Lupe Fiasco On Fox News' Bill O Reilly Show

2»

Comments

  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    lupe seemed all over the place.

    plus we all know bill o reilly doesn't let u get a word in with out him talking over his guest.

    Some of Lupes comments were edited. You can tell by the shift in scenery.
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    janklow wrote: »
    part of Lupe's problem has always been his delivery; he may have a kernel of solid information/argument, but he doesn't seem to use it well.

    i think technically we're not "in Pakistan." but there's also the argument (and this is mostly for Obama as opposed to the wars in general) that he has to responsibly leave the countries in question, not immediately pull out.

    So just because he doesn't express himself like Malcolm X you are not going to recognize the soundness of some of his points? That is elitist snobbery.

    How do you responsibly leave a country that you really according to international and your own law, you have no right to be in? He has a responsibility first and foremost to protect the citizenry of the US, of which are US soldiers. Those soldiers are not stuffed animals. Those are living, breathing human beings who have families and ambitions for a better life. The people who make that argument never provide a basis for that argument that goes past the corporate agenda they are paid to push. He is not going to be leaving anything, he gets to go home as he pleases in the safe confines of 24 hour security and to his lovely wife and beautiful children.

    SMH, at my cousin fighting for 1200 dollars a month putting his life on the line, while protecting some private company employee making 120,000 a year to set up infrastructure in these countries so they're companies can get rich and my cousin get's denied medical treatment.

    This is some .....................
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    garv wrote: »
    Obama deserved to be mentioned, nobody forced him to be a puppet, he knew what he was entering to when he ran for president.

    To be homest with you, I think he really thought he could change things. I noticed the change in his expression and he aged in his appearance tremendously. He reminds me of the dude who joins something then wants to get out because the price is too steep.
  • Darius
    Darius Members Posts: 22,649 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    didn't watch, but based on comments in the thread, it went exactly how myself and most others probably expected it to go.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited June 2011
    And regardless of everything you have just said, millions of people around the world believe America is the Great Satan and Obama is a terrorist.
    ...and that has what exactly to do with the merits of Lupe Fiasco? because i am pretty sure the vast majority of the people you mention thought that BEFORE this interview, and if they continue to think it, it has nothing to do with that interview.

    the rest of that sarcasm, i don't see what the point of all that was.
    And Step wrote: »
    So just because he doesn't express himself like Malcolm X you are not going to recognize the soundness of some of his points? That is elitist snobbery.
    ...or perhaps you could actually look at the post you're quoting; "part of Lupe's problem has always been his delivery; he may have a kernel of solid information/argument, but he doesn't seem to use it well" sounds to me like i am willing to recognize some of the points in an argument that is delivered poorly.
    And Step wrote: »
    How do you responsibly leave a country that you really according to international and your own law, you have no right to be in?
    the argument is now that we have no right to be in Afghanistan according to international law? or is this conflating Afghanistan with Iraq?
    And Step wrote: »
    He has a responsibility first and foremost to protect the citizenry of the US, of which are US soldiers. Those soldiers are not stuffed animals. Those are living, breathing human beings who have families and ambitions for a better life.
    this is also the argument that supports counterproductive military tactics as well. but i'll probably still disagree with those.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    And Step wrote: »
    To be homest with you, I think he really thought he could change things. I noticed the change in his expression and he aged in his appearance tremendously. He reminds me of the dude who joins something then wants to get out because the price is too steep.

    all presidents have or will eventually go through that. At the end of Bush's second term, I remember seeing an old video of him in 2000 or 2001 and I was like "who the hell is that"? I'm not sure if Obama has completely given up. It certainly seems as if he doesnt have faith in the people though. Either that or he's being stunted by bigger wigs.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    I finally built the courage to watch the video and it’s not at all bad as I thought it was. I was expecting Lupe to make a fool out of himself but he held his own relatively speaking. Both he and O’Reilly made some good and not so good points and the debate was too short and didn’t nearly go as far as it should’ve. And O’Reilly wasn’t talking over Lupe nearly as much as Lupe talked over him so I don’t know what some of you all are saying. However, I felt that Lupe didn’t adequately explain his stance. And that was what the whole debate was about so it kind of went nowhere. Obama and the United States may be meddlers, but they’re not terrorists in the literal sense. That’s ridiculous and slanderous to me.

