Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: 240 is Back on October 13, 2006, 08:03:52 PM
-
LOL... he says that people who question the official 911 story do not deserve the first amendment!!
-
he doesn't deserve life
-
LOL... he says that people who question the official 911 story do not deserve the first amendment!!
When did he say that?
-
just now.
Talking Points Memo
Freedom of speech... gone too far?
We'll tell you about a far-left group that maintains that Bush is behind worldwide terrorism.
There is a professor in Wisc who believes bush knew about 911 (as 12 countries warned him, and all...). The professor argued that if Bush "let it happen", at the very least he allowed 3000 people to die.
last night's marine guest came on with evidence of the WTC 7 being a controlled demolition. instead of listening to this info - the reason he brought him on - OReilly spent a good 20 straight seconds insulting the guy. I mean, he was rude. Told him the FBI should be investigating him for questioning bush.
Tonight he continued his rant against both of them. I dunno... I enjoy his show... but I feel seriously embarassed for anyone who tries to defend OReilly on this topic. Anyone who questions the govt should be investigated by the FBI? Gimme a break. Bill O Reilly just kinda ignores a little thing called the constitution. If he didn't agree with the message, why bring the guy on?
-
Hannity & Colmes - Tonight guest Steve Emerson and guest host Rich Lowry said that left-wing groups are now spewing Islamic hate when they question 9/11.
Colmes defended it - saying that many of the conspiracy theorists are very hard-right conservatives: "It's not about left vs. right - it's not a leftist appraoch. You want to use it to club people on the left."
Colmes defended their right to speak. Emerson & Lowry equated them to Islamic extremists.
911 was an Inside Job (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=loose+change&hl=en)
-
Hannity & Colmes - Tonight guest Steve Emerson and guest host Rich Lowry said that left-wing groups are now spewing Islamic hate when they question 9/11.
Colmes defended it - saying that many of the conspiracy theorists are very hard-right conservatives: "It's not about left vs. right - it's not a leftist appraoch. You want to use it to club people on the left."
Colmes defended their right to speak. Emerson & Lowry equated them to Islamic extremists.
911 was an Inside Job (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=loose+change&hl=en)
Typical two-faced Republicunt hypocrisy.
-
LOL... he says that people who question the official 911 story do not deserve the first amendment!!
I know that Muslim extremists and terrible dictators like Kim Jong Il opposes the right to freedom of speech.
But Bill O'Reilly? :-\
Man, what happened to that guy?
YIP
Zack
-
I know that Muslim extremists and terrible dictators like Kim Jong Il opposes the right to freedom of speech.
But Bill O'Reilly? :-\
Man, what happened to that guy?
YIP
Zack
it's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, O'Reilly is making millions with his made up delusional "culture war".
-
You should of seen the one where He had Kieth Stroup, founder of High Times and NORMAL. All He did was bash the guy and never listened to the reason Kieth was their in the first place. If you are to the left or right of OReilly's viewpoint, you haven't got a chance. Even when the guest makes more sense than OReilly, they still get treated like they are the anti-Christ. He is entertaining, but that's it entertainment.
-
LOL... he says that people who question the official 911 story do not deserve the first amendment!!
Dear Mr. O'Reilly,
Please...
-
I know that Muslim extremists and terrible dictators like Kim Jong Il opposes the right to freedom of speech.
But Bill O'Reilly? :-\
Man, what happened to that guy?
Even the conservatives here are avoiding this topic, because OReilly just wiped his ass with the first amendment. And as much as they might agree with many of his viewpoints, they still love their Constitution. It's a wonderful thing.
OReilly's culture war is a sad, sad thing. He's sold a lot of books because there are a lot of Republicans out there looking for a way to justify what it happening right now.
It's sad. OReilly believes in torture. OReilly believes 911 Skeptics should be investigated by the FBI. It's only a matter of time until he's calling for the torture of 911 Skeptics.
Repubs here - speak up. Does this man represent your viewpoint? Do you seriously agree that people who speak contraty to official govt stories don't deserve the First Amendment?
-
Repubs here - speak up. Does this man represent your viewpoint? Do you seriously agree that people who speak contraty to official govt stories don't deserve the First Amendment?
That's just it, 240--the Republicans have gone from a party that supports less government involvement to being a bunch of sycophantics who grab their ankles whenever Bush tells them to. That's why I left the party. Thankfully, you seem to be an exception. IntenseOne, on the other hand.....
-
That's just it, 240--the Republicans have gone from a party that supports less government involvement to being a bunch of sycophantics who grab their ankles whenever Bush tells them to.
