Битва титанов мысли: ОРайли против Мура
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: 04 Mar 2004 04:30
- Location: Ukraine --> USA
Битва титанов мысли: ОРайли против Мура
ОьРайли уломал Мура прийти на его програму. Историческая встреча состоится во вторник.
Но такое предчувствие, что в их споре истина не родится. Вернее, и спора тоже не будет. Будут два взаимнопрерываемых монолога.
Но такое предчувствие, что в их споре истина не родится. Вернее, и спора тоже не будет. Будут два взаимнопрерываемых монолога.
Мы бьемся насмерть во вторник за среду, но не понимаем уже четверга...
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 2018
- Joined: 04 Jun 2002 16:38
- Location: NYC
Re: Битва титанов мысли: ОРайли против Мура
kron wrote:ОьРайли уломал Мура прийти на его програму. Историческая встреча состоится во вторник.
Но такое предчувствие, что в их споре истина не родится. Вернее, и спора тоже не будет. Будут два взаимнопрерываемых монолога.
Для равноправия, (и фана ради), кнопку отключения микрофона о переключения камеры надо дать обоим.
"... но это рискованный шаг, поскольку курдль может чихнуть. Мало какой охотник
пережил чихание курдля... "
пережил чихание курдля... "
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: 04 Mar 2004 04:30
- Location: Ukraine --> USA
Re: Битва титанов мысли: ОРайли против Мура
Kastet wrote:Для равноправия, (и фана ради), кнопку отключения микрофона о переключения камеры надо дать обоим. :мргреен:
Так я сегодня решил посмотреть ОРайли. Копа Америка закончилась - дай думаю посмотрю как он там. А он Мура где то на улице увидел давай уговаривать. А камеры снимают. Слышно было очень плохо что они говорили, но мне кажется Мур отпирался и мотивировал именно тем что ОРайли будет иметь преимущество своего поля (кнопки) и предлагал нейтральную территорию. Но ОРайли что то ему предложил , вроде больше времени уделить. Короче надо посмотреть. Хотя обоих переношу плохо.
Мы бьемся насмерть во вторник за среду, но не понимаем уже четверга...
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: 04 Mar 2004 04:30
- Location: Ukraine --> USA
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: 04 Mar 2004 04:30
- Location: Ukraine --> USA
Смотрю ОРайли шоу. Не люблю я лгунов. Особенно когда в лицо врут.
Беседует с Афлеком который критикует войну с Ираком.
Задает вопрос секунд 40. Афлек тут же начинает отвечать толково. Он не дал ему и 10 секунд на ответ. Видит что тот знает о чем говорит - значит надо кнопку жать.
Зато фэр и балансед.
Беседует с Афлеком который критикует войну с Ираком.
Задает вопрос секунд 40. Афлек тут же начинает отвечать толково. Он не дал ему и 10 секунд на ответ. Видит что тот знает о чем говорит - значит надо кнопку жать.
Зато фэр и балансед.
Мы бьемся насмерть во вторник за среду, но не понимаем уже четверга...
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 16722
- Joined: 19 Oct 2002 23:09
- Location: мАсква-USA...->NJ
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 1715
- Joined: 23 Jan 2003 19:42
- Location: Houston, TX
Capricorn wrote:Мда, никакои "борьбы". О'Реили задавал какие-то нелепые вопросы и "подставлялся" .. Bo-o-o-oring
Да какие они титаны мысли. Скорее "шакалы ротационных машин". Я вообстче был лучшего мнения об O'Reily до того как прочел его книгу. Может он в чем и титан, но не в мыслительной области. Ето IMHO. A Moore... Противен он мне. "Would you sacrifice your child...?" Тьфу!
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 16450
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 04:41
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 1377
- Joined: 14 May 2003 20:37
- Location: NY, USA
Ну вот, драки не было, компотом никто не плескался. А шуму то, шуму...
Я бы присудил победу Муру, он выглядел более убедительно. Биллу штрафное очко за нечестный прием - комментарий постфактум. После драки кулаками не машут. Еще интересный момент, в дискуссии раз пять прозвучала фраза "Russian intelligence said ... blah blah..." - к вопросу о ОМП в Ираке.
Я бы присудил победу Муру, он выглядел более убедительно. Биллу штрафное очко за нечестный прием - комментарий постфактум. После драки кулаками не машут. Еще интересный момент, в дискуссии раз пять прозвучала фраза "Russian intelligence said ... blah blah..." - к вопросу о ОМП в Ираке.
