redfarmer Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Since it's about the Iraq war, they would probably be in agreement w/ each other. Bleah I'd like to see him go up against Yaron Brook or Leonard Peikoff about something they wouldn't agree on, like seperation of church and state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randrew Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 I hated how he rudely laughed Peikoff down about using nuclear weapons Peikoff was on O'Reilly?! When was that, and what was the subject of discussion? (Btw: Anyone know if/when Brook is re-scheduled?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Peikoff was on O'Reilly?! When was that, and what was the subject of discussion? (Btw: Anyone know if/when Brook is re-scheduled?) It was sometime in October of 2001, I believe he was on it twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 O'Reilly was looking for an excuse to bump this speaker and he found it! Why do you say that? O'Reilly is far from a favorite of mine, but he does not strike me as a wishy-washy character, looking for excuses to undo something that he wanted in the first place. I guess what I am asking is, on what evidence do you base your assertion that he was "looking for an excuse to bump this speaker?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoso Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 (edited) ARI's executive director Dr. Yaron Brook, is scheduled for an interview on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor on Friday, 12/17 (rescheduled from 12/13). The topic will be Iraq. This program airs at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. Eastern Time. Please check your local listings for exact times in your area. Edited December 16, 2004 by Capitalism Forever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward j williamson Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Why do you say that? O'Reilly is far from a favorite of mine, but he does not strike me as a wishy-washy character, looking for excuses to undo something that he wanted in the first place. I guess what I am asking is, on what evidence do you base your assertion that he was "looking for an excuse to bump this speaker?" Dr. Speicher, Mr. O'Reilly has done this before to other speakers. Yes, I could might be biased, but I based my assertion on the fact that Mr. O'Reilly isn't fond of someone that he can not intimidate or pigeonhole as a leftist. He likes to debate lightweights and leftist nitwits that he can intimidate and make to look foolish. He probably (not based on fact, I admit) remembered back to the incident when Neal Boortz made him look like a complete boob. It could be that he doesn't want history to repeat itself. Let's put this in the context of why Dr. Brook was supposedly bumped. The excuse was the Scott Peterson verdict, or sentencing. One of those anyway. How long has this been big news? The verdict came down a couple of hours before The Factor was even scheduled to be on the air. It was no longer breaking news, yet he decided to preempt everything else? That, to me anyway, is ludicrous. Most viewers are sick to death of the Peterson case, and couldn't care less anymore other than the fact that they are glad to hear that the scum was sentenced to die. So why bump an invited speaker to feature some reoccuring, tired news story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoso Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Dr. Speicher, Mr. O'Reilly has done this before to other speakers. Yes, I could might be biased, but I based my assertion on the fact that Mr. O'Reilly isn't fond of someone that he can not intimidate or pigeonhole as a leftist. He likes to debate lightweights and leftist nitwits that he can intimidate and make to look foolish. He probably (not based on fact, I admit) remembered back to the incident when Neal Boortz made him look like a complete boob. It could be that he doesn't want history to repeat itself. Let's put this in the context of why Dr. Brook was supposedly bumped. The excuse was the Scott Peterson verdict, or sentencing. One of those anyway. How long has this been big news? The verdict came down a couple of hours before The Factor was even scheduled to be on the air. It was no longer breaking news, yet he decided to preempt everything else? That, to me anyway, is ludicrous. Most viewers are sick to death of the Peterson case, and couldn't care less anymore other than the fact that they are glad to hear that the scum was sentenced to die. So why bump an invited speaker to feature some reoccuring, tired news story? This post would make a good point if he hadn't been rescheduled for this Friday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward j williamson Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 This post would make a good point if he hadn't been rescheduled for this Friday. Yeah, I saw that too. I'll feast on a supper of crow if the interview happens, which I hope it does. It should be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Mr. O'Reilly has done this before to other speakers. Yes, I could might be biased, but I based my assertion on the fact that Mr. O'Reilly isn't fond of someone that he can not intimidate or pigeonhole as a leftist. He likes to debate lightweights and leftist nitwits