You have GOT to be shitting me.....everytime some prominent Liberal speaks out, the enitre party with the exeption of a few gets on their little bandwagon and rides it until that one prominent Liberal changes their mind and attacks another thing then they jump on that bandwagon.....and the people who go against the "bandwagon" get pretty much drummed out of the part, it's either your for us or aginst us and if your against us, say goodby to your political career!
-
Don't make this about Republicans.
I don't see any Republicans supporting O'Reilly on this matter.
Would be political suicide if they did. And Republicans have a reputation of upholding the First Amendment.
YIP
Zack
-
You have GOT to be shitting me.....everytime some prominent Liberal speaks out, the enitre party with the exeption of a few gets on their little bandwagon and rides it until that one prominent Liberal changes their mind and attacks another thing then they jump on that bandwagon.....and the people who go against the "bandwagon" get pretty much drummed out of the part, it's either your for us or aginst us and if your against us, say goodby to your political career!
Monster redirect :)
Does this man represent your viewpoint? Do you seriously agree that people who speak contraty to official govt stories don't deserve the First Amendment?
-
Monster redirect :)
Does this man represent your viewpoint? Do you seriously agree that people who speak contraty to official govt stories don't deserve the First Amendment?
Your telling me that if one Dem speaks out against another that particular Dem or the issues at hand that person won't get ousted??
Ex; Lieberman, Miller just to name a couple.
With Liberals, the first amendment only applies when the issues are in their favor!
-
Your telling me that if one Dem speaks out against another that particular Dem or the issues at hand that person won't get ousted??
Ex; Lieberman, Miller just to name a couple.
With Liberals, the first amendment only applies when the issues are in their favor!
LOL @ monster redirect #2.
Does O'Reilly represent your viewpoint? Do you seriously agree that people who speak contraty to official govt stories don't deserve the First Amendment?
-
Your telling me that if one Dem speaks out against another that particular Dem or the issues at hand that person won't get ousted??
Ex; Lieberman, Miller just to name a couple.
With Liberals, the first amendment only applies when the issues are in their favor!
To answer your Q tho, most dems are bandwagon jumpers, sure. They do try to be on the popular boat. And yes, they're spineless pussies when they do this.
BUT - I cannot recall a liberal TV host with a #1 cable news show, getting on the air and starting that the FBI should be investigating a group who has committed no crime, just for speaking contrary to the govt. I haven't heard anyone calling for the First Amendment to be abolished. And they'd be wronger than a pornstar in a monastary if they did so, of course.
-
LOL @ monster redirect #2.
Does O'Reilly represent your viewpoint? Do you seriously agree that people who speak contraty to official govt stories don't deserve the First Amendment?
No, everyone (just about) deserves their First Amendment rights, O'Reilly was out of line with that, if people want to make stupid statments or rediculous accusations thats their perogitive!
-
No, everyone (just about) deserves their First Amendment rights, O'Reilly was out of line with that, if people want to make stupid statments or rediculous accusations thats their perogitive!
Cool man. I knew there was some true Republican in you :)
Me- I just hate this neoconservative element that is running part of the party. Last night on fox news- Steve emerson and rich lowrey were on- and they were saying that American kids who are questioning the official story are actually doing nothing but spreading terrorist propaganda.
This disgusted me. I agree there are some crazy ass islamic pricks out there who need wiped off the map. But because I feel that the half-assed 911 commission and holes in the official story need a new investigation, suddenly I am "ONE OF THEM"?
Nothing could be further from the truth. Really pissed me off that they're trying to blend the 2 viewpoints, because they're entirely different. Many Americans want a new investigation, to see why the buildings fell, to see why NORAD stood down, and to see why flight 93's debris was spread over 8 miles. We want to know if anyone inside the US was complicit in the attacks, and belongs on trial for it. Hell, the guy at the FAA who destroyed a tape of an interview with flight controllers who ran everything that day - why did they never ask him Qs?
I guess this move on their part reeks of desperation.
Hey mr I, would you vote for Condi in 2008 if it came out that 911 was an inside job? :)
-
Bill O'Reilly only thinks the Constitution should apply to people who agree with him.
It's nonsense.
911 was an Inside Job (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change&hl=en)
-
you guys are missing the whole point, O'Reilly is making MONEY HAND OVER FIST because of his stances on things and especially his new cause, the infamous "culture war", it's the biggest bunch of transparent bullshit i've ever heard of, this clown was nothing but a tabloid show hack doing Inside Edition until Fox News picked him up in 96 to spew his bullshit and at first he was OK but he's gone off the deep end with this traditionalist vs. secular progressive nonsense.
