ethics, religion, God, etc. etc. etc.

In turn, all of us would be *TOLERANT* of other people freely expressing themselves.

When a person gets all bent out of shape because somewhere out there in the world is another person who has a view (religious, political, artistic, whatever) that doesn't 100% agree with theirs, that is just silly.

Political correctness is an attempt to force everyone to never ever say anything whatsoever that any other human being on the planet might possibly disagree or take issue with. It is a HUGE form of censorship.

This movement was almost 100% _perfectly_ predicted in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. He called it "new-speak". In our present-day reality, we call it "politically correct".

I'll give you a forinstance:

My last name is "Sutton."

The origin of that name is English/Welsh. Most people named "Sutton" are probably from a Christian background.

However, there is a large extended family of "Suttons" in New Orleans who are Jewish by faith. Hard-core multi-generation native New Orleanians consider "Sutton" to be a "Jewish" name.

I am not originally from New Orleans and am not Jewish.

However, I have _many times_ been wished "Happy Chanukah" by people in New Orleans who assume that I am Jewish because of my name!

How asinine would it be for me to be offended by such a trivial and innocent mistake?!! 

When this happens, I usually say, "Thanks, same to you." 

We don't need political correctness, we need people to not be so easily offended by such utterly trivial things!


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

Fish Man said:


> When a person gets all bent out of shape because somewhere out there in the world is another person who has a view (religious, political, artistic, whatever) that doesn't 100% agree with theirs, that is just silly.


Yep.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Like everything else that's wrong in this country, it's the lawyers at the root of it. If businesses weren't scared of being sued for being non-inclusive they'd be less silly.

-MM
(No emoticons, you figure out if I'm serious)


----------



## FauxPas (Jan 8, 2002)

daperlman said:


> IMHO, It is like hearing a white person complain of injustice because there is a black entertainment channel and not a 'white' entertainment network.


But there is, it's called Fox


----------



## Bondelev-1 (Nov 27, 2005)

barrettd said:



> I didn't think Letterman had a good grasp on anything, including his own anger. He basically dismissed O'Reilly and then admitted he had no idea what he was talking about because he's never seen his show. I like Letterman and all, but he really let his emotions get the best of him.


I think that was deliberate. He was giving O'Reilly a taste of his own medicine.


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

FauxPas said:


> But there is, it's called Fox


That is only for angry white men... what about the rest of us


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

daperlman said:


> BTW... IMHO... and I am confident those of our forefathers, an owner of a business a person should be able to fire someone for any and all reasons, and make whatever rule he/she pleases.


This street goes both ways. IMO...and those of our forefathers...I am free to organize a write-in campaign or a boycott to let business owners know that I see and do not appreciate the hypocrisy in their actions. They expect me to come in and spend tons of money on Christmas presents to make sure they finish the year in the black, but they are unwilling to use the word Christmas in their advertisements. I personally won't organize the campaign to throw the shipment of "Holiday Trees" into Boston Harbor, but I think our forefathers might agree with that as a tactic too.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

To be clear, I agree with you that PC has become ridiculous and obviously no one should be fired for saying "Merry Christmas". I hope that goes without saying. My point is that less Christmas would be a welcome relief, and that the things people argue about have virtually nothing to do with Christmas anyway... it's all about power and hidden agendas, and that's on _both_ sides of the argument.

I can see being upset by people being fired for saying "Merry Christmas" (I've never heard of anything like that but I'm certainly willing to believe you that it happens). I can't see being upset by the removal of Christmas decorations, creches, etc. ad nauseum. Even if they're just turned into generic winter holiday decorations, snowman scenes, etc. to me that's a straightforward capitalist exercise, much preferable to this horrible Frankenstein's monster combination of religion and commercialism.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

RayChuang88 said:


> I think Letterman was on point with his Christmas arguments. This are really isolated incidents..


At my daughters middle school they had a Christmas concert where they performed "We Wish You A Merry Christmas" changing the words to;

We Wish You A Happy Holiday and a Happy New Year!

It does happen...


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

crazywater said:


> At my daughters middle school they had a Christmas concert where they performed "We Wish You A Merry Christmas" changing the words to;
> 
> We Wish You A Happy Holiday and a Happy New Year!
> 
> It does happen...


That's pretty stupid.

Getting upset about it is even more stupid.

Claiming that it's an element of the vast left-wing conspiracy's War on Christmas is sheer lunacy with a dash of psychosis and a hint of persecution complex thrown in for taste.


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

sketcher said:


> This street goes both ways. IMO...and those of our forefathers...I am free to organize a write-in campaign or a boycott to let business owners know that I see and do not appreciate the hypocrisy in their actions. They expect me to come in and spend tons of money on Christmas presents to make sure they finish the year in the black, but they are unwilling to use the word Christmas in their advertisements. I personally won't organize the campaign to throw the shipment of "Holiday Trees" into Boston Harbor, but I think our forefathers might agree with that as a tactic too.


 Fair enough. Companies don't care about you enough to offend you, they are there to make money. They DO expect you and everyone else to spend money there. I suppose if enough people are offended by their actions you can drive them out of business.

But I hope you are not drawing a parallel b/t the perceived war on Christmas and taxation without representation.

I am seriously confused about how Wal-Mart's commercails seem to have a negative impact on an individual's personal relationship with God. IOW, what if Wal-Mart DID awknowledge Christmas in a public and visable manner... spreading Christmas cheer? Would that make our lives better? How?


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

busyba said:


> That's pretty stupid.
> 
> Getting upset about it is even more stupid.
> 
> Claiming that it's an element of the vast left-wing conspiracy's War on Christmas is sheer lunacy with a dash of psychosis and a hint of persecution complex thrown in for taste.


Thank you Doctor


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

crazywater said:


> Thank you Doctor


I wasn't saying that was you, I was extrapolating what you experienced to how others (like, say, Bill O'Reilly) have reacted to similar "incidents".

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was calling you psychotic. That was not my intent. 

I haven't read enough of your posts to form an opinion on that yet.


----------



## iceturkee (May 26, 2005)

hmm, so what does this christian, flaming liberal think about all of this? i am not offended if someone wishes me happy holidays instead of merry christmas. get over it people, there are far more important things in the world, or even in this country to be worried about.

off-topic, i for one, am very amused by all the congressmen and senators who are donating their illegal campaign contributions to charity, to avoid jail. i, for one, am amused that pat robertson says sharon deserves to die for dividing god's country; i, for one, am amused over illegal wiretapping and the words in 1984 ringing more true every day. and that's just the icing on the cake.


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

ETA: I'm just going to try to bring this on topic instead of respond to diminish the off topic posts.

Has Letterman been inviting guests recently that he has a propensity to duke it out with? I remember when Oprah finally came back on and it turned out to be nothing.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

RegBarc said:


> Has Letterman been inviting guests recently that he has a propensity to duke it out with? I remember when Oprah finally came back on and it turned out to be nothing.


My understanding is that ever since the emergency heart surgery, he's been a little bit more edgy and willing to go out there. Kind of as if, once vividly confronted with his own mortality, he's decided to say "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" He's decided to be who he wants to be as opposed to being who he thinks everyone else wants him to be.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I think letterman deliberately chose not to use facts against Orielly because he didnt want to get into a debate. I think he knows exactly the details on a lot of Orielly but once you get hooked in a debate with an idealogue be it religous or political its no win. So he just simply argued in a way Orielly couldnt argue back.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I think letterman deliberately chose not to use facts against Orielly because he didnt want to get into a debate.


That and because it's been fairly well established that using facts when discussing anything with O'Reilly is largely pointless.


----------



## DrC4 (Jul 5, 2005)

I thought it was funny that BEFORE Christmas, all the networks were playing "Happy Holidays from (Insert name of network here)" and AFTER Chirstmas it was "Happy Hanukkah from (Insert name of network here)".


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DrC4 said:


> I thought it was funny that BEFORE Christmas, all the networks were playing "Happy Holidays from (Insert name of network here)" and AFTER Chirstmas it was "Happy Hanukkah from (Insert name of network here)".


2 possible explanations for that:

1) After Xmas, Hanukkah is the only holiday still active

or

B) Jews control the media.


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

Kwanza runs that week after Christmas


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

sketcher said:


> Kwanza runs that week after Christmas


Now you're just making up words.....


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

busyba said:


> Now you're just making up words.....


lol


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Hello.

Political posts are not allowed on this forum. http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=161919

There are far too many for me to edit them out, and so I will now close this thread.


----------