that he can intimidate and make to look foolish. He probably (not based on fact, I admit) remembered back to the incident when Neal Boortz made him look like a complete boob. It could be that he doesn't want history to repeat itself. But Yaron Brook was previously a guest on the show, so if your speculation were true why would he have been invited back? Let's put this in the context of why Dr. Brook was supposedly bumped. The excuse was the Scott Peterson verdict, or sentencing. One of those anyway. How long has this been big news? The verdict came down a couple of hours before The Factor was even scheduled to be on the air. It was no longer breaking news, yet he decided to preempt everything else? That, to me anyway, is ludicrous. Most viewers are sick to death of the Peterson case, and couldn't care less anymore other than the fact that they are glad to hear that the scum was sentenced to die. So why bump an invited speaker to feature some reoccuring, tired news story? Perhaps you and I are not that interested in the Peterson case, but apparently quite a few others are interested enough to garner support for that sort of coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 I’ve been unsuccessfully been trying to find what time the show will air on the west coast tomorrow. I’m assuming that it will be 8 and 11… if someone knows for sure I’d appreciate a response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 I’ve been unsuccessfully been trying to find what time the show will air on the west coast tomorrow. I’m assuming that it will be 8 and 11… if someone knows for sure I’d appreciate a response. 5pm and 8pm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 5pm and 8pm. Thank you. I was pretty sure I couldn't go wrong with the 8pm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward j williamson Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Mr. O'Reilly has done this before to other speakers. Yes, I could might be biased, but I based my assertion on the fact that Mr. O'Reilly isn't fond of someone that he can not intimidate or pigeonhole as a leftist. He likes to debate lightweights and leftist nitwits that he can intimidate and make to look foolish. He probably (not based on fact, I admit) remembered back to the incident when Neal Boortz made him look like a complete boob. It could be that he doesn't want history to repeat itself. But Yaron Brook was previously a guest on the show, so if your speculation were true why would he have been invited back? Perhaps you and I are not that interested in the Peterson case, but apparently quite a few others are interested enough to garner support for that sort of coverage. Yeah, you're probably right. I have to admit, though, that Fox and all the other news outlets are beating a dead horse with this Peterson case. Now, unfortunately, we're going to be hearing about the Robert Blake case for who knows how long. That'll be talked about nonstop. I didn't know that Dr. Brook had been on his show previously. I look foward to the interview tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 I didn't know that Dr. Brook had been on his show previously. I think that he has been on O'Reilly at least two times before, as has Leonard Peikoff. And Rob Tracinski was on O'Reilly too. So, loud-mouth that O'Reilly is, he has provided a platform to get in a few Objectivist-related points over the years, and the ARI address (or web site?) is usually prominently displayed on the screen during the interview. Note that Fox has been open to ARI-affiliated speakers. In addition to those on the O'Reilly show, Ed Locke was on Brit Hume's show a couple of times, and Tom Bowden was on Hannity and Colmes. I look foward to the interview tomorrow. Yaron always gets in a few really good points, stuffed in between O'Reilly's incessant babbling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward j williamson Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I think that he has been on O'Reilly at least two times before, as has Leonard Peikoff. And Rob Tracinski was on O'Reilly too. So, loud-mouth that O'Reilly is, he has provided a platform to get in a few Objectivist-related points over the years, and the ARI address (or web site?) is usually prominently displayed on the screen during the interview. Note that Fox has been open to ARI-affiliated speakers. In addition to those on the O'Reilly show, Ed Locke was on Brit Hume's show a couple of times, and Tom Bowden was on Hannity and Colmes. Yaron always gets in a few really good points, stuffed in between O'Reilly's incessant babbling. LOL How does Hannity do with ARI-affiliated speakers? I think Brit Hume is a good interviewer, for the most part. I like Ed Locke's columns. He is not so pompous as Bill O'Reilly and poses thoughtful questions while conducting an interview. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 How does Hannity do with ARI-affiliated speakers? Tom Bowden was the only one interviewed that I can recall, and I do not remember if Hannity himself interviewed him, but nothing on Hannity's show could compare to the abuse that O'Reilly heaped on Peikoff on at least one occasion. I think Brit Hume is a good interviewer, for the most part.I rarely watch these shows, but my wife Betsy does and I know she thinks highly of Brit Hume. I like Ed Locke's columns. Yes, he is terrific in a multitude of ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Note that Fox has been open to ARI-affiliated speakers. In addition to those on the O'Reilly show, Ed Locke was on Brit Hume's show a couple of times, and Tom Bowden was on Hannity and Colmes. I missed Locke and Bowden! That would have been great to watch. I rarely watch tv anymore. Harry Binswanger was very impressive on Geraldo Rivera's show a year or so ago. Binswanger is very careful and measured in his responses, and usually hits the target well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Harry Binswanger was very impressive on Geraldo Rivera's show a year or so ago. Binswanger is very careful and measured in his responses, and usually hits the target well. Yes, I thought he did very well. As did Peter Schwartz and Yaron Brook when they too were on Geraldo. (ARI is surely doing something right in promoting Objectivism in this medium.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 There is also Jonathan Hoenig from Capitalist Pig who is on one the show "Cashin' In". Most of the time he is recomending stocks, but every once in awhile throws in a mention of Ayn Rand. I don't know how much of an Objectivist he is in reality however (he does link to ARI, and not TOC when he refers to Objectivisim). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I thought Yaron Brook was terrific on the show. In the short time he had, he got in a large number of points, and stood up to O'Reilly real well. Brook got across what you otherwise never hear on TV, Fox or elsewhere, about how we need to do whatever it takes to win this war, and how we need to stop sacrificing our soldiers out of concern for the civilians. Brook also hammered home that it is appeasement which emboldens the enemy, and a strong, uncompromising stance is what is needed to bring the enemy to its knees. Great stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted December 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I thought Yaron Brook was terrific on the show. In the short time he had, he got in a large number of points, and stood up to O'Reilly real well. Brook got across what you otherwise never hear on TV, Fox or elsewhere, about how we need to do whatever it takes to win this war, and how we need to stop sacrificing our soldiers out of concern for the civilians. Brook also hammered home that it is appeasement which emboldens the enemy, and a strong, uncompromising stance is what is needed to bring the enemy to its knees. Great stuff! This is the first time I've seen an ARI guy on any major media, and I'm excited with Brook's performance, for all the reasons you've given. Every time O'Reilly said that we'd "alienate the world" or that "the rest of the world doesn't see it that way," I wanted to shout Who cares?! If anybody gets around to watching it again, look for all of Bill's responses when Brook brings up Hiroshima. First he responded that "the rest of the world didn't have nukes then," then he said that "we asked those nations to surrender," and his final attempt to distinguish Fallujah from Hiroshima was to say "Iraq didn't attack us! That's a very important difference." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I just turned on the tube, and quote randomly happened to catch the last 10 seconds of the interview But isn’t it great that you can randomly come across Objectivist speakers in the media : Does anyone else think that Dr Brook and Dr Binswanger are responsible for much of this success? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles T. Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I was surprised O'Reilly actually let Brook complete some of his thoughts. And they were good ones! "I'd like to see Fallujah turned to dust." Ditto. He perfectly essentialized the flaw of the current war when he pointed out that the moral emphasis in past wars that we won was on preserving the lives of our soldiers, while in this one the emphasis is on preserving the lives of Iraqi civilians. O'Reilly concluded by saying, "I'd like to see us get more aggressive, but you can't kill civilians." Then how exactly do we fight this war when the enemy is hiding among them? Blank-out. All he can come up with to say is, "We have to fight it 'smarter' ". Gee, that's real helpful there, Bill. Did anyone watch Michael Newdow on the Hannity and Colmes program? He ate Hannity's lunch. Whatever Newdow's faults may be, he is an effective and persuasive speaker, at least on this seperation of church and state issue. He knows his stuff. Then I switched stations and saw Christopher Hitchens likewise making mincemeat of Pat Buchanan on Scarborough Country. I like Hitchens more and more the more I see and read of him, though I don't know much about the guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 O'Reilly really revealed himself last night, he actually said, "Perception is reality". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 Yeah he said "we have to fight it smarter" - that's a mean underhand insult, i.e. your solution is dumb, my solution is smart, but I don't actually know what my solution is; all I know is that it's smarter than yours. That's almost like saying any solution is smarter than yours, by definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.