O'Reilly, Gillespie, Abercrombie & Fitch

Tonight on the Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, Reason's Nick Gillespie gets to argue about pop culture, sex, and the late Abercrombie & Fitch Christmas catalog. Watch for that segment around the bottom of the hour.

Comments

[O'Righteous]

kick some liver-spotted ass, Nick.

[Jean Bart]

Nick should has his cow milking boots on; the shit will get high and deep on that show.

[Jason Ligon]

I don’t know about cow milking boots, but I suspect there might be a leather jacket …

[Steve in CO]

Please, please get in a few digs about this neo-puritan witch-hunt mentality… and remind them if they don’t like something don’t buy/watch/listen to it.

Don’t forget to call O’Reilly a liar just to get his goat!

[Citizen]

The leather jacket cracks me up.

Steve, from what I understand, the catalogs were available for purchase without checking IDs for underage hopefuls. It’s for the children. Protest speech IS free speech.

[Steve in CO]

Okay Citizen. Then they should have complained on it not being censored for our fragile youth, not to have the thing banned outright…

On another level, just what exactly is wrong with nudity? Perhaps I lucked out and missed the Victorian-sensibility camp the rest of this country seems to have attended.

[Russell Hanneken]

Why does Nick Gillespie want to subject himself to the O’Reilly treatment? It’s not like he’ll be given a fair chance to express his views.

[spur]

Has past shows on O’Reilly and other boring type hyped up shows bring more hits and subscription to the website?

If so — go Nick — If not, why bother?

Bring the catalogue along and show the pictures live on the air — that will get the ratings and make O’Reilly like to hate you — i.e. he’ll have you back…

[David McElroy]

From a libertarian point of view, what exactly is wrong with people complaining about something that they find offensive? I have a problem when people want government to ban something, but what exactly is wrong with people protesting about something they believe is destructive to the culture?

Being libertarian isn’t necessarily the same as being libertine. When libertarians don’t make a distinction between the two, they contribute toward people misunderstanding what it means to be a libertarian. As a result, it’s hard for most people today to understand that it’s OK to find the catalog in question offensive, but NOT call for government action to ban it or restrict it in some way.

If libertarians want to convince more people that they should support freedom from government intervention, they need to let people know that it’s perfectly consistent to have personal views which are different those who think that “anything goes” is a smart social philosophy. Until then, people are going to continue to believe that being a libertarian automatically means that a person is a drug-using, sex-crazed libertine who pimps prostitutes on the side.

One of the most natural “recruiting grounds” for libertarians ought to be among intelligent religious people of several different groups. Those who can learn that legality and morality aren’t necessarily the same thing could be very, very, very important to making libertarian ideas acceptable to a wider group of people. Just because a person disagrees with you on a matter of social morality doesn’t mean he can’t be a valuable political ally.

[Mike]

Spur – Yeah, O’Reilly’s audience is pretty engaged and appearances do bring people to the site. Mostly they come to get the guest’s e-mail address.

[crap-action-jackson]

From a libertarian point of view, O’Reilly can blow it out his ass.

My money’s on gay Elvis!

[Miguel]

Oh come on, all the slutty girls wear Volcom and Hurley. Abercrombie is for prudes and math club presidents.

[mudflap]

Nick-

Bring a whistle. Every time O’Reilley starts to talk over you so that it remains one-sided discussion (with him talking of course) blow it as loud as you can. Keep doing this until he lets you finish your thoughts without his rude interruptions

Mudflap

[Bill Kalles]

Hey Nick,

You Report, While Bill derides.

[Charles Oliver]

What’s David Faustino doing with Nick and Bill?

[mtc]

well i tuned in at the very last second managing to miss everything except–you guessed it–the leather jacket.

[Bob A. Bui]

Don’t forget the re-run at 11pm EST, if you missed the first showing.

[HH]

“Then they should have complained on it not being censored for our fragile youth, not to have the thing banned outright…”

Well, actually he did that exact thing. He made the point again today that he didn’t want it banned for over 18.

[Joe Majsterski]

I was checking out reason.com, saw the note about the appearance, and turned the TV just in time to watch the segmenton the late repeat of the show. Great job, Nick! You’re my hero of the day. Too bad Bill turned off your mike like that. What a cheater. Still, you made good points, especially on distinguishing between window displays and catalogues. BTW, what was the question you wanted to ask him at the end?

[Jean Bart]

Now I’ll be forced to go over to Fox Spews and read the damn transcript.

[Liberty Lover]

The segments were too short to sustain any kind of argument. The other guest did not need to be there because he and O’Reilly agreed.

[dhex]

is there a way to see this on the net? i don’t have cable.

[Citizen]

Yelp! Get a look at that creepy picture of Jacko on the cover of The O’Reilly Factor’s site. http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html