Two idiots collide

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by rah
Gee, when I saw the thread title I was expecting one of his autobiographical tales of woe.

My first inclination upon seeing the thread title was to post, without reading the OP, "So who'd you run into?"

[duke o' york]

I thought it was a spin-off thread, and that there'd be a link to the original in the OP.

[Japher]

here's the link to the original

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=156174

[rah]

Normally I won't poke fun at a poster, but it was so hard to pass up a straight line like that.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by rah
Normally I won't poke fun at a poster, but it was so hard to pass up a straight line like that.

Well, as Moderator down at our little CTP area here, I would say maybe your Ferret made ya do it


After all, you seem far too decent a fellow to be accused of being mean

[Pekka]

rah,

anyway yeah.. you can youtube it too, when I have time I'll post the link myself ...

Anyway my point was, he had 0 craft in his debate against o'reilly. Basically, Bill takes an issue, spins it around and gives you the wrong questions and basically tries to grab on anything he can and basically fight for a stalemate even if in real world he is losing so bad.

But man.. Moore had the same strategy! It was pathetic, and he was worse in it than Bill. They were arguing about semantics, I mean Bill was arguing about semantics, and Moore couldn't get pass it. IT was like, dude, you seriously have no arguments in you pass this? If someone turns few words around and makes it look something else, you can't get around that and attack with other arguments? So basically it comes down to semantics then, because both have weak base for their whole big idea.

Moore didn't even follow the rules of a debate, in which case he shoudl have won, but he didn't, so ... and he had time to try other routes, but no. He was going for populism, which is ok if you're running for the congress or something, but when you're 1-on-1 in a debate, man, issues are fighting issues, not personalities. So that's where the true weights are measured. And even though he is huge and keeps the poor children of the world hungry, he is lightweight.. a true LW.

[Pekka]

And Bill gave him a LOT too, Bill was like yeah there were no WMDs, he even went as far as to say he thinks it was a mistake, the Iraq thing. And still Moore can't win. How big of a head start he needs to come on top?

It was the first time I saw Moore debating someone in a debate situation.. what a sad sight.

Nothing but a populist. And it's ok to be populist but you have to back it up. Moore couldn't. He choked. He's a choker. He has no strong case. Just films. He looked stupid, and it was unedited too.

For example... when John Stewart went to crossfire, he kicked ass. He mauled his opponents so badly, that even their home crowd came on John's side, and he was fighting 2 guys! He basically pwned them so hard it was ... a spectacle.

So here's a guy who can back it up. But then again he IS smart, even if you disagree with him. And Moore was given a huge head start... what a lack luster..

[Lorizael]

MOORE VS. STEWART. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Japher
here's the link to the original

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=156174

That was awesome

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Hueij
Yeah, maybe, but Moore is on our my side

Corrected. If I personally had to choose between those two idiots, I'd pick Bill.

[Japher]

Originally posted by LordShiva


That was awesome

glad you caught the reference

it's what I like to call "a passive burn"

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Donegeal


Corrected. If I personally had to choose between those two idiots, I'd pick Bill.

If you ignore Bowling for Columbine like I do, I think Michael Moore becomes a lot more respectable.

Besides, we know that Bill O'Reilly is not just a right-wing hack but a sexual pervert as well.