Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
At reason.tv: Gillespie vs. O'Reilly
Watch reason's Nick Gillespie faceoff with Bill O'Reilly over Ron Paul's bid for the White House.
|1.3.08 @ 1:03PM|#
O'Reilly looks like he needs a PosturePal in that screencap. Slouchy, slouchy, slouchy.
|1.3.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Despite Nick's Fonz-like demeanor, there's something increasingly Trekkish about him. Old school, of course.
|1.3.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Despite Nick's Fonz-like demeanor, there's something
increasingly Trekkish about him. Old school, of course.
Nick has always reminded me of a combo of Fonzie, Beretta, and
Spock.
BakedPenguin|1.3.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Despite Nick's Fonz-like demeanor, there's something increasingly Trekkish about him. Old school, of course.
It's gotta be the hair.
|1.3.08 @ 1:17PM|#
He stood up better against that blowhard than anyone since
Rivera. Great job !
I'm surprised that O'Reilly didn't take him to school for his
comment on Iran not having a nuclear program because they actually
hid their program for more than a decade and are still illegally
processing uranium, even if it can't be shown that it's for a bomb.
Of course, if I were them I'd want a couple nukes as an insurance
policy myself.
On the Pakistani front, as if India wouldn't blow them back to the
stone age if they tried anything, India's had three wars with them
since they gained independence. The US doesn't have to do all the
heavy lifting.
|1.3.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Hmmm, whenever nick got to the crux of his point, O'reilly would interrupt him and ask him a new question. way to keep your cool!
|1.3.08 @ 1:19PM|#
Nick was better than I expected. Even so, Bill O is too much of an asshat to be tangled with in his own sty.
Jeff Wartman|1.3.08 @ 1:21PM|#
It's amazing to me that someone as ill informed as Bill O'Reilly
seems to have such a following.
Nick Gillespie did a great job - it's just futile to use reason and
logic with someone as dense as O'Reilly.
Episiarch|1.3.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Despite Nick's Fonz-like demeanor, there's something
increasingly Trekkish about him. Old school, of course.
Actually, it seems more Martin Landau
in Space: 1999.
Loupeznik|1.3.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Thank you Nick for not backing down when he interrupted you over and over again. We are too nice sometimes.
|1.3.08 @ 1:25PM|#
It's amazing to me that someone as ill informed as Bill
O'Reilly seems to have such a following.
The Know-Nothing Party never quit. They just went underground.
|1.3.08 @ 1:27PM|#
That's not how the Know-Nothing party got their name. It came
from their habit of saying "I know nothing" when asked about their
party's activities.
The modern tendency to associate bigotry with lack of intelligence
notwithstanding.
Episiarch|1.3.08 @ 1:28PM|#
It's amazing to me that someone as ill informed as Bill
O'Reilly seems to have such a following.
He's a populist who says things that are "common sense". Meaning
things that sound good to the stupid old lady across the
street.
|1.3.08 @ 1:33PM|#
The French have an expression, l'esprit de l'escalier,
for the comeback that comes to you after the moment's gone and it's
too late to use.
I bet that hardly ever happens to Gillespie. He seems to have what
I hope I'd have said always at the ready.
|1.3.08 @ 1:36PM|#
I just noticed that Nick is coming perilously close to a cross appearing in the background bookshelf.
|1.3.08 @ 1:37PM|#
I wonder what kind of clothes the mirror-universe Gillespie wears? And does he have a Lettermanesque beard?
|1.3.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Nick,
Good job man. I love the "let me finish" bit. Not only did you
express it, you bowled right over him. Way to spin ORLY's tactics
back on him.
It's as if the Fonz knows Judo.
|1.3.08 @ 1:40PM|#
I'd think Dr. Paul would be the first choice of O'Reilly. That dude must pay about 50 grand in income tax per year, wouldn't he rather spend it on fine art of coke and whores?
