That happens because he says something you wanted to hear, then something you disagree, next a lunatic idea, then smth plausible and repeats the process, not in the same order.
+Swirly Swirl that's why we need to stop bombing them and put troops on the ground and fight their bull shit propaganda from gaining them anymore allies
would you mind expanding? I usually hate this guy and i hate the idea of a war but for some reason some of the points he made resonated with me?! semi made sense? or maybe i'm just being daft.
I thought he made some decent points with the exception of a few.He didn't go as O'Reilly as much as I thought he would.Maybe those years being smacked talk by his guests had made him realise
+Sahar H IMO, the mindset of these people needed to change, we as Muslims need to do it. Our greatest weapon is SOCIAL MEDIA. These assholes use social media to recruit? we should use social media to inform. I'm sure some marketing company could help with the campaign
TheBmw4545 i suppose i just feel like those people are so far and gone and so brain washed that i can't imagine being able to bring them back into the light. that could be a useful tool in preventing more people from becoming radicals, but i can't see it working on people who already are.
Bill always makes sense, if you actually watched his show or read his books you'd know this, but you've been brainwashed by liberal media to believe he's wrong
There was one part that he said that isn't factual: the idea that everybody in America owning guns helped them win the American Revolution. We only gunned down 10,000 of theirs while they popped off nearly 25,000 of ours. It was actually guerilla warfare and foreign intervention that gave the Americans the win.
"We have to put the fear of God in people and we have to do it soon." Isn't that exactly what the Jihadist regime is trying to accomplish? There isn't a difference, you're just praying and acting under two different God's.
+Irshad Husain Then let me rephrase that, they're just praying and acting under two different religions. It's all the same at the end of the day though.
BubblegumWitch You said that putting the fear of God in people is the same exact thing as what Jihadists are doing. Then Irshad said that Christianity and Islam are practically the same religion. Then you replied back correcting yourself to what he said. This implies that Christians are the same as Jihadists because Muslims are the same as Jihadists.
+Jeremy Hamilton He was emphasizing all Abrahamic religions. I never said all Muslims are jihadists dude, stop crossing my words. We're talking about radicalized Muslims here, not all Muslims in genral.
The guy argued we should declare war so that the government can detain its citizens without any real reason! That's ridiculous, I have no idea how the right wing can get behind that.
Parth Kotak I said partially. I definitely can't get behind that, though I'm not a republican. I do think he is right that eliminating ISIS's leaders will generally lower the amount of people who are radicalized.
Anyone who thinks Mateen should've been apprehended prior to the massacre knows what he's getting at with that, respectfully. Really, it's the same concept that allows Obama to assassinate American citizens (Alwaki in particular)without due process.
Honestly, it was the same ideas, just delivered with a level head. A few rational center-right ideas with a lot of radical right sided ideas thrown in. That's what bill usually does, but with a much louder, obnoxious voice. It's a good example of the fact that people care much more about how something is said opposed to what is actually being said.
What Bill said makes u feel better just like what Bush said thru that magaphone after 9/11 made u feel better. But what they both prescribe won't work better. You can't declare littoral war via congress on an ideology. You need to outsmart it. Out think it. Defeat it. The Soviets were not beaten thru war.
This was a great interview (both parts). I kinda cringe at Colbert's disrespectful audience, and of course I don't actually watch his show on TV because I don't have a converter box or pay for cable. But on topic -- O'Reilly was well-spoken, shared his opinion well, and brought up a lot of really good points. I felt like Colbert responded occasionally in ways that he knew would get a response from the audience, rather disingenuous, but if it gets ratings fine. All said, pretty solid interview. Could have been handled by a better host, but this is TV.
Colbert was far too gracious to this loud mouth. The people cheered because he made good points. Whenever Bill is wrong he just tries talking over the person arguing against him. In all fairness to Bill though, he did make much better points than your average gun stroker. I don't agree with what he said completely, but his reasoning is subjectively sound.
***** I think there is some substance to the third point, don't the kurds need help? Can't leave the middle east alone getting destroyed by terrorists. Idk tho
1) His point is that you would take out ISIS (and only ISIS), working with the Syrian/Iranian/Israeli governments as well as NATO and UN allies. It's not about overthrowing a dictator a la Clinton and Bush, it's about eliminating a group of invaders who are radicalizing people all over the world and attacking innocent civilians. 2) Banning guns isn't a great solution, but I admit this was not his strongest point. He is right, however, that if anyone in that nightclub had a handgun, or even a taser, (it was a gun-free zone) that man could have been stopped in those three hours and several more lives could've been saved. 3) I don't think going to war is necessarily the best option, but he is right that we need to stop the people taking this ideology to the extreme. That will deter other people from becoming involved with it and at least reduce the problem. However, we must be careful not to turn it into a mass killing of Syrians, like Ted Cruz suggested, or even take the Trump approach of violating Muslim rights. If we let our hate make all Muslims into enemies, we will radicalize them all against us. This is the main flaw in neoconservative logic-- killing a bunch of people makes enemies of other people who would otherwise be peaceful.
I would be classified as "liberal" by most folks, and I cannot stand O' Reilly , but I do agree with him on the issue of the declaration of war with ISIS, they are at war with us. and the world. and the free nations of the world ( NATO) need to get together on this. yes it need to be intelligently, no blanket bombings, and drones shooting up weddings. we need to hit them were it hurts, their in their pockets. currently the oil fields they acquired, they are selling oil cheap on the black market to finance themselves, these are the real targets.
+Ben Larsen People aren't ethnically members of ISIS.... You can't know who is a member unless they admit it, you can't send people to concentration camps based on a hunch. It is not the same as Japan.
+Xolotl Nephthys We weren't at war against "Japanese people" during WW2 either. We were at war with the motives of the people in Japan just like we're at war with the motives from people in the Middle East. If we were against Japan based on ethnicity then we would be guilty of ethnic cleansing and no better than the Nazis. Just like it's hard to tell who's a member of ISIS, it was hard to tell which person in the USA had Japan's motives. That's why Japanese people went to concentration camps. The same could happen to people from the Middle East.
Japanese concentration camps? You mean the camps run by the Japanese where they were commiting genocide? That has nothing to do with the topic being discussed Justin, he was talking about internment camps run by Americans where Japanese Americans were safely isolated during WW2. There's a major difference. And his point was that he disagreed with them.
not only that but he had the balls to try to have an honest conversation unlike david letterman when letterman had o'reilly on and ducked conversation with cheap jokes.
Are you serious, Bill O'Reilly beat his wife and claimed that the shooter beating his wife was an excuse. We have Killed Hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east, Isis is almost dead but their idea is the only thing still around. Bill is a nut
That's because he wasn't debating. He was interviewing. The questions he asked weren't debate questions, they were interview questions designed to give people a deeper understanding of Bill's side. It's obvious Stephen disagrees with Bill on a lot of this, but he doesn't argue him, he only challenges Bill's convictions.
what the fuck? It's not even a fucking debate Colbert was just asking answers and got them from Bill. I swear everyone has to make everything a fucking competition.
