It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bill O'Reilly attacks 9/11 victim's son

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by ugie1028
this made me want to punch my computer screen. how dare he talk to him like that and then try to use his parents against him when he doesn't even KNOW THEM!?

right wing propaganda, they will say anything, do anything to make them look right!

There is no emoticon that can express the anger i felt watching this.

We should all jump Bill, I'll wear me boots

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by ugie1028

Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than a verbal bully.

I've never been impressed with him.

Watching this video, plus knowing his idiocy, Bill O'Reilly's, you know he specifically invited the victim's son onto his show, just to tear him apart.

Typical verbal bully tactic.

As well, O'Reilly used the Hegelian Dialectic as a tactic, abstract, negative, concrete.

Hegelian Dialectic- Problem, Reaction, Solution explained 1/3

Hegelian Dialectic- Problem, Reaction, Solution explained 2/3

Hegelian Dialectic- Problem, Reaction, Solution explained 3/3

Quote from : Wikipedia : Dialectic : Hegelian Dialectic

Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a three-fold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.

Although this model is often named after Hegel, he himself never used that specific formulation.

Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.

Carrying on Kant's work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model, and popularized it.

On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel's most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete.

Sometimes Hegel would use the terms, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.

Hegel used these terms hundreds of times throughout his works.

The formula, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, does not explain why the Thesis requires an Antithesis.

However, the formula, Abstract-Negative-Concrete, suggests a flaw in any initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error and experience.

The same applies to the formula, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.

For Hegel, the Concrete, the Synthesis, the Absolute, must always pass through the phase of the Negative, that is, Mediation.

This is the actual essence of what is popularly called Hegelian Dialectics.

To describe the activity of overcoming the negative, Hegel also often used the term Aufhebung, variously translated into English as "sublation" or "overcoming," to conceive of the working of the dialectic. Roughly, the term indicates preserving the useful portion of an idea, thing, society, etc., while moving beyond its limitations.

(Jacques Derrida's preferred French translation of the term was relever).

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts).

When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one's living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.

As in the Socratic dialectic, Hegel claimed to proceed by making implicit contradictions explicit: each stage of the process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding stage.

For Hegel, the whole of history is one tremendous dialectic, major stages of which chart a progression from self-alienation as slavery to self-unification and realization as the rational, constitutional state of free and equal citizens.

The Hegelian dialectic cannot be mechanically applied for any chosen thesis.

Critics argue that the selection of any antithesis, other than the logical negation of the thesis, is subjective.

Then, if the logical negation is used as the antithesis, there is no rigorous way to derive a synthesis.

In practice, when an antithesis is selected to suit the user's subjective purpose, the resulting "contradictions" are rhetorical, not logical, and the resulting synthesis is not rigorously defensible against a multitude of other possible syntheses.

The problem with the Fichtean "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" model is that it implies that contradictions or negations come from outside of things.

Hegel's point is that they are inherent in and internal to things.

This conception of dialectics derives ultimately from Heraclitus.

Hegel has outlined that the purpose of dialectics is "to study things in their own being and movement and thus to demonstrate the finitude of the partial categories of understanding"

One important dialectical principle for Hegel is the transition from quantity to quality, which he terms the Measure.

The measure is the qualitative quantum, the quantum is the existence of quantity.

"The identity between quantity and quality, which is found in Measure, is at first only implicit, and not yet explicitly realised.

In other words, these two categories, which unite in Measure, each claim an independent authority.

On the one hand, the quantitative features of existence may be altered, without affecting its quality.

On the other hand, this increase and diminution, immaterial though it be, has its limit, by exceeding which the quality suffers change.

[...] But if the quantity present in measure exceeds a certain limit, the quality corresponding to it is also put in abeyance.

This however is not a negation of quality altogether, but only of this definite quality, the place of which is at once occupied by another.

This process of measure, which appears alternately as a mere change in quantity, and then as a sudden revulsion of quantity into quality, may be envisaged under the figure of a nodal (knotted) line"

As an example, Hegel mentions the states of aggregation of water:

"Thus the temperature of water is, in the first place, a point of no consequence in respect of its liquidity: still with the increase or diminution of the temperature of the liquid water, there comes a point where this state of cohesion suffers a qualitative change, and the water is converted into steam or ice".

As other examples Hegel mentions the reaching of a point where a single additional grain makes a heap of wheat; or where the bald-tail is produced, if we continue plucking out single hairs.