TLB|1.3.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Follow the wacky adventures of stern dad Bill and rebelious son Nick Gold each week in "Gold Standard", from Ayn Rand Productions. Next week: Nick wants to borrow the car, but Bill wants him to take off his clip-on sideburns first. Wackiness ensues! After that: a very special episode about GlobalWarming.
|1.3.08 @ 1:48PM|#
the elitism here makes reminds me of the far left elitism... yes
oreilly and his viewers are SO uninformed. and people here are SO
enlightened. absurd, but typical of the elitist mindset - that part
of the reason others don't think like we do is because they are
stupid/uninformed.
regardless, nick did a great job and presented his points very
well. frankly, i disagree with much of what oreilly supports, but i
find his show entertaining.
and he has good guests - such as gillespie.
now the reason hoi-polloi can return to the "oh we're so superior"
circle jerk already in progress...
Tom Walls|1.3.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Nick, you should have had my gnome in the background!
My predictions for Iower:
Hucklebuck 28
Plus for hyp-mo-tizing Iowans with not-so-subliminal cross in Xmas
ad
Flip Romney 30
Plus for being member of Jell-O worshipping cult and having a nice
haircut
McInsane 12
Plus for doing well last time
Fred 8
One-point plus for late, weak surge in coverage
Ronpaul 13
Four-point plus for having very dedicated followers; drive of young
people will impress old timers
Ghoulie 8
Two-point plus for the aw-hell-he's-gonna-win-anyway factor
Humper 1
Well, he might get 1.2%
Of course, I could be wrong.
|1.3.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Nice work, Nick. It's a challenge to be heard through O'Reilly's buffoonery, but you came across as a real class act.
|1.3.08 @ 1:53PM|#
I like the comments when I saw this on youtube. Every one of them said something to the effect of "Oreally - pwned!"
|1.3.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Lamar +1 on Harlan Ellison, that was the first thing I thought
of. Gillespie is probably two feet taller than Harlan,
though.
(Don't tell him I said that.)
|1.3.08 @ 1:59PM|#
I can't wait until O'Reilly goes back to work behind the bar of
some cheesy Boston pub, pulls beers, and bores the locals about the
Red Sox, politics, and how things would be different if only he
were in charge.
Any of you real Boston bartenders out there apologies in
advance>
|1.3.08 @ 2:01PM|#
I would like to point out that Fox News has given more air time
to Ron Paul and libertarian ideals then say NPR.
I don't have Cable or a TV for that matter but does anyone know how
CNN or the networks are doing on coverage?
Charlie|1.3.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Windtell wrote: "I'm surprised that O'Reilly didn't take him to
school for his comment on Iran not having a nuclear program because
they actually hid their program for more than a decade and are
still illegally processing uranium, even if it can't be shown that
it's for a bomb."
--
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an
absolute right to enrich uranium for civilian energy purposes. The
IAEA, after years of inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities, has
never found any evidence that Iran was diverting nuclear material
to a covert weapons program. That means Iran's enrichment program
is perfectly legal, regardless of how much the Bush administration
might wish it were otherwise.
Also, U.S. officials have been predicting since at least the early
90s that Iran was five or so years away from possessing a nuclear
weapon. Like any bureaucracies, the military and intelligence
agencies have a vested interest in increasing their own power and
funding -- particularly by hyping "threats" around the world and,
if their intelligence proves faulty, to do their best to try to pin
the failure on something other than the agency while at the same
time using said failure as a reason for more money. I don't believe
that Iran ended a nuclear weapons program in 2003 because I haven't
seen any evidence that they ever had one. With a clean
track record with the IAEA and without any independent evidence
backing up the U.S. intelligence community, I see the '03 claim as
nothing more than an attempt to save face.
If anyone is in violation of the NPT, it's the U.S., which is
developing new "bunker-busting" nuclear weapons and actively
undermining the NPT by providing enriched nuclear fuel to India --
a country that is not a signatory to the NPT and covertly developed
nuclear weapons.
|1.3.08 @ 2:05PM|#
It's amazing to me that someone as ill informed as Bill
O'Reilly seems to have such a following.
Lets see an interview with Nick and back footage of an interview
with Ron Paul...
Maybe he is popular cuz of the guests he interviews?
|1.3.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Sage,
That's great, but reading YouTube comments causes brain damage.
Don't do it unless you are under a doctor's supervision.
Paul|1.3.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Nick Gillespie's closet:
Black tee-shirts on the left. Black leather coats on the
right.
