Argument from Anger/Outrage

Argument from Anger At 3:15 O'Reilly exlaims "See I'm more angry about it then you are!" in a classic appeal to anger. O'Reilly is acting as if the mere fact that he is angry constitutes a reason for thinking that his conclusion is better supported than Glick's conclusion. Put differently, he is acting as if he anger serves as evidence of something (i.e., that he [O'Reilly] is correct). Further analysis: At 1:35 O'Reilly engages in a reverse argument from popularity (i.e., your view is unpopular therefore it is false) calling Glick's position "far left." In the full clip he goes on to call Glick's position "a marginal position in this society." Also notice the blatant red herring at 1:50. At 1:18 Glick says "our current President now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically and situating geo-politically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and murder of my father and countless of others..." In case you doubt this you may want to read this interview with one of Obama's current advisors and Carter's previous National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski where he discusses how the CIA trained radical Muslims in Afghanistan in order to lure the Russians into "the Afghan trap" to give "the USSR its Vietnam war." At the end of the interview he is asked; "do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?" To which he replies: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" Stirred-up Moslems... Needless to say this interview was conducted prior to 9-11.