He is talking about the war against the idea. Which is thousands of years old and can not be destroyed by brute force. The kill them all strategy is creating enemies that hold grudges forever.
Did we watch the same video? He just said he wanted to destroy isis but didnt explain how. He is such a nationalist and a moron he doesnt get killing civilians in syria will create more radicals.
I don't rep O'Reilly, but he laid out a basic game-plan in as much detail as can be done in a couple minutes. 1. Mobilize NATO troops to deploy to ISIS held areas in The Middle East 2. Declare War on ISIS through a Congressional Declaration 3. Focus on taking out ISIS troops and areas, while simultaneously working with local U.S. sympathetic forces to move in and take over from NATO forces when areas are stabilized 4. When ISIS is insolvent, and basic stability is achieved, demobilize, and head back home, assured that regional powers will do their best to keep the peace. It may lack some detail, but O'Reilly is not a military strategist, and indeed any war plan is going to require a lot of flexibility if its going to work. Too much detail, and things start to fall apart when it comes to actually achieving it. I don't necessarily agree with every part of this plan, but it is at the very least, a coherent and reasonable plan.
+TheGuyWith 9000 views and no videos i dislike bill and i am a proud demo but bill did say how he was going to solve isis. and thats through NATO and U.S involvement. the u.s, belgium, france, middle eastern countries, asain countries, and other european countries like Britian and Germany have all ties against ISIS. this woulf be a great coalition and destroy isis in months. Soilders volunteer to fight and protect their countries so let them go and do whats best for our country. we can not destroy isis by drones. we need to send boots. i never agree with bill and half the time of this video i did not agree but for once i finally agreed with him on destroying ISIS
He also had a good plan to tackle the issue of gun control that reconciles both the "national pride" of the second amendment and the increase of mass shooting prevention. The plan being to restrict the sale of particular threatening fire arms. Backing it up with the effectiveness it had in Australia.
What u guys need to understand about radical islam is killing people in ISIS wont stop extremism. If the people of syria see us invading and killing them, they will only hate the west more. You have to be smart about convincing the people that their ideology isnt what its meant to be. Violence wont end the religion unless you are planning to kill every syrian person in a large genocide. Bills plan is like bush'. Intervention will only cause another problem, killing officials is a short term strategy that will ultimately achieve nothing.
+Ben Larsen actually, until the end, the U.S. used a rather tempered approach. Then, in a moment of frustration, they fire bombed Berlin and nuked Japan for no reason. But that was just Germany and Japan issues with other places continue to this day. I think a new approach is logical.
Declared wars have ends. The last time we officially declared war was the last time we won one...that was world war 2. Endless wars come with NDAA policies and ignoring congressional approval.
If Hillary is elected, that's what we'll get. She wants to take us to war with Iran...although I wouldn't think that Trump would be much better as our next POTUS, either!
+flyingvman1000 Probably why you don't have grieving family members making critical political decisions. (The commenter's detachment in this case is a feature not a bug.)
9/11 did the exact opposite; after the 9/11 attacks, millions of men and women enlisted in the military to destroy those that harmed the country. Same thing happened after pearl harbor
RigorArts Yeah, for like 3 years everyone was "united" and full MURRICA FUCK YEAH. Then people got tired of Bush after he failed to deliver and we've been in some weird apathetic state ever since.
The shooters brain fully worked he didnt have mental illness. He just believed in an ideology that justified what he did. Mentally ill people do things that don't make any sense. What the shooter did made sense to him it was justified by Islam and ISIS in his mind. Mental illness and doing something stupid/wrong are two very different things.
Nearly no one donates to mental health research. Or even canvasses for donations. Charity is an incredibly important third wing of disease research. And we choose to stay in the dark ages with mental illness
As I posted above it was not mental illness because the guy was not insane. He simply believed in an ideology (islam) that in his eyes justified what he did.
It pains me that Stephen doesn't take it to Bill the way that he might have used to on the Report, he's smarter than this, he can argue better than this, it's so frustrating to watch him take smack from O'Rielly's pompous ass and give nothing in return.
Notice Colbert did a face palm? Yes he can do much better, but he is owned now. I'm sure he likes his gig and his pay check... but I'm sure there are times (like this one) that he wished he could really let his wit fly.
Why would he though? Bill was making good points and Stephen's job was just to ask questions that would direct the conversation. There's no point trying to argue with or "own" someone who's saying the right things.
This is one of my favorite videos I've ever seen. 2 men with seemingly opposite viewpoints who come together to intelligently share ideas and debate on the proper course of action. Yet they do it in an intelligent and diplomatic manner.
I have two family members who joined ISIS, yes that is correct, two close family members who just upped and left their family and loved ones to fight ISIS. Here I am, a Muslim, fasting during this month (ramadan) to gain more apathy for the less fortunate. And there ISIS is killing innocent people. My two family members that joined ISIS were drug dealing, good for nothing criminals. Meanwhile at the same time, I have close family members and relatives in the Kurdish Peshmerga fighting ISIS, while also fasting. Please, understand what I am trying to say here. These people do not represent me, or my family, or the true followers of Islam that are fasting during this holy month, and that are giving charity during this holy month. I have nothing to say, this is not justifiable and is absolutely disgusting. I ask if you are religious, no matter what religion you follow, pray for the deceased and injured, and for their families. Please stay safe and do not be afraid, or else these disgusting criminals will win.
This was a good interview, I especially like the way that Stephen Colbert allowed Bill O'Reilly to present his side of the facts. That was a real kind gesture on Stephen' part. O'Reilly is a very knowledgeable man
You must first detect evel eh. There is no arab drilling land in texas mate but they are sure texans drilling in the desert eh? So they think you're evil, and you think they're evil Hm...there might be, just might be a another solution to this?
In all the efforts to destroy this "evil", don't you think a lot more "evil" will be created in other parts of the world in retaliation for the US deciding what's good and what's evil?
+prometheus 1978 You're absolutely right, if the middle east's oil dried up tomorrow, the us would be packed up and on it's way out faster than they declared the search for weapons of mass destruction
I think the majority of the entire planet, with the exception of communists, dictators, and religious extremists, agree that killing innocent people, for any reason is evil. The US isnt deciding what is good and what is evil.
Hes absolutely right? His entire comment was literally a jumble of words that a 10 year old couldnt comprehend. Also we are talkin about Religious extremists and ISIS not the "war in Iraq" which was about oil.
Colbert made some great points as well. And I think they were agreeing more than disagreeing here. The road Bill wants to go down makes some sense but at the same time it it is also faulty.
I agree, I think Colbert was partially playing devil's advocate to invite better discussion. Though they obviously disagreed on some topics like mental illness being a legitimate factor and the notion of what is effective to kill an opposing, and violent, idea. I don't often like O'Reilly, but he had some good thought provoking ideas here; I'll admit it. I don't think the way to accomplish it is to drag NATO in by declaring war then forcing them to obey the treaties though. There needs to be some discussion. I mean, they haven't officially declared war either and they arguably have more stake in it than the US.
the passed 1 year I have agreed with bill, before that I agreed with nothing he said. But im going to for the first time agree what he said 100%. Fuck, what kind of world am I living in that I can say that? Seriously, when was Bill the voice of truth, he is so on this whole interview. I disagree with so much of his passed, and then this happens, and one video before this out of at least 60. well done, glad u see the light.
