Why Won’t Letterman Brand O’Reilly a ‘Charlatan’?
We’re sorry to do this to you, but we’re providing all three parts of Bill O’Reilly’s interview on David Letterman last night. Our apologies.
The reason Letterman invites O’Reilly on, and the reason O’Reilly accepts Letterman’s invitation, is because both of their egos are the size of a pair of saline-inflated testicles. And just as gross. Except one guy says things that make people laugh, and the other guy says things that misinform and terrorize people.
So let’s do this. Rather than go on and on about how terrible O’Reilly is — because HE IS — let’s just find as many instances in these three clips of him contradicting himself or spewing lies.
We’ll start. In the second clip, he says he doesn’t want to comment on Al Franken because he doesn’t like the guy. Except, uh, when has not liking somebody ever stopped O’Reilly from tearing ‘em to shreds?
You go!
Bill O’Reilly needs to make his final exit.
Ick to both of them, and, why wasn’t Dave as tough on this homophobic, racist as he is on other “guests?”
“mom’s watching leno” ha!
Nice empty words there DABQ. Since you obviously aren’t past elementary school namecalling, I’ll keep it under 5 syllables for easy comprehension:
Letterman got stumped!
Dave admitted that he can’t hang with Bill on individual points; that’s when you actually have to start dealing in facts and not inflamatory empty remarks similar to those you so astutely offered us.
Letterman was a weatherman – the only time he dealt with the factual world. Since then, comedy, and now just hot air.
Letterman doesn’t need to brand O’Reilly as a charlatan. O’Reilly does a fine job of branding himself. Listen, I’m all for finding contradictions, but I think the best thing I can do for Bill O’Reilly is to give him the attention he deserves as a ‘journalist.’ I don’t watch his show because he argues the same worn-out arguments to the same worn-out viewers. Eventually, he’ll reach his twilight and his ratings will fall.
I agree with Dave about Bill being too smart to believe the things he says, but I don’t feel the same about the masses of people who tune in to watch him. I think the collective IQ of his audience is mob-like, uppity, and Fox-Faith-focused (not faith-based).