Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

Navigation

Navigation
Log in


Forgot your password?
New user?
vote

Register to Vote

 
You are here: Home / News / Irony / 2011 / September / Exclusive - Bill O'Reilly Extended Interview

Exclusive - Bill O'Reilly Extended Interview

(includes note from editor) Pt 1. - Bill O'Reilly explains that he will gladly pay higher taxes as a job creator when the government stops wasting his money. Pt. 2 - Bill O'Reilly calls for a consumption tax in America that will force cocaine dealers to pay two to three percent on their Bentley purchases.

Editors note: O'Reilly and Stewart had an interesting exchange. Both made good points and both agreed on some points. The bias of either side in the discussion seems to be two fold. Both bring up points regarding apparent corruptions in the system.

O'Reilly brings up Solyndra and the $16 dollar muffin, one being a $528 million dollar scandal and the other being a $4,000 dollar scandal of government waste at a DC event where tax payers subsidized the weight of Washington 'fat cats' by buying them expensive muffins.

Stewart brings in the irony that O'Reilly is complaining about $16 dollar muffins while inferring to another scandal that amounted to hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars regarding the Wall Street bailout...

Both are right though and at the same time, yes, size matters.

So look at where they agree rather than where their bias potentials seem to emanate. They both agree waste and corruption is bad.

Stewart (regarding Wall Street): "Interestingly enough, they had a little problem that added up to what I believe is more than... what's $16 dollars times 250 muffins. So capitalism also finds itself going astray sometimes and wrecking our economy."

Stewart: "If you believe we should go back to the [old] bubble and bust days of the 1890's...?

O'Reilly: "I don't like the bubble and bust days. I want efficiency and honesty in all areas.

Stewart: So you and I are agreeing here.

O'Reilly: Simpatico.

Watch both parts of this interview. They are both right. The only wrong I can notice is the bias from the research standpoint on which points are being attacked from each side. But the points from both sides have strong validity.

Part I

Part II

Document Actions

Filed under: