|
|
Post by luke on Jan 9, 2006 11:20:56 GMT -5
One of the great things about Letterman is that he's ALWAYS been an asshole. The dude is a mean, old, grouchy prick to people, and that's what makes him so awesome. Without that, he wouldn't be funny at all.
I enjoyed O'Reilly on the Daily Show, where he tried his hardest to work up Jon, but Jon just kept laughing AT him like he was some sort of weird freak. The "point and snicker" approach worked great, I think. Although you could tell Jon was just a little nervous at first.
I haven't seen this Letterman/O'Reilly exchange, but I'll be downloading it as soon as I get off work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 9, 2006 11:25:52 GMT -5
it's great. i'm playing it again right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 9, 2006 11:27:44 GMT -5
Letterman handles O'Reilly perfectly. Just diffuses the arguments by saying, "what the fuck are you talking about".. basically.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 9, 2006 11:29:11 GMT -5
the 'diapers on horses' comment was sweet.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jan 9, 2006 18:10:16 GMT -5
Jesus, this is the battle of the Century between which two of these mammoth morons bores me to tears the most. It's like watching two really STD'd up physically unattractive frat girls make out on your brother's underwear in his twin bed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 9, 2006 18:18:48 GMT -5
umm. well, i found my self instinctively supporting Letterman, and enjoying the disgust i felt for O'Reilly. but i suppose Letterman could have been more incisive in his opposition.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Jan 9, 2006 18:31:35 GMT -5
Jesus, this is the battle of the Century between which two of these mammoth morons bores me to tears the most. It's like watching two really STD'd up physically unattractive frat girls make out on your brother's underwear in his twin bed. Here, here! Right on, skvor. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jan 9, 2006 19:52:28 GMT -5
Weak. Only a person of tremendous bias would deny that Letterman offers more to our society than O'Reilly does, however miniscule the contribution.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jan 9, 2006 20:03:55 GMT -5
Seriously, I can't stand most late night talk hosts. I do enjoy Conan O'Brian occasionally and was really into Craig Kilbourn when he had his show. I also loved it when Jon Stewart had a show on MTV that was formatted like the late night guys, but it didn't last long. Of course now things couldn't be better for Stewart and I enjoy the Daily show, but I do miss that show. He had some killer bands play on that show. To me, Letterman has never been that funny and I hate his laugh. Jay Leno has always been a corporate goon who is about as funny as pictures of holocaust victims. Depending on your persuasion, I'm sure that both of these guys offer something to someone, I just don't happen to be one of those guys. O'Reilly is a total sexist blowhard and Letterman is just annoying to me. Either way, seriously, watching those guys is like watching your best friend dump his girlfriend of ten years just because she has cancer. I'm repulsed either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jan 9, 2006 20:50:49 GMT -5
If you say so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 9, 2006 22:15:59 GMT -5
I think that might be just a touch melodramatic, don't you?
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jan 9, 2006 23:16:50 GMT -5
Well, yeah, dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 10, 2006 0:29:57 GMT -5
Either way, seriously, watching those guys is like watching your best friend dump his girlfriend of ten years just because she has cancer. Agree or disagree with the rest of it, but at least admit that this was inspired. |
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jan 19, 2006 19:59:04 GMT -5
I only enjoyed O'Reilly during the Clinton years. I had as much respect for him then as I've ever had for anybody. He WAS fair and balanced at the time. He WAS objective. He was asking the questions that nobody would ask and reporting the real stories of corruption that everyone else was ignoring. Some days he was about the only voice of truth you could find on television concerning politics. He was no more out of line than the people who brought down Nixon. Only Slick Willie Bob could pretty much get away with anything he wanted to(this has nothing do to with sex btw, even though it applies to that as well) and succeed in it by his malicious brilliance of demonizing his accusers. So, to many at that time, O'Reilly was just a "Clinton - hater" on a witchhunt. Never mind the clearly documented facts and lucidly argued points about Prez Clint's corruption; O'Reilly just hated Clinton because of his liberal ideology while he himself had a conservative ideology. Nonsense. I was there. I saw it all. I observed O'Reilly, weighed his intentions, and studied his "agenda". He was simply wanting the President of the United States to be accountable, to not be a sleazy slimeball, to not get away with anything and everything just because 93% of the media voted for him. For a period of time there, he was my hero.
That being said, today I think he's a total jackass(sorry if Chrisfan put it that way before me, but there's no more fitting word). I've seen him actually change his mind and contradict something he said 2 minutes earlier and his guest call him out on it and him actually tell them to leave. One thing you must admit, however: the dude has some balls. It's sad that his show was once so informative and enlightening and now he has to live up to this image of a interrupting blowhard(which he brought on himself, mind you). His schtick has gotten so old and people are sick of it. I feel sorry for the guy, because I used to respect him so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jan 20, 2006 7:44:16 GMT -5
Yeah. I'd lose faith in O'Reilly too if he didn't go after the Bush administration's blatant corruption with the same fervor with which he tackled the Clinton administration.
|
|