-
Sarcasm is 100% correct. The Billo is a flunky journalist who finally found his niche and is making a fine living out of pandering to the lowest common denominator. He doesn't believe a single word that spews from his own lips, so what he actually says is irrelevant.
-
He doesn't believe a single word that spews from his own lips, so what he actually says is irrelevant.
wish it were that simple. believing what you say doesn't mean that your words are relevant . . . and vice versa.
-
I was thinking about this today. You know how you have to tell your corporate boss "Nice tie, sir" and "Excellent idea, boss", in order to move ahead?
I'm guessing that in the highly competitive world of TV journalism- where an Olbernamm and Dobbs are chomping at an oreilly's heels, that OReilly says whatever it is that FOXnews' research department determines will help the numbers most.
he's essentially an actor, who reads scripts which elicit an emotional response from the listener, positive or negative. If he were to have moderate views on any topic- as most of us do on something - he probably couldn't speak them on teh show. Like an Anne Coulter, his selling point is that he's an extreme.
Also, to support that "speaking what the network wants you to speak"... think about Lou dobbs. In july of this year, there was a piece in which Pentagon documents revealed the DoD lied about the times on 911, and just "lost" 45 minutes of testimony on the stand - this is the "standdown order through inaction" that allowed 3 of the 4 targets to be hit. Well, Dobbs always gets to comment on a topic, and he said, in his opinion, paraphrased, "If the Pentagon has lied to us about those 45 minutes, and these documents show they have, I think it's time for a new 911 Investigation."
Dobbs was removed from the air for 3 weeks immediately following this episode.
-
Dobbs was removed from the air for 3 weeks immediately following this episode.
good for him.
-
wish it were that simple. believing what you say doesn't mean that your words are relevant . . . and vice versa.
I should have separated my thoughts. He doesn't believe a single word that spews from his own lips. What he says is also irrelevant. Anyway, the average age of his viewers is 65. More than likely ad dollars will start to dry up in the next coming years... and not to sound crass, but his viewers are also literally dying off.
-
I should have separated my thoughts. He doesn't believe a single word that spews from his own lips. What he says is also irrelevant. Anyway, the average age of his viewers is 65. More than likely ad dollars will start to dry up in the next coming years... and not to sound crass, but his viewers are also literally dying off.
think you're right about the age of his viewers . . . the older folks in my life are the ones who watch him religiously . . . but they vote more regularly than I do, and they have a hell of a lot more money than I do . . . and, no, they're not about to die off anytime soon. maybe in a decade or so . . . by which time the political/media landscape will look quite different hopefully.
that said, I think more people of my generation now feel (even if it isn't necessarily true) that we're at a crossroads now, so i expect we'll have better voter turnout among younger people this coming midterm election.
-
IMO his money stream is fine, since old people are living longer and their "market share" - both demographically and ad rev - is going up big time.
He makes old people feel safe. many of them don't care about inside jobs or
They're retired and stay at home most of the day. OReilly is late night TV for them. They just want safety. And many of them are born and bred racists, and they've just added Muslims to japanese, koreans, and other groups they fear and hate.
OReilly panders for money. Which is fine. But his statement about using FBI resources to investigate men WHO ARE ASKING FOR ANOTHER 911 INVESTIGATION is idiotic. And, his statement that 911 skeptics don't deserve the constitution, that is just anti-American.
But it's America, and he still has a right to say it, no matter how asinine it is.
-
Older people do tend vote more religiously, and that's a problem. But, they also have far less need for the kind of "products & stuff" that move ad dollars. These tend to get spent on programs that have a younger demographic 40-55. It's going to become a real dilemma for Billo and Company whose extreme vision repells younger people with income to spend.
-
think you're right about the age of his viewers . . . the older folks in my life are the ones who watch him religiously . . . but they vote more regularly than I do, and they have a hell of a lot more money than I do . . . and, no, they're not about to die off anytime soon. maybe in a decade or so . . . by which time the political/media landscape will look quite different hopefully.
that said, I think more people of my generation now feel (even if it isn't necessarily true) that we're at a crossroads now, so i expect we'll have better voter turnout among younger people this coming midterm election.
Pretty sad. Usually, you would expect the elderly to be smarter than that. I guess they want a crusader for their ideals, most of which are now dying out.
A lot of those old fuckers are collecting their checks on the backs of young workers. Can't really do anything about that but try and vote their kinda out of office.
-
Pretty sad. Usually, you would expect the elderly to be smarter than that. I guess they want a crusader for their ideals, most of which are now dying out.
A lot of those old fuckers are collecting their checks on the backs of young workers. Can't really do anything about that but try and vote their kinda out of office.