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: 04 Mar 2004 04:30
- Location: Ukraine --> USA
Flying Hen wrote:Ну вот, драки не было, компотом никто не плескался. А шуму то, шуму...
Я бы присудил победу Муру, он выглядел более убедительно. Биллу штрафное очко за нечестный прием - комментарий постфактум. После драки кулаками не машут. :ноно#: Еще интересный момент, в дискуссии раз пять прозвучала фраза "Руссиан интеллигенце саид ... блах блах..." - к вопросу о ОМП в Ираке.
Об умстевнных способностях: Муру большой плюс. Пусть он подлец и провокатор, но на вопросы реагировал быстро и отвечал толково.
ОРайли - серость полная. Только и мог что повторять свои заученные <talking points>. Своего то ничего придумать не мог. Вот 5 раз русская разведка и прозвучала.
Уперся зубами и руками что Буш не лгал. На что Мур посадил его в лужу (по моему) сказав что точно так же можно сказать что в зале ничего не происходит (дело было во время конвенции - кто не знает). ОРайли подставился и сказал что вот видишь ты врешь. На что Мур повернулся , посмотрел в зал и сказал:" Упс. Да действительно происходит. Я ошибся. Но когда я утверждал что там ничего не происходит, я говорил это на основе моих тогдашних знаний".
Мы бьемся насмерть во вторник за среду, но не понимаем уже четверга...
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 16722
- Joined: 19 Oct 2002 23:09
- Location: мАсква-USA...->NJ
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: 04 Mar 2004 04:30
- Location: Ukraine --> USA
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
O: OK
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…
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm
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
O: OK
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…
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm
Мы бьемся насмерть во вторник за среду, но не понимаем уже четверга...
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 2018
- Joined: 04 Jun 2002 16:38
- Location: NYC
kron wrote:Flying Hen wrote:Ну вот, драки не было, компотом никто не плескался. А шуму то, шуму...
Я бы присудил победу Муру, он выглядел более убедительно. Биллу штрафное очко за нечестный прием - комментарий постфактум. После драки кулаками не машут. :ноно#: Еще интересный момент, в дискуссии раз пять прозвучала фраза "Руссиан интеллигенце саид ... блах блах..." - к вопросу о ОМП в Ираке.
Об умстевнных способностях: Муру большой плюс. Пусть он подлец и провокатор, но на вопросы реагировал быстро и отвечал толково.
ОРайли - серость полная. Только и мог что повторять свои заученные <talking points>. Своего то ничего придумать не мог. Вот 5 раз русская разведка и прозвучала.
Уперся зубами и руками что Буш не лгал. На что Мур посадил его в лужу (по моему) сказав что точно так же можно сказать что в зале ничего не происходит (дело было во время конвенции - кто не знает). ОРайли подставился и сказал что вот видишь ты врешь. На что Мур повернулся , посмотрел в зал и сказал:" Упс. Да действительно происходит. Я ошибся. Но когда я утверждал что там ничего не происходит, я говорил это на основе моих тогдашних знаний".
Зато по поводу "people rose up" и свергли диктатора Мур пургу гнал. И в СССР и в америке все было совсем не так. Оба случая, примеры когда власть захватывалась другими представителями власти. В одном случае Ельцин и тoварищи, а в другом случае американская елита. Когда у власти действительно диктатор, - хрен восстанешь.
Так же утверждение, что Мур, будучи президентом не дал бы Гитлеру придти к власти, - полная пурга. Что-то вроде, "я бы все сверху видел и судил бы по справедливости, пресекая все зло в зародыше". Хорошо говорить постфактум.
Вступление США во II мировую вовсе не сводится к "Германия и Япония напали на Америку". Германия на Америку не нападала, а нападение Японии было вынуждено ембарго на поставки нефти, которое наложили на Японию США. (Хотя об етом ни Мур ни О'Рейли, конечно не могли говорить).
О'Рейли факты, упоминаемые Муром признавал, Мур факты О'Рейли изгибал, под то, что ему было надо. За сообразительность Муру 5, О'Рейли 3. О'Рейли мог бы как-то разнообразить речь, вместо того, чтобы повторять "I would sacryfice myself".