You put aside what you've believed or thought you knew, however you want to phrase it, and played out both sides with reason and critical thinking. The real kind of critical thinking, not the lame progressive liberal version, where they feel pre-judgement is real thought.
Bill has said some irrational things in the past, for sure, but he makes a lot more sense when not just listened to in tiny clips. He is however getting a lot more logical with age it seems. A far more logical Bill is Bill Whittle.
+Paragon of Growth And sever yet another head of the Hydra. You can't war yourself to peace. NATO, Coalition of the Willing, Axis of Evil, it's all the same talk as before. Billy almost had a point, then he blew it on his v.p. job application interview. Its kind of cute how he assumes isis lives in a historical vacuum tho.
I don't know what he said at the time of the Iraq war, but I do know this is the same kind of rhetoric used to get us into war. We can't "defeat" radical Islam through war. It creates more problems than it solves, in that it solves none. More guns also isn't the solution. Reasonable measures could move us in the right direction. The go to that so for so many, guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is true, which is why we need to do something about who has these weapons. I'm tired of the deflecting away from guns when such tragedies occur, and I'm tired of doing nothing.
+RSPainter You just said alot of things that you believe, but didn't explain why you believe them. Why do you think that we can't defeat radical Islam through war? Why are more guns not the solution? What are these "reasonable measures" that you refer to? This isn't meant as bait; I'm honestly interested in the reasons.
Yea, it use to be everyone had a musket. Now it's civilians have rifles and the army has: UAV's, tanks, armoured vehicles, autonomous threat destruction platforms and so on.
Therefore rendering the reason for the second amendment nonexistent. It was created to enable a revolution by the citizens, which is now impossible. The amendment has no reason not to be abolished, and the only other way to go is to sell tanks to civilians which is fucking inane.
Joe Smith We have the right to bear arms because of our right to revolution. There is no inherent right to own a gun, it has to come with reason. Now that revolution is no longer dependent on our right to bear arms, the second amendment is useless.
The US should outlaw alcohol too, drunk driving accounts for nearly 10,000 deaths yearly, about the same as gun deaths due to homicide. Should probably prohibit the sales of high sugar, and high fat foods since diabetes kills about 67,000 a year and the primary cause of type 2 diabetes is obesity. Actually the US should just do away with private vehicle ownership given they cause 30,000 deaths per year.
+Sin SinaT The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
There's some truth in what you're saying, but with Hitler, for example, it was more complex than just taking guns away. The Nazis essentially "militarized" the citizenry, making sure that the bulk of young men (except for Jews and other groups that were official targets of discrimination) were in regimented groups that could be mobilized on the regime's behalf. The largest, obviously, was the Wehrmacht. But "volunteer" groups like the SA and SS were armed, and the SS was ultimately used to take over all police in Germany, thus ensuring that law enforcement was guided by the "popular" (ie, Hitler's) will. The Nazis were thrilled at the prospect of an armed citizenry -- as long as those citizens were considered ideologically "reliable" and could be regimented/mobilized against groups that Hitler despised.
Statistics: 84,258 nonfatal injuries, 11,208 deaths by homicide, 21,175 by suicide. In 72 hours of 93 deaths unrelated to Orlando. Your examples are unoriginal and silly. In recent memory, I can't think of a single case of an angry postal worker going on a rampage inflicting cake induced diabetes. You can't force alcohol and sugar into people the way you can bullets with an AR-15.
I love this concept. Get someone with an opposing view and have them explain themselves and then challenge them on the views. I do think it would be a huge benefit to have these talks longer. I would have loved to see a half hour of this or an hour.
***** nope. He asked follow up questions and had O'Reilly generally address other viewpoints while expanding on his own. He wasn't trying to convince O'Reilly, but rather give a way for him to speak both in more detail and more broadly (know that sounds strange but...hope you know what i mean >.>)
"Now is the time for America to step up" and help its own people, not go to endless war in the Middle East. We aren't taking care of the vets we have now, it is shameful.
I commend Colbert for having Bill O Reilly on. He's very smart and very straight forward and American needs a no spin no nonsense individual that tells it like it is
ISIS is giving Muslim extremists the world over a taste of invincibility and immortality because of the destruction in the Levant. We'll never convince fanatics that they're in the wrong but we can make them fear failure by crushing their idols. Now, I don't actually agree that means putting American boots on the ground but that's a whole other debate.
absolutely one of the best clips I've seen Colbert do. Congrats. Bring on more people that disagree with Stephen for more compelling videos like this. Stephen stands his ground well. Colbert for President!
Hey Colbert, please take in some refugees from Syria, into your own home, and you can shower them with hugs and kisses and there will be peace and happiness for all.
Liberal here who's for gun rights and thinks "gun control" is stupid and unrealistic. Not every liberal is like you, sorry to be the one to tell you that.
I live in Australia. Gun control is not unrealistic. Your vote has no influence in Congress ,as proven in a Princeton study. Whereas corporate lobbying by NRA and others does. Fix that first.
Bill really was on his game here. He even got the audience on his side for a moment. Stephen probably thought he was gonna put Bill in his place. Some good tv
I have been to a Christians friend of mines wedding when he married a Pakistani girl, in Pakistan in a church,, and I have seen many Churches and Hindu temples there myself. Most Muslim countries don't have a problem with other religions, are you talking about Saudi Arabia? because that's the only one I can think of that doesn't allow other fates to be openly practised.
Never thought I'd say this about a conversation with Bill O'Reilly but this is a reasonable, respectful exchange with valid points on both sides. This is the way it should be in our kitchens and our halls of government. We don't have to agree on everything but let's respectfully and rationally compromise to get something better than what we have now.
What a lot of people don't realize about a formal declaration of War, it only lasts for 2 years. Once the 2 years are up, Congress has to vote on it again to renew it.
"we have to put the fear of god in them" probably one of the most destructive sentences ever created... when both sides are trying to do the same thing... this is why religion even tho has some good guidelines and good morals to live by, is also one the most dangerous thing that mankind ever created.
Awesome that Stephen had Bill answer a prime, deep philosophical question: what do you do about evil? Bill's answer: destroy it. There, deep differences in philosophy can be found. Very cool, SC.
"What is the proper response to evil?" is one of the most profound questions I have heard asked recently, and one that I would love to see a proper forum on. Also, I do believe that evil will destroy itself, and that Plato is certainly not a bad philosopher to learn from.