I rarely talk about race. But in the case of the elderly, many of them are hard-molded racists. They grew up using the N-word like it was their middle name, many of them fought the Germans, Nazis, Japanese, and Koreans, and they hate a lot of people and fear a lot of things. Muslims just made their list, and they hate them now as the new nazis.
Plus many of them have that "My country, right or wrong" mindset. That's groovy to be strong nationalists - but when "your country" decides to start sacrificing US lives, the Constitution has to pull rank.
most of them are just looking for a way to pass the time as they worry about health issues and the damn kids on their lawn.
-
That's why I wrote that what he says is mainly irrelevant. Most of those who are listening to him are among the more "benign" members of society. The constitution is still safe.
-
I rarely talk about race. But in the case of the elderly, many of them are hard-molded racists. They grew up using the N-word like it was their middle name, many of them fought the Germans, Nazis, Japanese, and Koreans, and they hate a lot of people and fear a lot of things. Muslims just made their list, and they hate them now as the new nazis.
Plus many of them have that "My country, right or wrong" mindset. That's groovy to be strong nationalists - but when "your country" decides to start sacrificing US lives, the Constitution has to pull rank.
most of them are just looking for a way to pass the time as they worry about health issues and the damn kids on their lawn.
But the problem here is that these fuckers have entrenched their beliefs into the youth. For example, when you and I make certain points to certain members of these forums their replies reek of that very "my country is right no matter what" mindset that you mentioned above.
An example. When I tried to make certain points to al-gebra on Iran's nuclear program, all he did was call me an idiot and a two-faced punk. He also went on about the freedom and liberties in America as if that had anything to do with Iran's nuclear program. ::)
-
An example. When I tried to make certain points to al-gebra on Iran's nuclear program, all he did was call me an idiot and a two-faced punk.
She attacks the messenger, not the message, when she has no way to refute your point and just disagrees because it "feels wrong".
He also went on about the freedom and liberties in America as if that had anything to do with Iran's nuclear program. ::)
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic
-
typical Bangladeshi badmouthing . . . pl. show me the post where I called you an idiot and a two-faced punk.
-
Older people do tend vote more religiously, and that's a problem. But, they also have far less need for the kind of "products & stuff" that move ad dollars. These tend to get spent on programs that have a younger demographic 40-55. It's going to become a real dilemma for Billo and Company whose extreme vision repells younger people with income to spend.
hey, they're buying the "products and stuff" for their loving grandsons, and sending him on vacations to places where "grandpa and I went 29 years ago" and "here's a new camera, make sure you take lots of pictures."
old people rule. ;D
-
hey, they're buying the "products and stuff" for their loving grandsons, and sending him on vacations to places where "grandpa and I went 29 years ago" and "here's a new camera, make sure you take lots of pictures."
old people rule. ;D
I agree that old people rule. ;D Hope gran and grampie went somewhere interesting 29 years ago.
But... chances are they aren't spending money on lash-extending mascara or SUVs?
-
But... chances are they aren't spending money on lash-extending mascara or SUVs?
they did go to a lot of interesting places . . . travel is a wonderful thing if you can afford to do it right.
but to answer your question, they totally are. on one side, they both have SUVs . . . one has a Ford, but the other has a more exotic one. she also spends a lot of money on makeup and jewelry. and it seems like a lot of people their age do the same thing. they're also the O'Reilly fans. Everytime they bring him up, which is a lot . . . I just cut in and say "so what's that old sexual harassing goat up to these days? But they still love me . . . and him.
-
Well your family seems to be a bit of an anomaly... which is a good thing. :)
The other reason most advertisers go after a younger demographic as well, is in order to get that brand loyalty. Less effective the older the crowd. Still think the old sexually harrassing goat is going to find it tougher going in the next few years... old blowhard. :)
-
i don't think my family is anomalous . . . a lot of older people of a particular class (women especially) are really into "staying young." the people i know have all kinds of cool stuff . . . nice cars, giant HDTVs, top of the line DVD players and computers (don't really know how to use either), expensive golf clubs, time shares, vacation homes, grandchildren and children who they dote on and buy tons of shit for, plastic surgery, beauty products. I have a hard time believing Madison Avenue doesn't target them.
-
Still think the old sexually harrassing goat is going to find it tougher going in the next few years... old blowhard. :)
You know what's going to be funny?
When public opinion of 911 changes for the mainstream. You've got a mere 16% of Americans believing Bush had no forewarning. That means 84% of American minds are open to the facts.
When pub opinion changes, Ruppert Murdoch and FOX will change their broadcasts to a more moderate republican viewpoint. They'll have to. And when they do, we'll see O'Reilly on the news, ranting like he does now... only then, he'll be screaming for the need for the new 911 Investigation. After all his bashing, mocking, etc... when his handlers tell him to scream for a new investigation, he will.