A case of hair dye under the sink???
Sean|1.3.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Nick, I was in Europe for a few weeks... was it really necessary to send a collection notice for my subscription?!?
|1.3.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Personally, I think Gillespie looks like Bart Simpson when he infiltrated the Shelbyville gang with his Baron Von Disguise kit in the "Lemon of Troy" episode. (Sorry, that's the best pic I could find for now.)
|1.3.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Nick did a great job...thank you Nick. Not a easy task
either.
maybe he is ok with states rights.
Your Fourth Grade English Teac|1.3.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Come on, you guys are professional writers. You're supposed to know the difference between verbs and nouns: "Watch reason's Nick Gillespie face off...". Aaargh.
dhex|1.3.08 @ 3:12PM|#
a very good job avoiding o'reilly's pace-changer tactics. recommended watching for any future reasonoids going on o'reilly - just steamroll the bastard and never lose your temper no matter what bumfuck stupid thing he says.
jp|1.3.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Nice work!
I'm surprised BO didn't try to out-shout Nick. Does he not do that
anymore?
BO also has some serious turkey action going on with his neck. He
might want to put a call in to
Kelsey Grammer's doc.
|1.3.08 @ 3:24PM|#
"I would like to point out that Fox News has given more air time
to Ron Paul and libertarian ideals then say NPR."
But was it positive or negative air time?
NPR's coverage of Ron Paul: "Who is the Ron Paul?
Fox: "He is the Devil, don't vote for him or the world will
end!"
Not sure selection two is any better because it was "more
coverage."
Ted McElwee|1.3.08 @ 3:24PM|#
If you believe O'Reilly, then WAR = PEACE.
Brilliant. Can things be any more obvious at this point?? We're
already at least 7 years into our experience of living in the
dystopian world of 1984.
BakedPenguin|1.3.08 @ 3:25PM|#
ClubMed - you're right. I'd totally forgotten about that. "Hey, look! There's someone's attractive cousin!"
Ted McElwee|1.3.08 @ 3:30PM|#
By the way, government is not here to protect the lives of
anyone. It is here to protect the liberties and property of
everyone. If people's liberties and property are protected, their
lives will be better than protected, they will be prosperous!
O'Reilly intentionally distorts the purpose of government by
stating that protecting us from each other is the primary purpose
of government by omitting liberty.
Liberty and freedom are the ONLY things that protect anyone
anywhere on the planet from oppression, tyranny, and fear of both
individuals AND government!
Brian Sorgatz|1.3.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Nick has always reminded me of a combo of Fonzie, Beretta,
and Spock.
In that case, I wonder which side he would take in the epic struggle
recorded here.
Eric Dondero\'s Eviler Twin|1.3.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Your Fourth Grade English Teacher: Come on,
you guys are professional writers. You're supposed to know the
difference between verbs and nouns: "Watch reason's Nick Gillespie
face off...". Aaargh.
Hm. That's strange. The dictionary seems to disagree with you. Oh,
and "watch" is also a verb in this context. They're not referring
to the hunk of metal on his wrist. But I can see how you could be
confused.
Main Entry:
2 face
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
faced; fac·ing
Date:
15th century
transitive verb
1: to confront impudently
2 a: to line near the edge especially with a different material b:
to cover the front or surface of
3: to meet face-to-face or in competition
|1.3.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Not sure selection two is any better because it was "more
coverage."
Nick seemed to be givin free reign in how he wished to portray Paul
and libertarians...on NPR you have two socialists discussing who
Paul is.
Amnesia|1.3.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Nick, that wuz really neat.
SOT: turns out King really did interview Paul last night. CNN
decided not to air it.
Former Copy Editor|1.3.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Sorry, Eviler Twin. You've missed the point on this one.
The issue isn't whether face can properly be used as a
verb. Clearly, it can.
The issue is whether faceoff (spelled solid) can properly
be used as a verb. Faceoff (or face-off) is a
noun meaning a certain method of beginning play. (Per
Merriam-Webster's 10th ed. Collegiate and the American Heritage
Unabridged, 4th ed.)
Face off (two words, no hyphen) is a phrasal verb meaning
to start play by means of a face-off. (Per the American Heritage
Unabridged.)