I don't agree with everything O'Reilly says, but I have to acknowledge that Stephen really puts him in check. Whenever I see these two interact, O'Reilly is always forced into a situation where he has to be 100% clear on what he thinks, without any bullshit or pandering or whatever. And when that happens, he sounds much more moderate and a bit more sensible than usual. So kudos to Colbert for doing this, I'd love to see more of the two of them! '
+gunnyman100 yea true they just ship the bullets from syria anyway, a better solution would be if the federal government gave personal information on imigrants to state governers when those imigrants want to move to a state
You cast your bullets from scrap lead. It's why they sell molds for it. Like say LEE Precisions etc. And btw, what it has to do with caliber?? AR-15 uses the smallest caliber there it, short of 177 pellet guns.
I actually agree with O'Reilly when he says to make ALL gun crimes federal crimes, including the sale of illegal guns. However that would not have stopped the guy in Orlando because he bought a legal gun legally even after being placed on the "No-Fly" list. There also needs to be a closing of the no wait and no check loophole with private sales and gun show/flea market purchases.
I have never found myself impressed with that man. He's always been so angry and insolent and ignorant of the facts . . . but Bill O'Reilly held his own in this video. He stated his point, and for that, I feel the need to give him props. Good match between the two of them. Nice and civil, like real men.
"You need to put the fear of God in these people." I think they got that fear already. That is why 50 gay folk are dead.
*claps*
Na that was the fear of the fact he couldn't get dick off his mind
Well put.
+Peator what you gonna do about it?
logic doesn't work with bill
Bill had me then lost me then had me then.... on and on and on.
The guys a lunatic 😲
same XD
That happens because he says something you wanted to hear, then something you disagree, next a lunatic idea, then smth plausible and repeats the process, not in the same order.
I agree with you Julian. had to listen twice.
He completely lost me after he mentioned "War"
I love it when Bill's on the show!
Brainless shill
Yep. Opposites attract.
for you
bill's a turd. Look how he was for the Iraq war.
Juju jujuria so was hillary
Can you imagine Fallon doing this interview? They'd have dunked Oreos and played charades until the clock ran out.
LMFAO I agree!
I love Jimmy Fallon but his show is VERY VERY different than Colbert's.
Fallon is trash
He would pop a blood vessel to go 8 minutes without hitting his desk from laughing so i dont think so
Wow, Fallon would need his best fake laughs for O'Reilly's comedy.
Hell yeah, last war on terror went so good!
Hope and change and appeasement is working wonderfully for Obama.
The reason Obama has to deal with this crap is because of the intervention and meddling done in the middle east in the first place.
Obama has bombed these people to no avail
+Swirly Swirl that's why we need to stop bombing them and put troops on the ground and fight their bull shit propaganda from gaining them anymore allies
sean robinson that kind of propaganda that say "oh USA want to destroy us, we need to defend, lets all get weapons and shot those 'red coats'"?
Bill O'Reilly sounds much more reasonable when he doesn't interview himself in his own show
because Colbert calls him out on his idiocy and 2 steppin'
+Doc Bartley Eh
+Jay S They went so far as to stage the Orlando Massacre? Wow, you are really able to see through the veil. I am impressed with capacity to reason.
Pedro Paredes exactly he seemed really reasonable here but on his own show he just shouts and screams and it makes him look stupid
Agreed. I don’t like this man but from this interview , he is a smart man with valid points of view. Surprise me.
I face palmed myself so many times at O'Reilly my face is swollen.
would you mind expanding? I usually hate this guy and i hate the idea of a war but for some reason some of the points he made resonated with me?! semi made sense? or maybe i'm just being daft.
I thought he made some decent points with the exception of a few.He didn't go as O'Reilly as much as I thought he would.Maybe those years being smacked talk by his guests had made him realise
+Sahar H IMO, the mindset of these people needed to change, we as Muslims need to do it. Our greatest weapon is SOCIAL MEDIA.
These assholes use social media to recruit? we should use social media to inform.
I'm sure some marketing company could help with the campaign
TheBmw4545 i suppose i just feel like those people are so far and gone and so brain washed that i can't imagine being able to bring them back into the light. that could be a useful tool in preventing more people from becoming radicals, but i can't see it working on people who already are.
I would be curious wtf resonated with you? I don't see how war will reduce gun deaths.
I love how Colbert stopped the audience from drowning out his guest. True leadership by a host
O'Reilly made some great points
Im not going to lie... but, I agree.
Bill is an interesting man but he does make some good points
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THIS MAN WANTS TO SEE THE WORLD BURN
+Royo2013 You can't just say that he is wrong just because he is Bill O'reilly c'mon.His points are valid this time.
+許錦文 Agreed, he is on point this time.
Bill always makes sense, if you actually watched his show or read his books you'd know this, but you've been brainwashed by liberal media to believe he's wrong
There was one part that he said that isn't factual: the idea that everybody in America owning guns helped them win the American Revolution. We only gunned down 10,000 of theirs while they popped off nearly 25,000 of ours. It was actually guerilla warfare and foreign intervention that gave the Americans the win.
"We have to put the fear of God in these people..." Wait what?
I think the fact that they have the fear of God is their problem.
They're both Catholic, that response wasn't unfair.
typical Christian unnecessary phrase
Google: "Figure of Speech."
It was a figure of speech...
I feel like Bill represented his viewpoint very well. I dont agree with everything, but it was a refreshing change to his usual self.
"We have to put the fear of God in people and we have to do it soon." Isn't that exactly what the Jihadist regime is trying to accomplish? There isn't a difference, you're just praying and acting under two different God's.
+Irshad Husain Then let me rephrase that, they're just praying and acting under two different religions. It's all the same at the end of the day though.
Except Muslims don't except Jihadists as fellow Muslims. Kind of like Christians don't except the KKK as fellow Christians.
+Jeremy Hamilton I never said they did
BubblegumWitch You said that putting the fear of God in people is the same exact thing as what Jihadists are doing. Then Irshad said that Christianity and Islam are practically the same religion. Then you replied back correcting yourself to what he said. This implies that Christians are the same as Jihadists because Muslims are the same as Jihadists.
+Jeremy Hamilton He was emphasizing all Abrahamic religions. I never said all Muslims are jihadists dude, stop crossing my words. We're talking about radicalized Muslims here, not all Muslims in genral.
Wow, I think I at least partially agree with Bill on this O__0
He's usually a little bit correct
He says some irrational stuff, but he's a lot less crazy sounding when he's not take in out of context sound clips.
The guy argued we should declare war so that the government can detain its citizens without any real reason! That's ridiculous, I have no idea how the right wing can get behind that.
Parth Kotak
I said partially. I definitely can't get behind that, though I'm not a republican. I do think he is right that eliminating ISIS's leaders will generally lower the amount of people who are radicalized.
Anyone who thinks Mateen should've been apprehended prior to the massacre knows what he's getting at with that, respectfully.
Really, it's the same concept that allows Obama to assassinate American citizens (Alwaki in particular)without due process.
Bill stepped up his game, I like it. Count me in.
Strange he made so much sense.
He keeps losing some of marbles though, which is the main issue.
lol
I agree with Lex XD
Honestly, it was the same ideas, just delivered with a level head. A few rational center-right ideas with a lot of radical right sided ideas thrown in. That's what bill usually does, but with a much louder, obnoxious voice. It's a good example of the fact that people care much more about how something is said opposed to what is actually being said.