"... но это рискованный шаг, поскольку курдль может чихнуть. Мало какой охотник
пережил чихание курдля... "
пережил чихание курдля... "
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 558
- Joined: 19 Nov 2002 19:12
- Location: MD
Kastet wrote:Зато по поводу "people rose up" и свергли диктатора Мур пургу гнал. И в СССР и в америке все было совсем не так. Оба случая, примеры когда власть захватывалась другими представителями власти. В одном случае Ельцин и тoварищи, а в другом случае американская елита. Когда у власти действительно диктатор, - хрен восстанешь.
Так же утверждение, что Мур, будучи президентом не дал бы Гитлеру придти к власти, - полная пурга. Что-то вроде, "я бы все сверху видел и судил бы по справедливости, пресекая все зло в зародыше". Хорошо говорить постфактум.
Вступление США во II мировую вовсе не сводится к "Германия и Япония напали на Америку". Германия на Америку не нападала, а нападение Японии было вынуждено ембарго на поставки нефти, которое наложили на Японию США. (Хотя об етом ни Мур ни О'Рейли, конечно не могли говорить).
О'Рейли факты, упоминаемые Муром признавал, Мур факты О'Рейли изгибал, под то, что ему было надо. За сообразительность Муру 5, О'Рейли 3. О'Рейли мог бы как-то разнообразить речь, вместо того, чтобы повторять "I would sacryfice myself".
Все он правильно говорил. Незашоренные американцы, с которыми я на работе общаюсь, тоже говорят что невозможно построить демократию под дулом пистолета. Если в обществе нет предпосылок, все это бестолку. Будут только люди гибнуть и деньги разворовываться.
Ну, а О'Рейли действительно серость. Особенно это четко было видно посмотрев оба интервью с Афлеком и с Муром.
Не могут ли мне товарищи консерваторы объяснить почему их "рупоры" явно уступают либералам.
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: 04 Mar 2004 04:30
- Location: Ukraine --> USA
Kastet wrote:Зато по поводу "пеопле росе уп" и свергли диктатора Мур пургу гнал.
Так же утверждение, что Мур, будучи президентом не дал бы Гитлеру придти к власти, - полная пурга. Что-то вроде, "я бы все сверху видел и судил бы по справедливости, пресекая все зло в зародыше". Хорошо говорить постфактум.
Вступление США во ИИ мировую вовсе не сводится к "Германия и Япония напали на Америку".
1. Мур бы пургу не гнал если бы Райли не мерял все двумя полусами: если ты со мной не согласен - значит ты любиш Саддама и Гитлера. Мур несколько раз пытался сказать что нельзя говорить об истории с позиции сегодняшних знаний.
А нащет людей восставших: его мысль была в том что Америка не должна лезть в десятки стран где нарушают права человека. Это нереально и непрактично. Можно там денежками помогать оппозиции, но ни в коем случае нельзя вводить войска. Ничего хорошего из такого обычно не выходит. Политик должен быть прагматичным.
Мы бьемся насмерть во вторник за среду, но не понимаем уже четверга...
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 437
- Joined: 16 Jul 2002 00:24
kron wrote:Беседует с Афлеком который критикует войну с Ираком.
Задает вопрос секунд 40. Афлек тут же начинает отвечать толково. Он не дал ему и 10 секунд на ответ. Видит что тот знает о чем говорит - значит надо кнопку жать.
Зато фэр и балансед.
А вы не знаете где транскрипт беседы Афлека и О'Райли? Интересно почитать, что Афлек толкогого говорит.
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 16450
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 04:41
Так же утверждение, что Мур, будучи президентом не дал бы Гитлеру придти к власти, - полная пурга. Что-то вроде, "я бы все сверху видел и судил бы по справедливости, пресекая все зло в зародыше". Хорошо говорить постфактум.
Так там разговор шел именно в контексте "если бы мы все сверху видели и заранее знали". При этом О'Райли считает, что надо было бы вводить войска, а Мур - что надо было бы не пускать Гитлера к власти.
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 16722
- Joined: 19 Oct 2002 23:09
- Location: мАсква-USA...->NJ
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 2945
- Joined: 15 Oct 2003 06:21
- Location: Monterey, CA
Последний раз я смотрел О-Рейли в 1999 году, кагда он с пеной у рта пытался оправдать клинтоновскую бомбардировку Сербии. С тех пор этот тип мне отвратителен. Он выбрал себе имидж этакого jingoist'a, ура-патриота - имидж, который хорошо покупается частью телезрителей, зато совершено нетерпим для др. части.
Cogito, ergo sum - я мыслю, значит существую.