Another important principle for Hegel is the negation of the negation, which he also terms Aufhebung (sublation): Something is only what it is in its relation to another, but by the negation of the negation this something incorporates the other into itself.

The dialectical movement involves two moments that negate each other, a somewhat and an another.

As a result of the negation of the negation, "something becomes an other; this other is itself somewhat; therefore it likewise becomes an other, and so on ad infinitum".

Something in its passage into other only joins with itself, it is self-related.

In becoming there are two moments: coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be: by sublation, i.e. negation of the negation, being passes over into nothing, it ceases to be, but something new shows up, is coming to be.

What is sublated (aufgehoben) on the one hand ceases to be and is put to an end, but on the other hand it is preserved and maintained.

In dialectics, a totality transform itself, it is self-related.

Abstract idea, 9/11 victim's son disagrees with foreign policy, negative idea, attacking a victims son/the negative conflict, and concrete, sealed the boys fate to actually seek politics by labeling him as a "Truther"/Consipracy Theorist/Nut Case.

Truth and Lies of 9/11 : Mike Ruppert, C.I.A. Drug Running, and Your Government

This boy could've run for politicis, on the sympathy vote alone, like R.F.K. was intending to do on the J.F.K. assassination's sympathy, and their daddy's bootlegging money.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by ugie1028

Don't let him upset you, by doing so you are giving him credit and ratings.

As a good friend told me in the TV industry years back, even if you call to complain that is good for the networks. It shows you're paying attention and that is reason enough to continue the show.

Lucky Time Warner Cable, they got rid of one loony toon channel. Now if only they could drop MSNBC, CNN, and the other loony toon networks, we will have probably 2 channels, but they'll be some sort of quality.

Loony Toons should only be on Nickelodeon.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

It appears that you're taking Bill O'Reilly way more seriously than you should.

No, I don’t, I don’t watch proven lies from a man who hates his Country. He is nothing but a propaganda mouth pieces for the Neocons who hates America I would never take that dirt bag seriously. Never have I seen a TV show that demonstrates such a hatred for the American people and one way tunnel vision thinking, by an ignorant moron who is supported by like minded ignorant advertiser who don’t have a clue to what’s really is going on in the real world.

I don’t call his show entertainment, I call it obnoxious and pathetic and I will not have it on in my house.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by impressme]

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:55 PM
I agree fully...what a wanker!!Scary thing for us aussies is we have had a tendency in the past to copy the american style of tv hosts.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 08:43 PM
Billy O'Reilly is a true sod if you wanna really know what this guy is all about he claimed that water boarding was not torture and that he would be willing to do it for charity when someone actually took him up on it he backed out.

[edit on 093131p://4426 by mike dangerously]

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:19 AM
reply to post by niteboy82

i dont watch faux news anymore, it has been like that for years for me. i just stumbled across this on youtube. it just made my blood boil.

I know i should take things like that with more patience, but this video is a main reason why i do not pay attention what fox has to say, not to mention the other networks that i recommend you distance yourselves from.

Free your mind from this false sense of perception that the media giants shove down your throats everyday.

Side note:
How the heck did this thread make it to the front page?

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:36 AM
reply to post by ugie1028

I don't think I would have been able to to sit there and breathe the same air with that"man". The second he told me to "shut up"and started pointing his finger at me,I would have broken him in half!!!

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Carseller4
I watch Bill O'Reilly every night!

I tried watching the video but as soon as Stuart Smalley showed up I had to turn it off.

This kid deserved to be slammed.

Stupidity is not a conspiracy.

I must have missed what the kid said that was stupid or a conspiracy.

He basically said that the Mujahideen were trained by America, which they were, and out of which would come groups who would eventually be responsible for 9/11.

Oh, and that he doesn't support war...

Sounds like he has his head on straight to me.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:12 AM
I would kill that worthless piece of crap, no joke. I hate him so much, I've never witnessed such a waste of life ever. Even Glenn Beck is so crazy, it's entertaining. bill is just rude

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:15 AM
of all the people who are senselessly killed for various reasons why is this motherf****** still alive if someone assassinated him i wouldn't be the least bit vengeful id be thankful what ever agency wants to detain or prosecute me for saying that go ahead it is my right as a citizen of this nation to wish he was dead. the world would be better off cheers

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:25 AM
Bill O'Reilly & Co

just look at these peoples body language
their eyes you will detect emptiness
they have no feelings no soul
just hollow hulls
this includes our so called leaders
they do anything for money these prostitutes

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:26 AM
I agree with Bill, this kids obviously confused about the world, his life, his fathers life. Understand that the United States goverment did not kill or attack people on 9/11, 19 hijackers did it, and all from the taliban in afghanistan who allowied them to rest, train, and plot the attacks from there. I will never understand how people can be so blind and confused, was the Bush administration perfect?..nope..however Bush stood up and dealt with these morons, like Sadam, and the taliban, even when the left bashed him daily, he didn't stop, he kep on.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:41 AM
reply to post by Mr_skepticc

This guy never stated the US government was responsible for 9/11. Heck, they even made a point of how Fox news distorted that in the video.