E.g., "the manager and the ref faced off regarding whether a foul
was committed during the face-off."
|1.3.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Fonz? I don't know, I think Nick looks like he could be the
Tuscordero sisters' dad.
"""I'm surprised that O'Reilly didn't take him to school for his
comment on Iran not having a nuclear program because they actually
hid their program for more than a decade and are still illegally
processing uranium,"""
Who says it illegal? They are a party to the NPT, which allows them
peaceful nuclear power. Charlie pointed this out earlier.
"""Landau, Nimoy, what's the difference?"""
Landau was great as Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood. I don't think Nimoy
could have pulled it off. But I hear Nimoy sings better. Better
than what you ask.
Merv|1.3.08 @ 4:14PM|#
I hear Nimoy sings better. Better than what you
ask.
Look no further. Sing it,
Lenny!
|1.3.08 @ 4:41PM|#
It's amazing to me that someone as ill informed as Bill
O'Reilly seems to have such a following.
B.O'R. is what happens when a buncha' suits with more money than
sense arbitrarily decide some schlub is, or should be, the next big
thing. Fact is, you give any marginally talented bum
enough media coverage, throw enough money behind them and they'll
become a "star"...if only because their presence in the media
suggest they already are.
In other words, Bill O'Reilly is the Julia Roberts of talking
heads...
|1.3.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Nick did a great job. Every time I see or hear him he comes off
as someone who's very intelligent and able to express his thoughts
very well.
Off topic: "The Lemon Tree" is my all-time favorite episode of The
Simpsons. So many great gags and lines. "What's wrong boy!
Something behind that bush we should beat up?"
Rutgers Alum|1.3.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Nick did a great job. Every time I see or hear him he comes
off as someone who's very intelligent and able to express his
thoughts very well.
I know. It's kind of amazing that he went to Rutgers.
|1.3.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Nick looks like that Kligon spy from the Star Trek episode, "The
Trouble with Trebles".
You know where the trebles get into the grain, then some strained
attempts at comedy, with the dramatic high point the trebles don't
like the commissionar, but does like Spock, and then McCoy tests
and discover he is a Klingon, and he then breaks down when Kirk
threatens him with more treables. Beats waterboarding, ha,
ha...
Some one please get the picture, you'll see, I am at work
|1.3.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Why all this hostility to a show and a channel that consistently
goes coverage to libertarian opinions is beyond me.
I guess you guys prefer being ignored and shut out rather then
confronted and debated.
Or perhaps i am wrong and you guys can give links to all the
appearances that reason staff have gotten on CNN, PBS and the
networks.
I will admit I prefer the coverage that say CSPAN gives Reason. But
jesus guys..."You bastards put Nick on the air where he could
express his opinion which happens to be very similar to my
opinion!! You Bastards!!"
Truly weird.
|1.3.08 @ 6:17PM|#
Great segment! You were prepared with rational answers to
counter his irrational rants and accusations.
I particularly liked when you cleared up the isolationist issue
before he even had a chance to try and attack with it. He seemed
caught off guard and backed off the rhetoric, how ever so
slightly.
Overall very impressive and a great job at letting people know
about Ron Paul's message of liberties and peace.
Ryan|1.3.08 @ 6:51PM|#
I agree with Vega. Big props to Nick for being a gentleman and a scholar in the face of that degree of bile.
|1.3.08 @ 7:12PM|#
Gillespie did a nice job. O'Reilly stepped back, as many neo-conservatives generally do, when they realize they cannot argue Libertarian ideology. It's not like holding a debate between a liberal and conservative.
|1.3.08 @ 7:21PM|#
Joshua,
Why all this hostility to a show and a channel that
consistently goes coverage to libertarian opinions is beyond
me.
You should know the reason we get upset is because they still don't
give much chance for a debate. I saw a video a couple of days ago
on youtube where Bill was responding to a letter from an RP fan
complaining that Bill didn't let him get his points across. Bill
said that he couldn't give him 20 minutes for a history lesson.
Ultimately, there's no time for building up facts to prove a point.
There's only enough time to say what you believe and then be
accused of not backing up a point with factual evidence.