-
- Удалён за грубость
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:22
- Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Господа! ВЫ в тупике здесь полнейшем! не заметили? очень зря, очень!
ВЫ (к сожалению, - ВСЕ до единого) выступаете здесь в кач-ве ".. а баба-Яга против!). Вашей вины, конечно, тут нет: это как "болеть" на футболе (сакер) НИ ЗА ОДНУ команду. Возможно ли такое? Думаю, что нет.. Посмотреть, почмокать губами, типа: м-дя.. м-дя.. и со спокойной совестью - разойтись по домам.
Вот что собственно, господа - сторонние наблюдатели - вы и продемонстрировали здесь с отменным успехом..
Там, у кого-то, правда, таки промелькнуло недоумение: почему это все либералы такие языкатые, а у консёрватив нет никого, кто бы два слова связал в правильное словосочетание... Хоть какая-то позиция..
А так у вас получается, что Греция выиграла, но Португалия играла лучше - и хрен с ними обоими!!!!
Выборы, от которых зависит очень очень многое, если не всё, не за горами..Не нападайте на меня за оффтапик (мол - вали в тему, где за выборы спорють), а постарайтесь встать на позицию любого из "героев" этого шоу (О-райли - Мишка Арабский) и посмотреть, что из этого получится..
С уважением,
ВЫ (к сожалению, - ВСЕ до единого) выступаете здесь в кач-ве ".. а баба-Яга против!). Вашей вины, конечно, тут нет: это как "болеть" на футболе (сакер) НИ ЗА ОДНУ команду. Возможно ли такое? Думаю, что нет.. Посмотреть, почмокать губами, типа: м-дя.. м-дя.. и со спокойной совестью - разойтись по домам.
Вот что собственно, господа - сторонние наблюдатели - вы и продемонстрировали здесь с отменным успехом..
Там, у кого-то, правда, таки промелькнуло недоумение: почему это все либералы такие языкатые, а у консёрватив нет никого, кто бы два слова связал в правильное словосочетание... Хоть какая-то позиция..
А так у вас получается, что Греция выиграла, но Португалия играла лучше - и хрен с ними обоими!!!!
Выборы, от которых зависит очень очень многое, если не всё, не за горами..Не нападайте на меня за оффтапик (мол - вали в тему, где за выборы спорють), а постарайтесь встать на позицию любого из "героев" этого шоу (О-райли - Мишка Арабский) и посмотреть, что из этого получится..
С уважением,
Для торжества зла необходимо только одно условие - чтобы хорошие люди сидели сложа руки.
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 2018
- Joined: 04 Jun 2002 16:38
- Location: NYC
Пётр НЕвеликий wrote:Господа! ВЫ в тупике здесь полнейшем! не заметили? очень зря, очень!
ВЫ (к сожалению, - ВСЕ до единого) выступаете здесь в кач-ве ".. а баба-Яга против!). Вашей вины, конечно, тут нет: ....
Ну спасибо .
"... но это рискованный шаг, поскольку курдль может чихнуть. Мало какой охотник
пережил чихание курдля... "
пережил чихание курдля... "
-
- Удалён за грубость
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:22
- Location: Des Moines, Iowa
-
- Уже с Приветом
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: 04 Mar 2004 04:30
- Location: Ukraine --> USA
Пётр НЕвеликий wrote:Kastet wrote:[Ну спасибо .
Не за что! всегда к вашим услугам! (я ещё здесь появлюсь; ваше "тихое болото, где водятся.. сами знаете кто" чуток растрясти..
Обещаюсь!
Смотрите сильно не трясите, а то забанят.
Ах мы все в тупике. А вам, значит, все ясно.
И вставать на чьюто сторону - необязательно. Можно воздержаться.
Мы бьемся насмерть во вторник за среду, но не понимаем уже четверга...
-
- Удалён за грубость
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:22
- Location: Des Moines, Iowa
kron wrote:Пётр НЕвеликий wrote:Kastet wrote:[Ну спасибо .
Не за что! всегда к вашим услугам! (я ещё здесь появлюсь; ваше "тихое болото, где водятся.. сами знаете кто" чуток растрясти..
Обещаюсь!
Смотрите сильно не трясите, а то забанят.
Спасибо за совет! Мне - [...moderated...], т.е. не привыкать.. но я на совесть модератоадминов очень надеюсь.. и на понимание текущего момента!
Привет!
Для торжества зла необходимо только одно условие - чтобы хорошие люди сидели сложа руки.