Oh, and no offense - but anyone who supports the war in Afghanistan, considering what has happened over the last decade, must be out to lunch. Why continue a war that has been shown to have the exact opposite effect of why we are told we are there. Because they want you to! wake up

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Nickmare]

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:50 AM
Living in Europe, thats the first time i've seen the show and my first impression is Bill O'Reilly is a complete wanker.
Seems like he deliberately invited the guy on the show to belittle him. If I was the kid I would have pushed it further to see how far he's willing to go, call his bluff so to speak. At the very worst he would have a reason to sue him.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:31 AM
Haven't read through this thread, not really interested.
However I will give my opinion.

It appears as if this young man is a homosexual Jew. I will, ignorantly say that he probably goes to a liberal college. I believe that this kid was used as a pawn to attack the republicans. His opening obviously soundz scripted, and the only point of it was to agitate oreily. This whole thing is less then worth giving attention to.

Did i mention that I'm one of oreily's errand boys? Pays ok, and I get free coffee.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:33 AM
I remember when Bill O'Reilly disrespected Jeremy Glick awhile back. This may be old, but Bill has been using the same tactics ever since. . . The man is a loose-cannon and a right-wing shock jock. He should be put in the ranks of Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony to name a few.

He is not a professional journalist, and for the life of me, I can't believe they market him as a credible news source. I am amazed he even gets guests to appear on his show to begin with? Fox must be paying guests quite reasonably to appear on the "O'Reilly Factor?" Those asinine outbursts only further spurns a lack of credibility on the issues and his dishonesty when covering the news of the day.

I thought Glick handled himself well while being attacked by O'Reilly. He should be off the air, and people should see his antics, and tune out! He has no business being on the air with behavior like that to guests with views that differ from his own. If someone disagrees with Mr. O'Reilly and the views of his right-wing masters, debate them with facts of their own, and let the viewers decide!

His show is supposed to be a debate orientated program, but most of the time it is only O'Reilly doing the talking. He is nothing more than a shock jock ratcheting up an agenda of his own and Fox News. However, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, and even former talk show host, and now US Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken, are the same, and just as guilty. I was taught in journalism school that a good objective interviewer and journalist is supposed to keep their views to themselves when covering a story for the sake of protecting objectivity.

That way, both sides of the story are shown, and it allows the reader or viewer to take the facts, and make their own decisions on the material given. However, more often than not, it is the commenter making the opinions up for their audience, rather than allowing them to make it on their own. What we see on the networks by these commentators can be considered walking the line of being unethical.

They wear their views on their sleeves, and are very blatant about it, and so this rhetoric is not by accident. So, I seldom watch network news anymore, because of the blatant one-sided behavior of their hosts and reporters when covering the news. Plus, story selection is down right atrocious with all the fluff stories you see now-a-days, especially, with the two wars going on, the economy in shambles, and other threats to our way of life. For good measure, here is Bill at his best, ramming his views down our throats.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Jakes51]

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:08 AM
After reading all the comments about "right wing propaganda", I watched the video. Almost immediately I saw al franken. That's where I stopped. If O'Reilly did talk to the kid like that, he's not my favorite person on Earth anyway. But to those who call "right wing propaganda", looks like "left wing propaganda" to me, as they are the creators of the video attacking members of the "right". So, here we have it, "left-wing propaganda".

For the record, I affiliate myself with no political party. They're all just a different means to the same end. If people were really fed up with the way our government is running. A few well placed rounds would quickly end the corruption. So instead of bashing O'Reilly or (insert your least favorite figure here), GO TELL THEM YOURSELF IN PERSON.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:13 AM
Such disrespect from Bill. Then again, he's always like that. He's mentally unstable though so we should just forgive him for his nutty actions.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:26 AM
I'm with Bill on this one. If setting down with someone who had lost their Father in 9/11, and then listening to them rattle on the same way this jerk of a son does, I would have much the same reaction.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in