What Bill said makes u feel better just like what Bush said thru that magaphone after 9/11 made u feel better. But what they both prescribe won't work better. You can't declare littoral war via congress on an ideology. You need to outsmart it. Out think it. Defeat it. The Soviets were not beaten thru war.
This is by far the most i have ever liked bill o reilly
Because you never listened
@@TroyBraidenNo, it's because he was a professional propagandist for 20 years.
This was a great interview (both parts). I kinda cringe at Colbert's disrespectful audience, and of course I don't actually watch his show on TV because I don't have a converter box or pay for cable. But on topic -- O'Reilly was well-spoken, shared his opinion well, and brought up a lot of really good points. I felt like Colbert responded occasionally in ways that he knew would get a response from the audience, rather disingenuous, but if it gets ratings fine. All said, pretty solid interview. Could have been handled by a better host, but this is TV.
👍 well said
Colbert was far too gracious to this loud mouth. The people cheered because he made good points. Whenever Bill is wrong he just tries talking over the person arguing against him.
In all fairness to Bill though, he did make much better points than your average gun stroker. I don't agree with what he said completely, but his reasoning is subjectively sound.
***** I think there is some substance to the third point, don't the kurds need help? Can't leave the middle east alone getting destroyed by terrorists. Idk tho
1) His point is that you would take out ISIS (and only ISIS), working with the Syrian/Iranian/Israeli governments as well as NATO and UN allies. It's not about overthrowing a dictator a la Clinton and Bush, it's about eliminating a group of invaders who are radicalizing people all over the world and attacking innocent civilians.
2) Banning guns isn't a great solution, but I admit this was not his strongest point. He is right, however, that if anyone in that nightclub had a handgun, or even a taser, (it was a gun-free zone) that man could have been stopped in those three hours and several more lives could've been saved.
3) I don't think going to war is necessarily the best option, but he is right that we need to stop the people taking this ideology to the extreme. That will deter other people from becoming involved with it and at least reduce the problem.
However, we must be careful not to turn it into a mass killing of Syrians, like Ted Cruz suggested, or even take the Trump approach of violating Muslim rights. If we let our hate make all Muslims into enemies, we will radicalize them all against us. This is the main flaw in neoconservative logic-- killing a bunch of people makes enemies of other people who would otherwise be peaceful.
I disagree with the "more guns" argument. There were 3 cops nearby that DID shoot it out with the culprit.
Bill has some good points but, man its like hes on a quest to hear himself talk everytime.
talk shows always have applause and laugh signs how else wood letterman get any laughs and applause from his outtaed weak monologues
hes trying to get you to listen and understand
Sorry Ronald but those are natural reactions from a caring public.
Evil is subjective. The guy had mental health issues. Guaranteed his mental health is what drove him to his radical views in the first place.
I would be classified as "liberal" by most folks, and I cannot stand O' Reilly , but I do agree with him on the issue of the declaration of war with ISIS, they are at war with us. and the world. and the free nations of the world ( NATO) need to get together on this. yes it need to be intelligently, no blanket bombings, and drones shooting up weddings. we need to hit them were it hurts, their in their pockets. currently the oil fields they acquired, they are selling oil cheap on the black market to finance themselves, these are the real targets.
Yes, bring up Japanese concentration camps. That helps prove your point...
It's relevant. If we declared war on ISIS on our own soil it could lead to a similar situation.
Ben Larsen Of course it's relevant. All the more reason we shouldn't do anything like that as a country ever again.
+Ben Larsen People aren't ethnically members of ISIS.... You can't know who is a member unless they admit it, you can't send people to concentration camps based on a hunch. It is not the same as Japan.
+Xolotl Nephthys We weren't at war against "Japanese people" during WW2 either. We were at war with the motives of the people in Japan just like we're at war with the motives from people in the Middle East. If we were against Japan based on ethnicity then we would be guilty of ethnic cleansing and no better than the Nazis. Just like it's hard to tell who's a member of ISIS, it was hard to tell which person in the USA had Japan's motives. That's why Japanese people went to concentration camps. The same could happen to people from the Middle East.
Japanese concentration camps? You mean the camps run by the Japanese where they were commiting genocide? That has nothing to do with the topic being discussed Justin, he was talking about internment camps run by Americans where Japanese Americans were safely isolated during WW2. There's a major difference. And his point was that he disagreed with them.
At least Colbert has the balls to have someone on his show who has a different ideology
not only that but he had the balls to try to have an honest conversation unlike david letterman when letterman had o'reilly on and ducked conversation with cheap jokes.
At least Orielly had the balls to go in front of an audience with a different ideology... much harder to do
John Stewart went to him a bunch of times
Zach James colbert did the same when he went on the O’Reilly Factor years before this
I usually do not agree with this man but this time I actually agreed with what he said. Great points.
I agree
Same here. Did not see this coming.
dont pretend like youve been following him, you never seriously listened to him in the first place.
haha you edited your original post. Why?
Ian Geitner
because i wanted to reword my comment.
Wow.... 1st time I've seen Steven lose a debate with any one....
Are you serious, Bill O'Reilly beat his wife and claimed that the shooter beating his wife was an excuse. We have Killed Hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east, Isis is almost dead but their idea is the only thing still around. Bill is a nut
Do yo umean "lost"?
and it wasn't a debate, it was a conversation, and no, Bill is a moron.
That's because he wasn't debating. He was interviewing. The questions he asked weren't debate questions, they were interview questions designed to give people a deeper understanding of Bill's side. It's obvious Stephen disagrees with Bill on a lot of this, but he doesn't argue him, he only challenges Bill's convictions.
The funny thing is many don't even realize he is a comedian who says things to get a laugh. Many get their "news" from here or Comedy Central even.
what the fuck? It's not even a fucking debate Colbert was just asking answers and got them from Bill. I swear everyone has to make everything a fucking competition.
this idea of "winning" is what is the real poison.
What are you, a loser?
+Jim Zheng Hahaaaa nice, you beat me to it
He is talking about the war against the idea. Which is thousands of years old and can not be destroyed by brute force. The kill them all strategy is creating enemies that hold grudges forever.
And Clay, you're a complete fucking conspiratorial idiot
I think he understands that rather well considering he proposed (in this video!) that the United States declare war on the groups you listed.
Those seemed to be some pretty nuanced ideas coming from O'Reilly. He's definitely stepping up his game these days.
Did we watch the same video? He just said he wanted to destroy isis but didnt explain how. He is such a nationalist and a moron he doesnt get killing civilians in syria will create more radicals.
I don't rep O'Reilly, but he laid out a basic game-plan in as much detail as can be done in a couple minutes.
1. Mobilize NATO troops to deploy to ISIS held areas in The Middle East
2. Declare War on ISIS through a Congressional Declaration
3. Focus on taking out ISIS troops and areas, while simultaneously working with local U.S. sympathetic forces to move in and take over from NATO forces when areas are stabilized
4. When ISIS is insolvent, and basic stability is achieved, demobilize, and head back home, assured that regional powers will do their best to keep the peace.