The coverage is certainly nice, but isn't it generally human to
always want more? We want a true debate, with time for evidence to
back it up. Can you really see Bill granting somebody the chance to
actually prove him wrong? It's cold in hell, but it sure ain't
frozen over.
|1.3.08 @ 7:44PM|#
O'Rielly is a globalist/fascist only interested in spreading the message of the same fear-mongers and war-mongers. The Fourth Estate has been compromised.
|1.3.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Good Job at sticking up for Paul and defending his ideas - not an easy thing to do with O'Reilly breathing down your neck. Another feather in the Revolutionary cap!
|1.3.08 @ 9:08PM|#
Nice work vs. one of the devils's handmaidens. O'Lielly can barely let anyone else speak, let alone state a cogent argument. Great work representing RP. We're with you.
|1.4.08 @ 12:16AM|#
Nick didn't do a great job...
1. Know your audience: You started off talking about "strippers for
Ron Paul" etc... Unnecessary unless "fringe group" is your desired
appellation. You weren't actually trying to appeal on the basis of
something other than Reason -were you?
2. Reason: As in, what are the reasons RP is a "fascinating
character"? As if that's important for effective policy..
3. Tact: You interrupted the big O first. However, he won the
battle with a 3-2 margin.... Shocker! (I know, I know.. The
"shocker" is really 2&1) But that's nullified by the fact that
you started it...
4. Fear: RP is scary?? We laugh together... I'm sure O was
referring to his policies; however, in the snippet of the previous
interview RP looks shifty and mole-like. That's kinda scary, I
guess...
5. Middle East Policy: It seems to me that you tacitly agreed to
the idea of preemptive strikes by bringing up Iran's nuke program
as an empirical reason to stay out of the area. Shouldn't have gone
that route -III think...
-Your last interruption/follow-up was about RP's non-isolationist
stance and your ideas for a peaceful middle east... The comment on
trade -perfect; the comment on cultural exchange -ridiculous.
Please elaborate on what part of our culture should be
exported/imposed on the middle east... The Aquarians or
Evangelicals? Hope you get the point..
~ I found a link to Reason awhile back at
http://newcriterion.com:81/constant/links/ They'd probably be
terrified of me citing them here but, hey... I'm probably their
youngest subscriber; venial sin...
|1.4.08 @ 12:59AM|#
I just saw it and was pleasantly surprised: Nick held his ground
well, and O'Reilly did a reasonable(!) job as devil's advocate,
addressing the issues that a non-Paul supporter would want
addressed.
Bookmark this page: it's one of the few times in history you'll
hear the words "O'Reilly" and "reasonable" together...
|1.4.08 @ 2:46AM|#
Good answers, good composure, Nick... Is O'Reilly "watching out for you" as he claims in his book? The way our war on Iraq and war on terror are run is by printing unbacked money with the value of toilet paper and by allowing DC the kind of power that the founders knew leads to tyranny. Bill seems to have abandoned the Constitution.
|1.4.08 @ 4:53AM|#
"This election, as have others before it, is being shaped for
us. They are telling us who we should be considering. They control
the frequency. If they showed more of Kucinich, more people would
know of Kucinich and they could just as easily drop the novelty of
Clinton and Obama if they wanted to. The media frames the
candidates and the debate and they frame us in the process." -
Texas Explorer of Democratic Underground.
"There is nothing puzzling ... about America's gratuitously
aggressive foreign policy... What an aggressive foreign policy
accomplishes by slow degrees, a state of war accomplishes in a
trice. Overnight [war] kills reform, overnight it transforms
insurgents into traitors and the Republic into an imperiled realm.
Overnight it strangles free politics, distracts and overawes the
citizenry. Overnight it blasts public hope." -Walter Karp
The American public has become so conditioned by crises, by
warnings, by words, that there are few, other than the young, who
protest against what is happening."
Senator J. William Fulbright
|1.4.08 @ 6:01AM|#
Looks like O'reilly is suffering from a cranial-rectal
inversion. Or to translate he has his head up his a**.
