ryoder 1,397 #1 November 25, 2007 I never realized the purpose of an interview was to prevent the interviewee from speaking: http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/23/naomi_wolfe_unnerves_john_kasich_on_oreilly_factor.php"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #2 November 25, 2007 But Fox News is fair and balanced aren't they? LOL Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #3 November 25, 2007 QuoteI never realized the purpose of an interview was to prevent the interviewee from speaking: http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/23/naomi_wolfe_unnerves_john_kasich_on_oreilly_factor.php Well, in the time she did have to speak, she didn't present a very good case for her point of view.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 November 25, 2007 what exactly did the author expect going on the O'Reilly show? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #5 November 25, 2007 Quote But Fox News is fair and balanced aren't they? LOL O'Riely is not Fox News Edited to add. This interview is an example of why I do not watch O'Reily."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 November 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteI never realized the purpose of an interview was to prevent the interviewee from speaking: http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/23/naomi_wolfe_unnerves_john_kasich_on_oreilly_factor.php Well, in the time she did have to speak, she didn't present a very good case for her point of view. No she didn't. I thought the point of an interview was for the interviewer to ask questions and the interviewee to answer them. This woman made it very clear early on she was only there to promote her book and that she had no intention of answering any questions. Kaisic made the correct decision as an interviewer by stopping her rant and re-asking the question. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,397 #7 November 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteI never realized the purpose of an interview was to prevent the interviewee from speaking: http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/23/naomi_wolfe_unnerves_john_kasich_on_oreilly_factor.php Well, in the time she did have to speak, she didn't present a very good case for her point of view. Damned hard to present a case when the interviewer won't stop interrupting."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,397 #8 November 25, 2007 Quote No she didn't. I thought the point of an interview was for the interviewer to ask questions and the interviewee to answer them. This woman made it very clear early on she was only there to promote her book and that she had no intention of answering any questions. . Hello? You mean to tell us you have NEVER seen the author of a newly-released book brought on a talk show to talk about the book. The book was the REASON she was invited on the show. Every other talk show such as Leno, Letterman, Jon Stewart, etc, invites authors of new books on their show to TALK ABOUT THE BOOK."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #9 November 25, 2007 Quotein·ter·view (ĭn'tər-vyōō') Pronunciation Key n. A formal meeting in person, especially one arranged for the assessment of the qualifications of an applicant. A conversation, such as one conducted by a reporter, in which facts or statements are elicited from another. An account or a reproduction of such a conversation. Informal An interviewee: "I had been warned that [he] was a tough interview—that he doled out flip answers ... to questions he was tired of being asked" (David Roberts). Kaisic asked the same question twice and she refused to answer, preferring to pontificate and get her talking points out. She obviously had no intentions of answering his questions and he did what any experienced interviewer would do by insisting she answer them and provide specific details. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #10 November 25, 2007 That piece struck me as having very little do with the book at all, instead it sounded like TV masturbation for people who had no intention of listening to the woman's arguments. More a form of Punch-and-Judy political entertainment than an intelligent discussion. She makes an interesting point about Britain though. She claims that Britain hasn't restricted the civil liberties of its citizens in response to terrorism. That's perhaps a little less than true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 November 25, 2007 QuoteQuote No she didn't. I thought the point of an interview was for the interviewer to ask questions and the interviewee to answer them. This woman made it very clear early on she was only there to promote her book and that she had no intention of answering any questions. . Hello? You mean to tell us you have NEVER seen the author of a newly-released book brought on a talk show to talk about the book. The book was the REASON she was invited on the show. Every other talk show such as Leno, Letterman, Jon Stewart, etc, invites authors of new books on their show to TALK ABOUT THE BOOK. You are confusing shows like Letterman and Leno which are on the air only for their entertainment/promotional value where only puff-ball questions are asked with a show such as the one Kaisic was on that has a reputation for asking tougher follow-up questions that require authors to back up their claims. Had she done any research, she would have known this and wouldn't have embarrassed herself by coming off as a nutjob. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 November 25, 2007 QuoteJon Stewart, etc, invites authors of new books on their show to TALK ABOUT THE BOOK. Did you see the show Stewart where he tore Chris Matthews a new one and told him he thought his book was dumb? . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #13 November 25, 2007 QuoteHad she done any research, she would have known this and wouldn't have embarrassed herself by coming off as a nutjob. Given that she was hardly allowed to speak, I think it's a bit much to say she came across a 'nutjob'. As for not doing any research, would the interviewer's not having read in book in full qualify? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #14 November 25, 2007 Quoteby coming off as a nutjob Fox News and their blind support for a war mongering president who tortures people he does not like and errodes the civil liberties of the very population he is supposed to protect come off as the real nut jobs. Whatever happened to "WE THE PEOPLE"? GWB and his supporters have taken a giant shit on that concept. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 November 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteby coming off as a nutjob Fox News and their blind support for a war mongering president who tortures people he does not like and errodes the civil liberties of the very population he is supposed to protect come off as the real nut jobs. Whatever happened to "WE THE PEOPLE"? GWB and his supporters have taken a giant shit on that concept. Since you like to whine about people following threads so much, please explain what your post has to do with the interview? Of course this thread turned into the typical Bush Bash in record time, no surprise there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #16 November 25, 2007 QuoteOf course this thread turned into the typical Bush Bash in record time, no surprise there. Why not.. Faux News is the official mouthpiece for you guys.... so why should we expect anything different from the party of Ralley Squads etc that does not EVER want to be subjected to a dissenting voice....I think they watched PRAVDA... to learn how to only give the APPROVED news. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #17 November 25, 2007 Quote please explain what your post has to do with the interview? ROFLMAO ... you probably didn't even watch the interview because if you did then you would have seen several of the points I was making were in direct relation to what the interviewee was trying to say while the interviewer kept interupting when his lust of his beloved war mongering, torturing, revoker of civil liberties of a government came under attack. Fair and balanced my ass. It's okay ... keep blindly following these neo-cons of yours. Pretty soon you will have no friends in the world. Remember the world was behind America right after 9/11. But you neo-cons pissed that support away when you decided to start your crusade. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #18 November 25, 2007 Quote Of course this thread turned into the typical Bush Bash in record time, no surprise there. When will you wake up and realize GWB is an idiot. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #19 November 25, 2007 QuoteThat piece struck me as having very little do with the book at all, instead it sounded like TV masturbation for people who had no intention of listening to the woman's arguments. More a form of Punch-and-Judy political entertainment than an intelligent discussion. She makes an interesting point about Britain though. She claims that Britain hasn't restricted the civil liberties of its citizens in response to terrorism. That's perhaps a little less than true. What struck me was she did not answer any questions. She returned to her generalizations over and over"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 November 25, 2007 Quote Quote Of course this thread turned into the typical Bush Bash in record time, no surprise there. When will you wake up and realize GWB is an idiot. As soon as I hear you or any other American citizen who has not commited a crime has been taken to a "Secret Prison" just for disagreeing with Bush like your speaker of the truth says exists in the interview. Of course the fact she avoided the question several time escapes you. Duh... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #21 November 25, 2007 Quote Jawohl Mein Fuhrer http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11462prs20040914.html Jeff Rank, 29, who is a registered Republican, and his wife Nicole, 30, had never engaged in political protest in the past, and said that they had no intention to disrupt the president's visit. The Ranks obtained tickets for the event and were admitted to the Capitol grounds without any problems, but drew attention when they removed their outer garments to display t-shirts bearing the international ""no"" symbol (a circle with a diagonal line across it) superimposed over the word ""Bush."" http://www.boingboing.net/2007/04/10/bikes-against-bush-a.html It turns out that Kinberg's arrest wasn't random. Secret NYPD dossiers on RNC protestors have fallen into the hands of reporters, revealing that the NYPD were spending tax-dollars spying on people who opposed the ruling party. Kinberg's bike, laptop and printer were seized by police. The laptop and printer were held for a year. The police "lost" his bicycle. The New York Civil Liberties Union is in court, trying to get all the secret dossiers compiled in connection with the RNC. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/marr-j25.shtml {yes its a commie site.. but the commies KNOW what police state powers areand are good at it) Secret arrests and detentions Bush invokes “enemy combatant” rule against defendants http://blogs.salon.com/0001282/2002/11/10.html A few of the people caught up in McCarthyism were actual Russian spies. The overwhelming majority, say 99.9%, were Americans targeted for exercising their freedom of speech, who held unpopular views, or who challenged the prevailing orthodoxy. At that time, with little technical prowess, the primary weapon of the government was the loyalty oath. If someone wouldn’t swear the oath, or would not swear never to have been a communist, their lives and careers were targeted for destruction. ALL HAIL THE IMPERIOUS LEADER Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #22 November 25, 2007 You omitted the part where the charges were dropped against the Ranks. Good example of Judicial oversite working as it should. I'd hardly call the NYPD as "supporting the "Ruling Party" Commie sites...well whatever. I'm sure they are telling the truth as they have no agenda. And somthing said in a blog.....yeah!!! I'm still waiting for a credible source to tell us where all those secret CIA prisons are that are whisking good law abiding American Citizens out of their beds at night to be beaten and tortured because they disagree with "The Administration". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #23 November 25, 2007 Oh, on the Boingoboingo site...sorry I'm still laughing about that one. Quote More information has come to light about the arrest of Josh Kinberg, the hacker who made a "dot-matrix bike-printer" to ride through the streets of New York during the RNC in 2004. The oversize bike had a laptop-powered array of chalk-sprayers that could print text messages as it was piloted through the streets around the RNC, as a means of breaking the free-speech embargo that New York cops and the Republican party created through the use of "free speech zones." One of the bike's messages was, "America is a Free Speech Zone." So the guy is riding around with a bike that is spray painting the streets and sidewalks of NY and now he's screaming about losing his right to free speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #24 November 25, 2007 Quote You omitted the part where the charges were dropped against the Ranks. Good example of Judicial oversite working as it should. I'd hardly call the NYPD as "supporting the "Ruling Party" Commie sites...well whatever. I'm sure they are telling the truth as they have no agenda. And somthing said in a blog.....yeah!!! I'm still waiting for a credible source to tell us where all those secret CIA prisons are that are whisking good law abiding American Citizens out of their beds at night to be beaten and tortured because they disagree with "The Administration". I learned a long time ago it is the seriousness of the "charge" not the facts."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,397 #25 November 25, 2007 QuoteI'm still waiting for a credible source to tell us where all those secret CIA prisons are... Would you believe George W. Bush? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99Hgo1ibsI"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