It may lack some detail, but O'Reilly is not a military strategist, and indeed any war plan is going to require a lot of flexibility if its going to work. Too much detail, and things start to fall apart when it comes to actually achieving it. I don't necessarily agree with every part of this plan, but it is at the very least, a coherent and reasonable plan.
+TheGuyWith 9000 views and no videos i dislike bill and i am a proud demo but bill did say how he was going to solve isis. and thats through NATO and U.S involvement. the u.s, belgium, france, middle eastern countries, asain countries, and other european countries like Britian and Germany have all ties against ISIS. this woulf be a great coalition and destroy isis in months. Soilders volunteer to fight and protect their countries so let them go and do whats best for our country. we can not destroy isis by drones. we need to send boots. i never agree with bill and half the time of this video i did not agree but for once i finally agreed with him on destroying ISIS
He also had a good plan to tackle the issue of gun control that reconciles both the "national pride" of the second amendment and the increase of mass shooting prevention. The plan being to restrict the sale of particular threatening fire arms. Backing it up with the effectiveness it had in Australia.
What u guys need to understand about radical islam is killing people in ISIS wont stop extremism. If the people of syria see us invading and killing them, they will only hate the west more. You have to be smart about convincing the people that their ideology isnt what its meant to be. Violence wont end the religion unless you are planning to kill every syrian person in a large genocide. Bills plan is like bush'. Intervention will only cause another problem, killing officials is a short term strategy that will ultimately achieve nothing.
So...the answer to "destroy destroy destroy", is "destroy destroy destroy"? Seems a bit illogical.
Really? That's how we won WW2.
Was it?
+The Heron Hero lol yes
+Ben Larsen actually, until the end, the U.S. used a rather tempered approach. Then, in a moment of frustration, they fire bombed Berlin and nuked Japan for no reason. But that was just Germany and Japan issues with other places continue to this day. I think a new approach is logical.
Not the way it went down. Lol
Let's start another never-ending war....faaahhhnntastic *eye-roll*
ikr. they have been fighting over there in the middle east for centuries. what's in it for them to stop....
No you should just leave terrorists alone. We should never have stopped the nazis either. What a dumb comment
Declared wars have ends.
The last time we officially declared war was the last time we won one...that was world war 2.
Endless wars come with NDAA policies and ignoring congressional approval.
If Hillary is elected, that's what we'll get. She wants to take us to war with Iran...although I wouldn't think that Trump would be much better as our next POTUS, either!
+flyingvman1000 Probably why you don't have grieving family members making critical political decisions. (The commenter's detachment in this case is a feature not a bug.)
I love the kickass American attitude. They don't let anyone push them around.
I wish the country as a whole still had it. The terrorists really did win on 9/11. Turned folks into a bunch of pussies.
9/11 did the exact opposite; after the 9/11 attacks, millions of men and women enlisted in the military to destroy those that harmed the country. Same thing happened after pearl harbor
RigorArts Yeah, for like 3 years everyone was "united" and full MURRICA FUCK YEAH. Then people got tired of Bush after he failed to deliver and we've been in some weird apathetic state ever since.
How is mental illness not part of the problem??
all fascists have mental problems, but they are STILL evil!
The shooters brain fully worked he didnt have mental illness. He just believed in an ideology that justified what he did. Mentally ill people do things that don't make any sense. What the shooter did made sense to him it was justified by Islam and ISIS in his mind. Mental illness and doing something stupid/wrong are two very different things.
Nearly no one donates to mental health research. Or even canvasses for donations. Charity is an incredibly important third wing of disease research. And we choose to stay in the dark ages with mental illness
Because the guy was not white.
As I posted above it was not mental illness because the guy was not insane. He simply believed in an ideology (islam) that in his eyes justified what he did.
It pains me that Stephen doesn't take it to Bill the way that he might have used to on the Report, he's smarter than this, he can argue better than this, it's so frustrating to watch him take smack from O'Rielly's pompous ass and give nothing in return.
Notice Colbert did a face palm? Yes he can do much better, but he is owned now. I'm sure he likes his gig and his pay check... but I'm sure there are times (like this one) that he wished he could really let his wit fly.
Why would he though? Bill was making good points and Stephen's job was just to ask questions that would direct the conversation. There's no point trying to argue with or "own" someone who's saying the right things.
He didn't bring him on the show to shut him down. He just wanted to hear his pov, and share his own.
He was a character on the Report.
I think Stephen wants to show everyone that there is another opinion out there and that we should consider them
Bill o Reilly actually made sense
He usually does.
IF YOU'RE A NAZI
Heil you doin' mein friend?
He does most of the time -Someone who leans to the Liberal side of politics
I agree. I find that people on the right are starting to make a lot more sense than the regressive left.
This is one of my favorite videos I've ever seen. 2 men with seemingly opposite viewpoints who come together to intelligently share ideas and debate on the proper course of action. Yet they do it in an intelligent and diplomatic manner.
O'Reilly and Colbert are both smart guys. I always learn something when they get together.
I have two family members who joined ISIS, yes that is correct, two close family members who just upped and left their family and loved ones to fight ISIS. Here I am, a Muslim, fasting during this month (ramadan) to gain more apathy for the less fortunate. And there ISIS is killing innocent people. My two family members that joined ISIS were drug dealing, good for nothing criminals. Meanwhile at the same time, I have close family members and relatives in the Kurdish Peshmerga fighting ISIS, while also fasting. Please, understand what I am trying to say here. These people do not represent me, or my family, or the true followers of Islam that are fasting during this holy month, and that are giving charity during this holy month. I have nothing to say, this is not justifiable and is absolutely disgusting. I ask if you are religious, no matter what religion you follow, pray for the deceased and injured, and for their families. Please stay safe and do not be afraid, or else these disgusting criminals will win.
This was a good interview, I especially like the way that Stephen Colbert allowed Bill O'Reilly to present his side of the facts. That was a real kind gesture on Stephen' part. O'Reilly is a very knowledgeable man
I dont agree with O'Riley on a lot of things but he is 100% right about one thing. You cannot contain evil. You must destroy it. Good must conquer it.
You must first detect evel eh. There is no arab drilling land in texas mate but they are sure texans drilling in the desert eh? So they think you're evil, and you think they're evil Hm...there might be, just might be a another solution to this?
In all the efforts to destroy this "evil", don't you think a lot more "evil" will be created in other parts of the world in retaliation for the US deciding what's good and what's evil?
+prometheus 1978 You're absolutely right, if the middle east's oil dried up tomorrow, the us would be packed up and on it's way out faster than they declared the search for weapons of mass destruction
I think the majority of the entire planet, with the exception of communists, dictators, and religious extremists, agree that killing innocent people, for any reason is evil. The US isnt deciding what is good and what is evil.
Hes absolutely right? His entire comment was literally a jumble of words that a 10 year old couldnt comprehend. Also we are talkin about Religious extremists and ISIS not the "war in Iraq" which was about oil.