    I had the impression that Lupe was saying that political knowledge didn’t matter much and I know for sure that Lupe said that politics wasn’t complex. Well, I strongly disagree with both. I think that O’Reilly made somewhat of a good point on how Lupe is, whether he likes it or not, may be catering to many impressionable youths who, like O’Reilly said, don’t have a good grasp on politics and political knowledge and therefore are riding on the bandwagon of an issue that they really don’t know or understand.

    Perhaps the most significant point was made by Lupe when he said that America needs to attack the root of terrorism. But alas, that point wasn’t pressed further and so nothing was really gained. The editing seemed somewhat bad. But I’m not going to automatically assume that Lupe shines in the unedited version. It’s also possible that the edit might’ve made him look better too.

    p.s. So the majority of American viewers for the O’Reilly factor thought that the media didn’t give too much press to the ? scandal?? Idiots…
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    janklow wrote: »
    ...and that has what exactly to do with the merits of Lupe Fiasco? because i am pretty sure the vast majority of the people you mention thought that BEFORE this interview, and if they continue to think it, it has nothing to do with that interview.

    the rest of that sarcasm, i don't see what the point of all that was.

    The sarcasm was proving Lupe's point that Obama can be viewed legitimately as a terrorist. With all the innocents he has killed, who am I to say Obama is not a terrorist? If a gang banger is constantly killing innocent kids trying to ? other "bad" gang members, the community would rightly consider that gang banger a terrorist. Law enforcement has equated gang members with terrorists for the many innocent lives that can be taken during the taking of drug turf.

    Why should I give Obama a pass? Because he's a president? ? that, I'm holding Obama to the same standard we hold Osama Bin Laden. And Obama has killed way more innocent people than Osama ever has......
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I finally built the courage to watch the video and it’s not at all bad as I thought it was. I was expecting Lupe to make a fool out of himself but he held his own relatively speaking. Both he and O’Reilly made some good and not so good points and the debate was too short and didn’t nearly go as far as it should’ve. And O’Reilly wasn’t talking over Lupe nearly as much as Lupe talked over him so I don’t know what some of you all are saying. However, I felt that Lupe didn’t adequately explain his stance. And that was what the whole debate was about so it kind of went nowhere. Obama and the United States may be meddlers, but they’re not terrorists in the literal sense. That’s ridiculous and slanderous to me.

    I had the impression that Lupe was saying that political knowledge didn’t matter much and I know for sure that Lupe said that politics wasn’t complex. Well, I strongly disagree with both. I think that O’Reilly made somewhat of a good point on how Lupe is, whether he likes it or not, may be catering to many impressionable youths who, like O’Reilly said, don’t have a good grasp on politics and political knowledge and therefore are riding on the bandwagon of an issue that they really don’t know or understand.

    Perhaps the most significant point was made by Lupe when he said that America needs to attack the root of terrorism. But alas, that point wasn’t pressed further and so nothing was really gained. The editing seemed somewhat bad. But I’m not going to automatically assume that Lupe shines in the unedited version. It’s also possible that the edit might’ve made him look better too.

    p.s. So the majority of American viewers for the O’Reilly factor thought that the media didn’t give too much press to the ? scandal?? Idiots…

    As long as you understand the interview was heavily edited, than take the interview with a grain of salt. If one does research on Obama and his series of endless wars across the Middle East, one can EASILY see the validity of many people across the planet considering Obama a terrorist. I had no idea Obama had a bloodthirst this big. If I killed as many innocent people in my lifetime, I'd be called a terrorist too. Afghanistan has a pro American leader, and so does Iraq.....why the ? are we still there?
  • Evokes213
    Evokes213 Members Posts: 5
    edited June 2011
    Lupe had ? enough to say ? Obama, Bill in the other hand gets Stuck with no game face when he mentions America and says one of the stupidist ? on earth
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited June 2011
    The sarcasm was proving Lupe's point that Obama can be viewed legitimately as a terrorist.
    no, the sarcasm was you make your argument. it's not proving anything.
    ? that, I'm holding Obama to the same standard we hold Osama Bin Laden
    Obama definitely seems more reasonable than a spoiled emotional billionaire's child
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    As long as you understand the interview was heavily edited, than take the interview with a grain of salt.

