I know that portions of this have already been posted, but as far as I can tell, the whole interview is not anywhere on VideoSift. I thought it was important to get the full interview on here, as the clips repeated by media segments suggest that Clinton was basically out of control for the whole interview. In fact, he only became angry after multiple interruptions with loaded questions from Wallace.

Not to troll.. but in response to westy's post... maybe he's right. Maybe that money would be better spent elsewhere. Like on education (read: English classes for westy).

Everyone seems surprised at Marilyn Manson's conduct during this interview. Having seen him interviewed before, and having listened to his music and seen him in concert, I'm not at all surprised.

My surprise is at Bill O'Reilly, whom I've seen many times on his show, and in interviews elsewhere. This is definitely the most relaxed, professional and polite I've seen him. I still find most of his points to be invalid (though not by such a degree as I usually do), but he was polite, he did not interrupt as frequently as he normally does, and his questions were at least mildly well thought out (though poorly researched and completely loaded against Manson).

In my opinion, O'Reilly is completley entitled to his opinion, and to express his opinion. My problem with him is not quite so often what he says as how he says it, and what he won't allow his guests to say no matter how hard they're trying to get it out. He should model future interviews on this one.

Someone tell me how he did this. Please.

I don't get it. Is it just me? It may be because I've been up all night.

Wumpus,

You are correct. It is "fair and balanced" and free of any "spin", just like FOX News.

In my opinion, the problem is not FOX News itself, but the climate that allows for a channel such as FOX. The problem isn't that FOX is right-leaning, or that any other channel is left-leaning. There are always political biases in media, that's the way it works, and that's the way it should work. It's a sharing of ideas, and since many issues have more than one possible view, a diverse media perspective is in order.

The problem is that the majority of the media is controlled by large corporations, and large corporations share common interests which don't necessarily reflect the interests of the people they're supposed to be serving. So whereas a horde of small, privately owned media outlets would provide a diverse perspective on most issues, encouraging meaningful debate and discourse, the range of views offered by corporate media is comparatively narrow. They tend to focus on issues of overall mild importance, but ones which get people fired up. Examples are abortion, terrorism and illegal immigration. When you compare these issues to ones such as the exponential growth of the national debt, political corruption, pressing environmental issues or anything else that poses a far greater threat to you or I than whether or not someone can get an abortion, they really aren't all that important. But they keep people watching, and they keep people preoccupied with bickering with eachother over issues that don't have a significant effect on the status quo for business and politics.

So, in my opinion, it's not what these giant media outlets are saying or doing, it's what they aren't saying and doing. At least we have the internet, for now.

Obviously, she was faking. People who have specific phobias toward something don't act like her. She would have known before ariving at the show, or especially at the pickle factory, that they were going to try to show her pickles. If her fear of them is as severe as she claims/acts, then the mere knowledge that she'd be forced to look at them would have created an aversive reaction to participating. That's why people with serious phobias often become agoraphobics as well (afraid to leave the house).

Someone deathly afraid of pickles would simply avoid them, or seek professional help. Someone looking for attention would go on national television and play up her fear with tons of drama.

Gee, thanks Moby! You're so smart.

Video cut out for me toward the end, but I see a whole lot of problems. First of all, how is HHO different from H2O? The "2" after the "H" signifies two hydrogen atoms... water could be written as HHO, so I'm not sure what they're doing to water to make this gas.

Second, even if there is legitimate chemistry behind what they're saying, the claim that this will work as a fuel source is dubious. The machine that makes HHO has to be plugged in, and therefore is probably not self-sufficient. How much electricity does it take to make this gas? How much fossil fuel does it take to make that electricity? What's the efficiency loss during that process?

At best, it seems like they've maybe found a slightly better gas to use for welding. At worst, this is a pretty lame prank/scam.

What happens when it suddenly becomes cloudy?

Anyone know what this guy's name is?