O'really is Right Collbert is way off, i think bill taught him.
It was a discussion. Not every discussion is a "I win, you lose" type of situation.
O'reilly is partially correct, and I am surprised I can admit that, but I can already tell you are a neocon
Colbert made some great points as well.
And I think they were agreeing more than disagreeing here.
The road Bill wants to go down makes some sense but at the same time it it is also faulty.
I agree, I think Colbert was partially playing devil's advocate to invite better discussion. Though they obviously disagreed on some topics like mental illness being a legitimate factor and the notion of what is effective to kill an opposing, and violent, idea.
I don't often like O'Reilly, but he had some good thought provoking ideas here; I'll admit it. I don't think the way to accomplish it is to drag NATO in by declaring war then forcing them to obey the treaties though. There needs to be some discussion. I mean, they haven't officially declared war either and they arguably have more stake in it than the US.
NEW YORK TIMES - Islam & Nazisim by RUSSELL SLAYTON www.publishaletter.com/readletter.jsp?plid=62858#.V2V9CCJ1LEo.twitter
Evil needs to be destroyed...the whole fuckin world is goin down!
Start with the people who invaded Iraq .
Charge bush with war crimes
the passed 1 year I have agreed with bill, before that I agreed with nothing he said. But im going to for the first time agree what he said 100%. Fuck, what kind of world am I living in that I can say that? Seriously, when was Bill the voice of truth, he is so on this whole interview. I disagree with so much of his passed, and then this happens, and one video before this out of at least 60. well done, glad u see the light.
Glad your wakein up bro
+Mr. Boice lmao
You put aside what you've believed or thought you knew, however you want to phrase it, and played out both sides with reason and critical thinking. The real kind of critical thinking, not the lame progressive liberal version, where they feel pre-judgement is real thought.
Bill has said some irrational things in the past, for sure, but he makes a lot more sense when not just listened to in tiny clips. He is however getting a lot more logical with age it seems.
A far more logical Bill is Bill Whittle.
but, but, but this is the exact same rhetoric was used before Iraq and Bill called it a mistake! how can you not see this?!
Not occuping and it would be nato not just the us. listen to it again he explained it.
+Paragon of Growth And sever yet another head of the Hydra. You can't war yourself to peace. NATO, Coalition of the Willing, Axis of Evil, it's all the same talk as before. Billy almost had a point, then he blew it on his v.p. job application interview. Its kind of cute how he assumes isis lives in a historical vacuum tho.
Its not the same rhetoric. Many of those CNN and NBC and Fox videos are still on youtube. Go rematch them.
I don't know what he said at the time of the Iraq war, but I do know this is the same kind of rhetoric used to get us into war. We can't "defeat" radical Islam through war. It creates more problems than it solves, in that it solves none. More guns also isn't the solution. Reasonable measures could move us in the right direction. The go to that so for so many, guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is true, which is why we need to do something about who has these weapons. I'm tired of the deflecting away from guns when such tragedies occur, and I'm tired of doing nothing.
+RSPainter You just said alot of things that you believe, but didn't explain why you believe them. Why do you think that we can't defeat radical Islam through war? Why are more guns not the solution? What are these "reasonable measures" that you refer to? This isn't meant as bait; I'm honestly interested in the reasons.
It's not everybody had guns, it is everybody had a musket... big difference there.
Yea, it use to be everyone had a musket. Now it's civilians have rifles and the army has: UAV's, tanks, armoured vehicles, autonomous threat destruction platforms and so on.
Therefore rendering the reason for the second amendment nonexistent. It was created to enable a revolution by the citizens, which is now impossible. The amendment has no reason not to be abolished, and the only other way to go is to sell tanks to civilians which is fucking inane.
The constitution was written very carefully. It is clear we have the right to bear arms for our freedom
+Stuffedbird you feel more free in a society that you are not free in?
Joe Smith We have the right to bear arms because of our right to revolution. There is no inherent right to own a gun, it has to come with reason. Now that revolution is no longer dependent on our right to bear arms, the second amendment is useless.
The 2nd amendment was put in because we were fighting a war on our own land.
The US should outlaw alcohol too, drunk driving accounts for nearly 10,000 deaths yearly, about the same as gun deaths due to homicide. Should probably prohibit the sales of high sugar, and high fat foods since diabetes kills about 67,000 a year and the primary cause of type 2 diabetes is obesity.
Actually the US should just do away with private vehicle ownership given they cause 30,000 deaths per year.
+Sin SinaT The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
There's some truth in what you're saying, but with Hitler, for example, it was more complex than just taking guns away. The Nazis essentially "militarized" the citizenry, making sure that the bulk of young men (except for Jews and other groups that were official targets of discrimination) were in regimented groups that could be mobilized on the regime's behalf. The largest, obviously, was the Wehrmacht. But "volunteer" groups like the SA and SS were armed, and the SS was ultimately used to take over all police in Germany, thus ensuring that law enforcement was guided by the "popular" (ie, Hitler's) will.
The Nazis were thrilled at the prospect of an armed citizenry -- as long as those citizens were considered ideologically "reliable" and could be regimented/mobilized against groups that Hitler despised.
Statistics:
84,258 nonfatal injuries,
11,208 deaths by homicide,
21,175 by suicide.
In 72 hours of 93 deaths unrelated to Orlando.
Your examples are unoriginal and silly. In recent memory, I can't think of a single case of an angry postal worker going on a rampage inflicting cake induced diabetes. You can't force alcohol and sugar into people the way you can bullets with an AR-15.
Josh Duriden Why not? Alcohol has no positive aspects to it.
How do you destroy an idea?
Well, extremism is an idea of hate. So you fight it with love!
I love this concept. Get someone with an opposing view and have them explain themselves and then challenge them on the views. I do think it would be a huge benefit to have these talks longer. I would have loved to see a half hour of this or an hour.
I've been disagreeing with Bill O'Reilly forever.let's just say I agree with every word he spoke here. Good job Bill!!!
Colbert... you so lost this debate....
Wasn't a debate. Was an interview.
Why does it have to be a debate? Can't it be a conversation?
***** nope. He asked follow up questions and had O'Reilly generally address other viewpoints while expanding on his own. He wasn't trying to convince O'Reilly, but rather give a way for him to speak both in more detail and more broadly (know that sounds strange but...hope you know what i mean >.>)
Wow. I'm way not into FOX news, but I have to say. O'Reilly really spoke to me here. I was fully expecting to laugh at him when I clicked this video.
"Now is the time for America to step up" and help its own people, not go to endless war in the Middle East. We aren't taking care of the vets we have now, it is shameful.
I commend Colbert for having Bill O Reilly on. He's very smart and very straight forward and American needs a no spin no nonsense individual that tells it like it is
As the gun store clerk said to a customer: "Yes sir, you background check came fine. Now I want to see you eat bacon, or it's no sale".
Bill makes some very intelligent points.
When Bill isn't being a troll for the sake of ratings, he actually makes a lot of sense. I totally agree with him here.
