Seriously, I think I’m in love. 
It’s a little long winded at the beginning, but I promise, it’s worth sticking with it til the end.
Discussing anything with Bill O’Reilly is like herding cats. No matter what you do he will head off in a different direction. It’s futile to have a reasonable, factual discussion. The sad thing is that he gets away with it.
And yes, I could fall in love with her.
Sorry, I could not get to the part where she came on, because I overloaded on Bill O spewing utter bilge-crap nonsense, and I started yelling at my computer monitor.
If you forward about halfway through, it’s the same thing, with him talking over her, insisting that what she’s quoting does not equal “specifics” and generally being smug. But she does a good job of trying to soldier on through that, and points out where he’s blatantly moving the goalposts. (BTW, her response to “which drug companies are you negotiating with?! You can’t even name any?!” should have been “All of them.”)
I would like to start a movement. Any right-minded person who gets to appear on Bill O’Reilly’s show needs to end the interview with the words:
To me, there is no other counter to his idiotic, specious, straw-filled arguments. There is no sense trying to speak intelligently to such a moron.
(I say this not knowing if O’Reilly’s show is broadcast live. Even if it is, I imagine there’s some delay. No matter. Everyone ends their conversation with “You’re an asshole, Bill.” The people in the studio will hear it. Bill will hear it. And it will get out so that at some point, we, the great unwashed, will hear it as well. Try it now. It’s very refreshing. “You’re an asshole, Bill.”
THIS!!!
Actually, they should start the interview that way.
She’s gorgeous. I have no further comment.
Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and Rush, etc, all the right-wing talk show hosts on radio and TV play a little game.
The rules of the game:
- I can talk whenever I want, even while you are talking, and cut off your mic if I need to.
Rule number one, all by itself, means that while they are running the show, it is literally impossible to conduct a discussion with them. Ergo, you cannot defeat them in an argument.
- Change the subject / move goalposts
Rule number two means that, due to the limited time available for the guest segment, there is only so much damage any one guest can cause. He can speak over, change the subject, and move goalposts which means the guest must correct, re-direct the discussion, and spend time pointing out the tactics rather than advancing their argument.
- I’m getting my ass kicked, but I didn’t actually lose- I’ll let the folks decide who won.
The audience is 95% friendly or more. Of course they like their beloved host. Put this discussion in a neutral venue, with no allowances for interruptions, and allow the opponent to be able to articulate points, and every single right-wing blowhard loses. And loses badly.
Really, any blowhard loses. Not just the right-wingers. You have a fair discussion with equal time and rules to prevent the nonsense, and real reasoning and real rhetoric always defeat small minded bullying.
But this is Fox, these are their shows, they run the tables, they rig the slot machines, they stack the deck.
What you have seen is someone managing to make headway under those circumstances. It’s beyond impressive. This person should have all the male concubines she wants to encourage her to breed and therefore populate the human race with smarter people.
O’Reilly on the other hand should be physically neutered for being verbally neutered on his own show, losing with the stacked deck and the slanted table. His withered old balls should be packaged and shipped to North Korea with the label “forbidden delicacy- do not eat unless you are the Glorious Leader”.
Did anyone see the dancing grandma video linked from the same (o’rielly interview) page? Hurry, while it’s still linked. “I could dance all fuckin day”
Ha!
Decades ago, at the beginning of his career, Rush made the rookie error of guest-hosting Pat Sajak’s TV talk show. No call-screener, no split screen and remote mic that can be cut off in an instant. Just regular folks sharing a big room with the host.
The moment is preserved in this 10-minute YouTube: They stopped taping, cleared the audience, and finished the show in the empty theater
The first half of that clip is an embarrassing chain of unfactual material. And the idea that a cut to medicare is meaningless if you don’t name the specific drug companies affected is silly. Budget summaries don’t work that way.
Some of O’Reilly’s viewers are purely ignorant. But most simply lack character: you have to be a real headcase to choose information sources that consistently mislead you by putting re-assurance over factual accuracy. Then again, disciplined people obtain the news from the printed word and not the boob tube.
Askthepizzaguy: Nice post. I’ll add though that when casual conversations morph into politically heated ones, medium strength bulbs sometimes resort to “Kangaroo points”. When faced with challenges to one of their assertions… they move on to another one. Then another one. O’Reilly played that game in this clip, but it’s not uncommon in the wild.
In actuality, a willingness to examine the pieces of your argument and accurately characterize the weaker parts as such can enhance your credibility. The idea that one shouldn’t ever concede anything in a debate is a common misconception.