    Even with the apparently bad editing, both sides made good and not-so-good points. I’m still not ready to automatically say that, without the editing, things would be substantially different. But that's neither here nor there.
    If one does research on Obama and his series of endless wars across the Middle East, one can EASILY see the validity of many people across the planet considering Obama a terrorist. I had no idea Obama had a bloodthirst this big. If I killed as many innocent people in my lifetime, I'd be called a terrorist too. Afghanistan has a pro American leader, and so does Iraq.....why the ? are we still there?

    Okay, but I still don't quite understand. That was also my contention with Lupe. I don’t think that he explained himself well. I think that my issue with calling Obama a terrorist merely comes down to semantics and veracity so it’s probably not as big a deal as it sounds like. I just don’t think that “terrorist” was the right word.

    So is Obama literally a terrorist? I still say no. There's probably no consensus standard definition for “terrorism” but I'm defining "terrorist" along the familiar lines of al-Qa’ida and/or FARC. Obama is simply not Osama. If you think otherwise, then please explain.

    You say that Obama has initiated “endless wars” yet he has been in office for only about 3 years? Sounds like an overstatement to me. So has Obama meddled in the affairs of other nations? Yes, he has. Has Obama continued and started largely unnecessary wars under ulterior motives? Probably, but who hasn’t? Is Obama a warmonger? Maybe. Has he indirectly caused the deaths of many innocents? Most likely, even though that may be the direct fault of others and/or may be the unfortunate casualties of war. Now is Obama simply a fundamentalist hell-bent on killing people, without discretion, in illegal ways? I seriously doubt it. Even if someone is indirectly responsible for the deaths of many people, that doesn’t make said person a terrorist per se. Imho, being a terrorist is not about what you did but how you did it.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    Now replace the word with Obama, with Osama, and if the statement still rings truth then Obama is a terrorist according to your own principles.

    I'm not understanding you here. What you quoted was not my principles/definition of what I think a terrorist is. What you quoted was my attempt at clarifying who Obama is and what he is doing, iin order to distinguish that from who I think terrorists are and what they do. So I don't quite see the point that you are making.

    This, on the otherhand, is what my principles/definition of what I think a terrorist is:
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Now is Obama simply a fundamentalist hell-bent on killing people, without discretion, in illegal ways? I seriously doubt it.

    Regardless, replacing "Obama" with "Osama" in the aforementioned quotation still wouldn't completely ring true. The two are easily vastly different men.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Even with the apparently bad editing, both sides made good and not-so-good points. I’m still not ready to automatically say that, without the editing, things would be substantially different. But that's neither here nor there.



    Okay, but I still don't quite understand. That was also my contention with Lupe. I don’t think that he explained himself well. I think that my issue with calling Obama a terrorist merely comes down to semantics and veracity so it’s probably not as big a deal as it sounds like. I just don’t think that “terrorist” was the right word.

    So is Obama literally a terrorist? I still say no. There's probably no consensus standard definition for “terrorism” but I'm defining "terrorist" along the familiar lines of al-Qa’ida and/or FARC. Obama is simply not Osama. If you think otherwise, then please explain.

    You say that Obama has initiated “endless wars” yet he has been in office for only about 3 years? Sounds like an overstatement to me. So has Obama meddled in the affairs of other nations? Yes, he has. Has Obama continued and started largely unnecessary wars under ulterior motives? Probably, but who hasn’t? Is Obama a warmonger? Maybe. Has he indirectly caused the deaths of many innocents? Most likely, even though that may be the direct fault of others and/or may be the unfortunate casualties of war. Now is Obama simply a fundamentalist hell-bent on killing people, without discretion, in illegal ways? I seriously doubt it. Even if someone is indirectly responsible for the deaths of many people, that doesn’t make said person a terrorist per se. Imho, being a terrorist is not about what you did but how you did it.

    Let's play a game........what makes Osama Bin Laden a terrorist in your opinion?
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    I stand by my previous post.

    You should. If I bombed out houses, weddings, and apartment buildings to ? my enemies, and tons of innocent kids are killed, I would be called a monster by many.

    More than 70% of Pakistanis view America as an enemy for a reason.
  • Shuffington
    Shuffington Members Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    Lupe been watching a ton of Zeitgeist