No integrity.
-
i don't think my family is anomalous . . . a lot of older people of a particular class (women especially) are really into "staying young." the people i know have all kinds of cool stuff . . . nice cars, giant HDTVs, top of the line DVD players and computers (don't really know how to use either), expensive golf clubs, time shares, vacation homes, grandchildren and children who they dote on and buy tons of shit for, plastic surgery, beauty products. I have a hard time believing Madison Avenue doesn't target them.
"Of a particular class" being the key words. Mad Ave does target them to some extent, but the biggest profits still come from investing the biggest bang bucks during prime time, aimed at younger demographics.
-
When pub opinion changes, Ruppert Murdoch and FOX will change their broadcasts to a more moderate republican viewpoint. They'll have to. And when they do, we'll see O'Reilly on the news, ranting like he does now... only then, he'll be screaming for the need for the new 911 Investigation. After all his bashing, mocking, etc... when his handlers tell him to scream for a new investigation, he will.
No integrity.
If that happens, I'll be LMAO. Although wait... I probably won't because I refuse to have fox in my home. :)
-
If that happens, I'll be LMAO. Although wait... I probably won't because I refuse to have fox in my home. :)
The trend is undeniable - people are becoming skeptics of the official story.
The white house - instead of providing evidence to quell the worries of Americans - has decided to condemn anyone questioning the official story.
911 Skeptics love our country - that is the thing they don't see. We don't want a new investigation because we want to hurt anyone. We believe a new investigation will flush out a few more rats who were in on 9/11, whether they are living in a flophouse in Jersey or a white house in DC.
The 911 Skeptics have, collectively, spent more money and WAY more time than the original 911 Commission spent on the investigation. Is it not reasonable to think they might have discovered a few things which could shed some light on the events of that day?
-
The trend is undeniable - people are becoming skeptics of the official story.
You mean Americans are becoming skeptics. The questions you're asking were sparked around the world starting on September 15, 2001. It's old news. While everyone in America was worried about whether French Fries should be called Freedom Fries, and busy boycotting French products (crusade led by Bill O'Reilly) everyone else living in westernized countries knew the world was about to be thrown into a new turmoil. (Some kept a sense of humor. A best practice always)
http://www.parisbusinessreview.com/
Perhaps the rest of the world is more cynical. There isn't going to be a new investigation, no one is going to have to answer any questions or be made to "pay". Whether it was an inside job or not, a chain of events was unleashed and there is no going back. Instead of worrying about what happened that day, it would behoove anyone to stay on top of the world news and opinion... to get it from reputable sources easily available on-line to anyone with 8th grade reading comprehension. Rather than relying on editorial blather from propaganda pushing blowhards like O'Reilly, become informed enough to effect what happens tomorrow. I guess what you're doing is laudable in that obviously you're very sincere, it's just a little too late.
-
At the very least - if 95% of the US population knows it was a self-attack, it won't happen again. Bush can pardon everyone and no one may ever be charged- but it won't be able to happen again once everyone knows.
-
You mean Americans are becoming skeptics. The questions you're asking were sparked around the world starting on September 15, 2001. It's old news. While everyone in America was worried about whether French Fries should be called Freedom Fries, and busy boycotting French products (crusade led by Bill O'Reilly) everyone else living in westernized countries knew the world was about to be thrown into a new turmoil. (Some kept a sense of humor. A best practice always)
http://www.parisbusinessreview.com/
Perhaps the rest of the world is more cynical. There isn't going to be a new investigation, no one is going to have to answer any questions or be made to "pay". Whether it was an inside job or not, a chain of events was unleashed and there is no going back. Instead of worrying about what happened that day, it would behoove anyone to stay on top of the world news and opinion... to get it from reputable sources easily available on-line to anyone with 8th grade reading comprehension. Rather than relying on editorial blather from propaganda pushing blowhards like O'Reilly, become informed enough to effect what happens tomorrow. I guess what you're doing is laudable in that obviously you're very sincere, it's just a little too late.
Good post.
Hopefully, many more along with 240 or bust, will try to get informed and have first-hand knowledge from multiple sources, rather than having political commentators telling them how to think and how to vote.
Olberman could be a reasonable man for all I care, but the format of his show is despicable as well. It's very one-sided. Political shows like his, and O'Reilly, have no value at all. They merely de-activate the viewer.
Bring on investigative journalism, and debates, with a neutral host. Is that so hard to do?
I like the McLaughlin Group, and sometimes 60 minutes, although Mike Wallace is very overrated IMO.
YIP
Zack