Bill, "the fear of God" is exactly what's driving these people, don't you see the irony?
Damn that was deep
ISIS is giving Muslim extremists the world over a taste of invincibility and immortality because of the destruction in the Levant. We'll never convince fanatics that they're in the wrong but we can make them fear failure by crushing their idols. Now, I don't actually agree that means putting American boots on the ground but that's a whole other debate.
It''s more likely the fear of their own people is what's driving them... they all make each other this way together, islam promotes paranoia and death
terrorists don't fear God, they want to put fear in people who don't want islam.
it is a figure of speech.
absolutely one of the best clips I've seen Colbert do. Congrats. Bring on more people that disagree with Stephen for more compelling videos like this. Stephen stands his ground well. Colbert for President!
Hey Colbert, please take in some refugees from Syria, into your own home, and you can shower them with hugs and kisses and there will be peace and happiness for all.
as a liberal gun owner I can agree with Bill
Enjoy your mass shootings. Also, I don't believe you're a liberal.
Liberal here who's for gun rights and thinks "gun control" is stupid and unrealistic. Not every liberal is like you, sorry to be the one to tell you that.
I live in Australia. Gun control is not unrealistic. Your vote has no influence in Congress ,as proven in a Princeton study. Whereas corporate lobbying by NRA and others does. Fix that first.
iam a conservative and believe assault weapons should be banned to the public. and by the way i have served USAF
mshara1 You live in Australia. Gun control is realistic. I live in America. It is not. Two completely different places.
Thank you Steve Colbert for treating a conservative with respect! Refreshing to see!
Bill really was on his game here. He even got the audience on his side for a moment. Stephen probably thought he was gonna put Bill in his place. Some good tv
"We've got to put the fear of God into these people..."
I think that might be a big part of the problem.
Bill O'Reilly plays a right wing nut on his own show, but he made some good points here.
You've clearly never watch his show.
Plot twist: They play backgammon together on Tuesdays
I love how frustrated Stephen is because that's exactly how I'm feeling right now watching this. JfC.
Basically US becomes a police state.
Uuhhh, say what? You've been watching too many cheap-to-produce action adventure FICTION MOVIES.
love watchin these guys duke it out. This is the first time I would say Bill won.
This wasn't about winning or losing though, it was about having a conversation without letting too much political bias cloud the issue.
Good interview with good arguments and good job on letting o'reilly getting his point across
Bill O'Reilly makes more sense each time I listen to him
i mean we should just treat muslims the way other religions are treated in muslim countries. golden rule
WE ARE NOT THEM! .... We are not them.
nah man..they can do that.Not us.For some reason..
But the thing is muslims influences and philosophies affect the nation in a harmful, violent manner unlike most other religions.
I have been to a Christians friend of mines wedding when he married a Pakistani girl, in Pakistan in a church,, and I have seen many Churches and Hindu temples there myself. Most Muslim countries don't have a problem with other religions, are you talking about Saudi Arabia? because that's the only one I can think of that doesn't allow other fates to be openly practised.
... you know that's not the golden rule, right? :P
Never thought I'd say this about a conversation with Bill O'Reilly but this is a reasonable, respectful exchange with valid points on both sides. This is the way it should be in our kitchens and our halls of government. We don't have to agree on everything but let's respectfully and rationally compromise to get something better than what we have now.
this interview made me respect bill a lot more
You kill ideas with better ideas.
What a lot of people don't realize about a formal declaration of War, it only lasts for 2 years. Once the 2 years are up, Congress has to vote on it again to renew it.
"You're bringing guns to a drone fight" - Jim Jefferies.
I like how Colbert translates a little bit for the audience and viewers
I've had huge prejudice against Bill O'Reilly in the past but I actually agree with most of what he said here.
Great conversation
No matter what liberals may think of Mr. O'Reilly's world view, you'd have to admit that he's one of the most intelligent people on television.
the fk.. i agree with Bill?
"we have to put the fear of god in them" probably one of the most destructive sentences ever created... when both sides are trying to do the same thing... this is why religion even tho has some good guidelines and good morals to live by, is also one the most dangerous thing that mankind ever created.
O'Reilly is actually right in this one...
way better than what daily show has become.
Papa Bear is a different person when he isn't busy pandering to 80 year olds watching TV in their retirement homes.
I think Bill O'Reilly's making a LOT of sense.
Well-articulated, not always shouting Bill and serous, patient Stephen. Such a rarity. Thank you
Awesome that Stephen had Bill answer a prime, deep philosophical question: what do you do about evil? Bill's answer: destroy it. There, deep differences in philosophy can be found. Very cool, SC.
Destroy evil? No. The Gospel is the antithesis to evil, not violence.
It's kinda scary how some Americans refer to the "Founders" like they were some mythical god-like beings.
this is class. these two are the best
I think this would be a much better debate of there was no applause and cheering or laughing.
"What is the proper response to evil?" is one of the most profound questions I have heard asked recently, and one that I would love to see a proper forum on. Also, I do believe that evil will destroy itself, and that Plato is certainly not a bad philosopher to learn from.
Colbert should have more Republicans on his show. This is a really interesting discussion and it's great to see both sides of the issue.
Wow,I agree with Bill..............my mind is blown away now LOL
Was this done live?
I don't agree with everything O'Reilly says, but I have to acknowledge that Stephen really puts him in check. Whenever I see these two interact, O'Reilly is always forced into a situation where he has to be 100% clear on what he thinks, without any bullshit or pandering or whatever. And when that happens, he sounds much more moderate and a bit more sensible than usual. So kudos to Colbert for doing this, I'd love to see more of the two of them!
'
Good interview 👍🏿
Tables have turned now that O'Reilly is in the interviewee seat. 'Are you COLBERT OR COBARE???'😂😂
I rarely agree with Bill but he won this one hands down.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
could stop making bullets above a certain caliber, then just wait for everyone to run out of that ammo
Exactly!
Reloads.
Yes because terrorist in the Middle East go down to their local gun store to supply their ammunition needs. Nice logic.
+gunnyman100 yea true they just ship the bullets from syria anyway, a better solution would be if the federal government gave personal information on imigrants to state governers when those imigrants want to move to a state
You cast your bullets from scrap lead. It's why they sell molds for it. Like say LEE Precisions etc. And btw, what it has to do with caliber?? AR-15 uses the smallest caliber there it, short of 177 pellet guns.
When will people understand that laws don't stop crimes? Prison would be a lonely place if that were true.
I actually agree with O'Reilly when he says to make ALL gun crimes federal crimes, including the sale of illegal guns. However that would not have stopped the guy in Orlando because he bought a legal gun legally even after being placed on the "No-Fly" list. There also needs to be a closing of the no wait and no check loophole with private sales and gun show/flea market purchases.
I have never found myself impressed with that man. He's always been so angry and insolent and ignorant of the facts . . . but Bill O'Reilly held his own in this video. He stated his point, and for that, I feel the need to give him props. Good match between the two of them. Nice and civil, like real men.