O'reilly doesn't have the nuts to be a real man cause he's to busy
licking them living with his head in excrement like a dog.
|1.4.08 @ 10:26AM|#
I have never heard any pro-war/fake macho conservative come back
with a good response to the ridiculous idea that we increase our
"security" by depending on a radical corrupt House of Saud to
finance a half trillion dollars of our debt...our overstretched
military can only fight this "war on terror" with the help of what
neo-cons want us to believe are dangerous regimes in Saudi, Russia
and China.
This puts the people of the US in a extremeley vulnerable position
to the whims of assholes. Ron Pauls would make us LESS vulnerable
to these people.
|1.4.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Bookmark this page: it's one of the few times in history
you'll hear the words "O'Reilly" and "reasonable"
together...
Dare I say that O'Reilly is sympathetic to libertarians?
|1.4.08 @ 10:23PM|#
Great Job Nick!
Reason magazine and Ron Paul are excellent ambassadors to the
Libertarian Movement!
|1.5.08 @ 2:15PM|#
O rilley is wrong, were does it say anywhere that the federal
government is suppoed to protect the citizens from the world, I
dont think he has ever read the constitution, the only job of the
federal government is to protect our rights, the government nowhere
makes a promiss to protect us from enemies, thats congress job, if
there is a lagit threat against america to declare war.
o rilley you are ignorant as allways.
get off the air stupid.
|1.5.08 @ 3:28PM|#
kudos to oreilly for actually letting Nick be heard on this one and not resorting to incessant bullying. on the other side of the street any of you seen the scullum (spelling??) interview. Absolutely atrocious on oreilly's part.
|1.7.08 @ 6:11PM|#
Joshua is the only guy that gets it. The rest seem to be
mindless cheerleaders - just like those glaze-eyed fundies you so
abhor.
Nick looked unprofessional and defensive. He wandered around on
pointless issues.
And in the end Ron Paul is wrong about the ME. This did not start
when we put troops there, or even when we interfered in Iran in
1953. Islamic extremists have been spreading terror for centuries,
including suicide killings from the 19th century, and massacres for
over 1000 years, and now may have access to weapons that can kill
millions and/or can be easily transmitted to the US. So you can
stick your head in the sand and get your ass blown off or you can
confront the problem, however messy that may be.
Iran may not be an immediate threat, but we had better be damned
sure we are capable of nipping any incipient threat as it develops
- much easier said than done - or millions will likely perish in a
nuclear world war.
Todd McGreevy|1.7.08 @ 9:55PM|#
Nick, phenomenal job with Bill0! well done.
One small, but critical IMO, piece of constructive criticism:
When NeoCons like this state emphatically, "the number one role of
the federal government is to keep Americans safe", i feel the
response should be: "Well, I disagree with you. That posture has
been abused for decades by those in power and the true #1 role of
the federal government is to uphold the Constitution. All else will
flow from that. And IF the American people feel that the Federal
Government should have additional powers bestowed upon it, then let
them elect reps to amend the Constitution. Too many politicians
posture behind this fear based statement, keep America safe at ANY
cost and that's why our civil liberties are eroding and habeus
corpus is no longer in place, etc."
(you get the idea)
Granted, tough to get that in on a talking heads show like BillO's
in 10 seconds.. BUT you did nod and agree with him when he threw
down the "protect America" card... which is easy to do, cause it
sounds accurate and right...but i consider it to be a very slippery
slope that gets abused by most elected officials.
The Constitution provides the means and terms by which to protect
us, and if it isn't working then we should amend it, not pass the
Military Commission Act.
I would love to know your thoughts on this
a) do you think this analysis is accurate?
and
b) what should freedom and liberty loving voters say to those who
throw the Protect at Any Cost card down?
Extremely well done otherwise.
|1.11.08 @ 1:50AM|#
Nick, great job! I haven't seen a performance like this since
you played Ian in Jurassic Park...
http://www.movieactors.com/characters/Freezes-Characters/jurassicPark149.jpeg
|1.11.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Great job! You kept your cool with Bill! Bill and so many other Americans don't realize what our military is really doing...playing the very expensive role of "rent-a-cops" for the rest of the world. I can say this since I've been in the Marines for over 19 years. And during that time, I haven't done one thing to defend our country. We need to stop being the "police" of the world. Vote for Ron Paul!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245